I often find myself wondering why people in rich countries feel like this is such a compelling argument. I know everyone's financial situations are different, but if the claimed benefits of a thing are taken at face value, why should a price tag of $0 or $100 factor into your decision to take it?
Consider someone with a median software dev salary. Why would the minimal cost of the thing be considered for more than a split second? The effectiveness and safety profile seem to me like they should be all that really matters (probably distantly followed by the social/political/professional pressures).
For Americans, it might be from an assumption that if it's medical, it's life-alteringly expensive, but thats not even the case for these things. But this idea of "why wouldn't you take it, its free!" just doesn't compute for me. There are a lot of free things I have no interest in.
EDIT: Not to mention that it isn't even really free! You're still paying for it with your taxes/insurance premiums.
I make an above median software dev salary, I definitely spend time considering $100 vs $0. Also, I now live in a country where I don't pay for most healthcare, so the default is free, which means when I encounter unexpected costs in healthcare I spend a little bit of time thinking about it, even if it's only a small amount of money.
> Not to mention that it isn't even really free! You're still paying for it with your taxes/insurance premiums.
That's a ridiculous way to look at it, I pay the same amount regardless of whether I get the flu shot or not. Therefore getting it is free.
It obviously makes sense to consider the price tag when it's some mundane thing like a nice dinner or a pair of shoes or some other random discretionary widget. But if the bill of goods is "you won't get ARDS or kill grandma", who is thinking "hmm, I might get that but $100 is a little steep"?
> _I pay the same amount_ regardless of whether I get the flu shot or not. Therefore getting it is _free._
Unless that amount is 0 (which it can't be, right? The drug companies aren't doing this as charity) how does "I pay the same amount" translate to "getting it is free"?
Whether you pay at the front desk or you pay later in the form of a tax bill or insurance premium, you're still paying. In fact, you're probably paying for more than your own doses if you're earning more than the median (not that I think that's a bad thing).
I often find myself wondering why people in rich countries feel like this is such a compelling argument. I know everyone's financial situations are different, but if the claimed benefits of a thing are taken at face value, why should a price tag of $0 or $100 factor into your decision to take it?
Consider someone with a median software dev salary. Why would the minimal cost of the thing be considered for more than a split second? The effectiveness and safety profile seem to me like they should be all that really matters (probably distantly followed by the social/political/professional pressures).
For Americans, it might be from an assumption that if it's medical, it's life-alteringly expensive, but thats not even the case for these things. But this idea of "why wouldn't you take it, its free!" just doesn't compute for me. There are a lot of free things I have no interest in.
EDIT: Not to mention that it isn't even really free! You're still paying for it with your taxes/insurance premiums.