|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm not suggesting that this program would only incur costs. There would certainly be benefits as well, like the initial set of kids getting the treatments may live more productive lives. I think overall it's a net cost though, and this is ultimately because I think the care would be even better and at greater quantities without the government intervention in the first place.
If I understand you correctly, you're against such a program in principle because that wouldn't be capitalism and so should be dismissed regardless of being eminently better at face value.
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's mortgaging the future for the present.
It sounds like you're saying that these kids should walk around squinting so that we don't somehow hinder the economy from producing more and better eyeglasses for future generations. In other words, it sounds like you're mortgaging the present for the future.
|