[throwaway290]

> Alright, now imagine the government doesn't pay for healthcare. This is the literal cheapest thing for them, as it now costs $0, and they don't have to spend time worrying about law.

I mean a government that already chose to implement free healthcare. THEN it is cheaper for them to keep people healthy.

Of course it would be cheapest to not care at all. But if you already locked into caring then it is cheaper to prevent than to treat

[hiAndrewQuinn]

That isn't actually the argument I'm making, but for what it's worth that's both false and begging the question. A government can choose to stop implementing universal healthcare, just like it can choose to implement it.

[throwaway290]

What is false in what I wrote can you be specific? Thanks

> government can choose to stop implementing universal healthcare, just like it can choose to implement it.

FYI in a democracy it doesn't really work like that

[hiAndrewQuinn]

This exchange is going nowhere. Safe travels.