Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness

>The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

>Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

>But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

What the heck does the price of boots have to do with any of this? All footwear eventually wears out, and if you're talking about athletic shoes the more expensive ones are often less durable (they can improve performance a little).

Sheesh, it's an analogy. If you can spend afford to spend a little more money now (on preventative care) it can help being ruined later.

Fpr example, paying for a diabetic's insulin/blood sugar testing vs. amputating a limb, with the bonus of a working individual now likely ending up on disability

Interestingly, you prevent diabetes by abstaining from buying/eating food. Fasting is an amazing thing for the body, and it's completely free.

That's awesome, let's get the message out to the 2 million people in the US with Type 1 diabetes straightaway!

That's a bad analogy and poor example. Preventing type-2 diabetes (the vast majority of cases) is literally free.

You're really missing the point. Anyone can afford the most effective types of prevention.

This assertion is extremely privileged and I heartily disagree with it

Even if we're just going to say "diet and exercise" it is a privilege to not live in a food desert and have sidewalks. If we are to mention the free yearly physical it's a privilege to have a doctor nearby and be able to get the time off work

So no, I don't think I am the one missing the point

I would assert that nearly anyone can find a place to walk, or climb stairs, even if it's while they eat or work. Healthy food may be harder to come by for some, either because of expense or lack of availability. But again, fasting is a great protection against so many modern eating related problems, like type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The point is that nearly everyone can improve their preventative standing, even the less fortunate.

It baffles me that an offhand example not applying 100% of the time is used to dismiss the broader point as invalid and/or ridiculous. Though I now notice that even the original point with shoes was treated the same way: "in this single pedantic example with running shoes the situation doesn't hold, therefore I reject the entire idea as invalid"

No one is saying "all medical issues are more expensive if you're poor" or "it's impossible to be healthier if you're poor." All of that is fantastic, but it in no way disproves the catch-22 that it is often more expensive to be poor, in many ways, including medicine. Particularly in the US with its clusterfuck confusopoly of copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, and so on, so the mere act of going to any doctor is a gamble