If $50 bn is too small amount of money for the government to care, why do people spend so much time discussing the $0.26 bn that goes to Title X family planning?
> No they just tell the travellers to keep travelling and they deny medical care.
I am very unsure what you're talking about here. Illegal immigrants? At least where I live, they have full access to the health service on the same basis as any citizen. Of course they are at risk of being deported, but while here they have full right to health care. In the UK, the NHS will provide primary care to refugees, asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers free of charge in the same way as any other patient. So what are you talking about?
Bottom line: socialized medicine provably does not refuse care to people who are not deemed "worth it". You put ethics above finances, pure and simple.
> If the ROI is positive businesses will do it on their own > She may not be working for the same firm during that time.
Exactly - you countered your own point here. Which is why the government should subsidise this cost, as it is a net positive for society even though it may not be so for the company. That is precisely the point, and is exactly why we need a government in the first place. Businesses won't care about the environment, workers rights, and other externalities by themselves, because the short-term ROI for them is negative. But the long-term ROI for society is strongly positive. This is why we even have a government.
