Does More Tax Funding Buy Better Public Health? 

To easily appeal to the largest number of voters, political candidates often promise to throw other people’s tax money at life-threatening problems. And few problems are more widely experienced or potentially life-threatening than those affecting health care. 

But no matter how badly voters want to make it happen, economic theory and history illustrate this approach does not work. More taxes have consistently failed to buy better outcomes in education, infrastructure, and the environment. It comes as no surprise that more tax funding does not equal healthier populations. An honest comparison between states makes this clear.

Methodology

It’s important to first ensure any discussion involves accurate data. For instance, when a political foundation asks “Why Even Healthy Low-Income People Have Greater Health Risks Than Higher-Income People,” readers should examine the methodology behind that conclusion. Although money obviously impacts healthcare access, this study uses self-reported statistics as a basis for many of its claims. It asks how many people have “concerns” about their finances and “fears” about safety. And this study is not unique.

No decent person would ignore emotional distress, but subjective, unquantified, fearful feelings should also not be exploited to shape public policy. Conflating perception with reality is political sleight of hand, and any debate about health care should only involve facts.

Real Funding vs. Real Outcomes 

It takes just a glance at public health spending and health outcomes by state to notice a lack of consistent correlation. West Virginia pays 50% more in public spending on health care than the state average, yet it consistently ranks lowest in population health by numerous metrics. 

Upon examining the numbers more closely, the discrepancy grows. West Virginia has the lowest cost of living in the nation. The high healthcare spending numbers there cannot be attributed to higher overall costs, as they might be in other states with large healthcare budgets. Massachusetts, ranked the healthiest state, does spend twice as much as the national average. However, it also has the second-highest cost of living, so its healthcare spending is not proportionally as large at first appearance. 

Overall, the United States pays almost $13,000 annually in public spending on health care per person, which is twice as much as the average of other developed countries. And although figures vary, between 25% and 30% of that money is likely wasted. 

Lack of funding is not the problem.

Real Contributing Factors

So, what really makes the difference in state health? Obviously, this question has more than one answer, and everyone benefits from good medical care. But lifestyle has an immense impact on wellness. And many of the healthier lifestyle choices cost less, not more. 

The states with the worst health have overwhelmingly high instances of smoking, drinking, drug use, and obesity. Smoking, one of the biggest contributing factors to disease and early death, is a very expensive (and entirely avoidable) habit. Illnesses such as cancer and diabetes have a significant genetic component, but the risks can be greatly exacerbated or mitigated by healthcare practices. 

Real Solutions

Some of the most effective measures to combat health problems never become political talking points, because they earn candidates neither votes nor money. When food deserts arise in poverty-stricken areas, the politicians who encouraged the very lawlessness that drove out the grocery stores don’t advise constituents to stop looting. They punish the proprietors. 

When disease rates skyrocket due to unhealthy eating habits, the politicians who get campaign funding from both pharmaceutical companies and junk food manufacturers don’t often advise constituents to empower themselves with better habits. They offer to throw other people’s money at the issues.

More tax money does not ensure a population’s better health. Individuals determine how they spend each personally-held dollar; taxpayers have shockingly little control (or knowledge) of where the money actually goes. Individuals determine their personal habits; taxpayers are at the mercy of legislators. 

Few people would trust a stranger on the street with their money or their health, but many willingly hand control of both to strangers in office. Encouraging personal control empowers more people than any tax bill ever will, but political candidates know they will never get voted into office campaigning on that. So it’s up to voters to stop believing the lies.