Perhaps, sadly, because if the State doesn't have to pick up the costs in health care, as in large parts of the developed world, then they lose their incentive to be proactive in addressing health issues.
In countries with some form of universal health care, simple proactive health interventions can save the State large amounts of money.
In theory health insurance in the US has the same incentive. But it's cheaper to deny preventative care and then deny or minimize or cap coverage later on.
Perhaps, sadly, because if the State doesn't have to pick up the costs in health care, as in large parts of the developed world, then they lose their incentive to be proactive in addressing health issues.
In countries with some form of universal health care, simple proactive health interventions can save the State large amounts of money.
In theory health insurance in the US has the same incentive. But it's cheaper to deny preventative care and then deny or minimize or cap coverage later on.
Why is a one-size-fits-all state intervention that assumes or targets the least responsible people appropriate?
Why is it appropriate especially in light of many people actively opposing the intervention?
These are questions about what is the proper relationship between the state and the citizen.
And they are a litmus test for current political belief bifurcation in the US.