Maybe our situation is better here in this regard, I don't know the statistics, but it's demonstrably false that universal healthcare automatically prevents hepatitis outbreaks.
A well functioning society, where people don't live like dogs in the street, does.
>or prioritizing the right interventions at the right time given limited resources.
I doubt nations that can spend billions on pet food have "limited resources" for things as insignificant budget-wise as hep vaccines.
I guess I've never lived in or visited a well functioning society then. I have lived in two countries with universal healthcare and visited many more and they all have homeless populations living on the streets. Whether they live "like dogs" would be a subjective call I guess.
I don't think you understand the term 'limited resources'. The opposite would be 'unlimited resources', not 'a different allocation of limited resources than I would prefer'.
Then you maybe don't understand that it doesn't take "unlimited resources" to vaccinate people, and that not all "allocations of limited resources" make sense or are to be respected or are inevitable like the laws of physics.
Like one can't use the excuse that they have "limited resources" for feeding themselves if at the same time they spend 10 times the money in trivial BS like fancy clothes or the latest and greatest smartphone -- they'd be (rightly) laughed off. Sure, they can spend their money wherever they want (it's a free country, after all) -- they just don't get to invoke "limited resources" afterwards as the reason they didn't do something that should have gotten a much bigger priority.
The same goes for societies. They can opt not to vaccinate people, but unless they are some dead poor developing world country, they don't get to use "limited resources" as the reason for doing so. Twisted sense of priorities would be a much better fit.