Using an acronym doesn't invalidate this HN guideline: "Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article." Also, does having an article claiming something now make that thing fact, is there no room for discussion or dialogue, or a questioning of the statistics provided, as soon as an article asserting an opinion is published? If you are going to argue against his point, why not at least point out the specifics of the article that invalidated it, or towards some other data, rather than just saying, "read the fucking article" and moving on?

I did read it and I get the angle of it. it's not always cost effective, like all things in life, one should use common sense. But in general terms, preventative care does work well and costs the state less, at least in the UK.