The conundrum that health cost money is true—but whose money? The question carry the weight of this enigma, whether good [[health is]] achievable at low cost. The evidence we have for the pursuit of health are mixed. One illustration that has sparked a discourse on this topic is none other than [[Preston Curve]]. Basically, the curve compares income and health—with many implications. The curve basically can be depicted as a sharp upslope followed by flattening line, with x axis the income level, and y axis as the life expectancy. In this answer, I provided three different views on the answer to this question: 1) views that increase in income will result in improvement of health, 2) views that improvement in health will result in increase in income, and 3) views that health and income relationship are bi-directional and mutually reinforce each other. I will use Preston Curve to illustrate each view. First, investment in [[health is]] key to boosting wealth. This view can be summarized as people-centred approach where the State and the development direction of the country started with building its people to be healthy and thus, be productive to spur high economic growth for the country. On the other hand, with people-centred approach and healthy citizen, they will be able to complete higher education, earn more income, live in higher quality of life areas, afford healthcare, even afford health-seeking behavior that might increase their productivity. From this perspective, the State will learn more towards preventive measures as opposed to curative measures. Going back to Preston Curve, the first sharp upslope, in my opinion, represent the fragile years of life, for example WHO has a life expectancy of children under five years old and mortality in that range of age were largely caused by preventive measures and social determinants of health: vaccine-preventable diseases, pneumonia, indoor air pollution, poor nutrition, infection, etc. With low cost, the government can intervene and save lives with low cost. In turn, the children will grow to be a productive citizen for the state and contribute to the economic growth of its country. The differing views were reflected by how a country measures their "growth," whether it's through [[Human Development Index (HDI)]] where they evaluated not just through the economy lens, but also whether the people develop and flourish. A simple, low-cost vaccine, can have a tremendous impact for health, at least for the left-side section of Preston Curve, before the curve started to flatten. A country, where the power and direction lies within the politicians, who might think about their decision in terms of credit and their status game, requires a tailored approach. For example, Kerala, one the poorest state in India, were able to achieve good health with low cost because they empower local communities and thus, the power to shape the communities lies in the people resides within them. If we look at it through the [[Bourdieu]]'s concept power as capital, even though the economic power is not there, the social capital, cultural capital, and symbolic capital are strong to sustain and develop the state. That's why WHO promoted [[UHC]]. Second, the views that increased wealth will result in increased health status. The failure of this view: Take a look at Pakistan, where they take [[structural adjustment]] advise from the Washington institutions, WB and IMF, and prohibited health and social spending and prioritize economy. If indeed, the relationship of wealth and [[health is]] direct, simple cause and effect relationship, in the hope of increasing their wealth will resulted in increase of health status, the Pakistan case proved it wrong because their HDI were among the lowest of all nations. Or look at Uganda, where there are rapid economci growth but failed to achieve health indicators. If we look at the flattening part of Preston Curve, as the income increases significantly, it may not be reflected in the increase of life expectancy, such as USA. One might argue that in this case, the prolonging later part of life involves more money, new technology that might still be costly, and of course, not always succeed. So there are limitations of There are views that health and wealth mutually reinforce each other: both vicious and virtuous. With [[global health policy]] in an increasingly globalised world, agendas such as MDGs and SDGs have the potential to allow Preston Curve to work cross-country. For example, with countries getting ahead in the income axis and increased their life expectancy, it might come with new technology that can save lives and transfer that technology to countries with lower income. Or the country might give [[DAH]] to other countries—even though it comes with a personal interest from the HICs and might complicate things at home, such as emphasis on vertical disease program, and exacerbates the neocolonialism. There are views that increased wealth will result in increased health status; due to health seeking behavior. In the absence of social safety net, people must seek themselves. However, this is what undergirds [[market–driven development]] where the states play a passive role and let business, private sector, and other actors to lead the development. This view challenged back the first paragraph of power, where does power lie? The answer might not be the state, but constellated in other actors and in this case, the state might cause harm rather than support.