Final answer:
The provision of subsidized health care by the government may justify the prevention of access to substances causing chronic diseases, as it aligns with preventative healthcare strategies to reduce economic burdens and improves public health outcomes.
Step-by-step explanation:
When it comes to health care services subsidized by the government, the question of whether governments should prevent access to substances known to cause chronic diseases is contentious. Progressive politicians argue that in order to maintain a sustainable health insurance system, especially in countries with government-run health care, there is a need for preventative healthcare strategies. These strategies include encouraging healthy diets, exercise, and regular checkups. They contend that preventing chronic diseases by reducing access to harmful substances not only benefits the individuals but also reduces the economic burden on the health system and society as a whole.
On the other hand, free market advocates believe in individual freedom and responsibility and argue that preventing access can be a form of overreach. However, considering the economic logic that immense profits are made by treating chronically ill people rather than curing them, a balance must be struck to ensure health care systems do not incentivize unhealthy lifestyles.
The United States has taken steps to address market failures in health care by implementing programs like Medicare and Medicaid to cover those with low incomes, the elderly, military veterans, and children in low-income families. Public health measures are associated with positive externalities and are considered public goods since they benefit the population at large. Under this framework, the government does have a role in encouraging public health and could justify prevention measures to reduce chronic diseases.