[anonymars]

It baffles me that an offhand example not applying 100% of the time is used to dismiss the broader point as invalid and/or ridiculous. Though I now notice that even the original point with shoes was treated the same way: "in this single pedantic example with running shoes the situation doesn't hold, therefore I reject the entire idea as invalid"

No one is saying "all medical issues are more expensive if you're poor" or "it's impossible to be healthier if you're poor." All of that is fantastic, but it in no way disproves the catch-22 that it is often more expensive to be poor, in many ways, including medicine. Particularly in the US with its clusterfuck confusopoly of copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, and so on, so the mere act of going to any doctor is a gamble