When I hear "it has long been known" I assume that "it" is not known at all, whatever "it" may be. The subject may be undiscussable, a third rail that kills any who touch it, but it is a subject ringed with myth and superstition. One of those subjects is health care.

For many decades health economists have known that the best available evidence shows little or no relation at the margin between med and health. The health economists advising all the major sides have long known this. When the data is this noisy, there will always be exceptional studies, and as Megan says, the left prefers to cite exceptions find more med tied to more health; the right prefers to avoid the issue.

These tactics are far from random accidents; neither side wants to contradict the US public, with their religious-level faith in the healing powers of medicine. If we were considering a vast new grocery store or car entitlement, the public would hardly “forget” to wonder if that would really give us more nutrition or a faster commute. But the US public has little religious-style fervor on grocery stores or cars.

How often do you see theists wonder if God is really as good as folks say, or patriots wonder if their nation really deserves their allegiance? That’s how often you will see the US public question the value of medicine.

There are certainly instances where the existence and availability of a sophisticated health care system contributes to health, happiness and longevity. Accidents happen. The issue here is that marginal improvements in the system do not correlate with marginal improvements in health. More is not better.