One of the major reasons why governments should continue to intervene in the healthcare market is that it can be beneficial economically to provide such services at a reduced rate. Providing good, low-price healthcare means that this service is available to the majority of the population (Gold et al, 1996). This will have the result of providing more healthy workers who will be able to continue to contribute to the economy for years (or decades) longer than their unhealthy counterparts (Briggs et al, 2011). A useful way of looking at the ability of people to contribute to the economy is to use the Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY), which gives a measure of the total number of years lost to ill-health or early death (Briggs et al, 2011). In the United States, it is suggested that 12,844 years are lost per 100,000 people, whereas in the UK it is only 11, 012. In Sweden, a country in which the government intervenes heavily in healthcare economics, the rate is only 9,564, which has the potential to benefit the economy greatly (Wang et al, 2011).
It should also be noted that many countries in which the government intervenes in healthcare market are considered first world countries. In these countries, the majority of individuals do not have to struggle to buy food as a basic necessity(Zweifelt al, 2009). It is perhaps the very omnipresence of food in these countries and the fact that it is so necessary to life that keeps the prices low and removes the need for a government to intervene so directly in its price and purchasing. Equality is also important here, as the majority of people have roughly equal access to food, but healthcare requires a leveling of the playing field (Donaldson & Gerard, 2005). Additionally, many of the families within these countries who do struggle to pay for food do receive government compensation intended to help make food more available to them; for those that need it, however few, there is market intervention.