There is something delicious about watching investors warm to the possibility that Democrats might rescue healthcare spending. The dreaded government money becomes considerably less dreadful when someone has bought shares in where it goes.

Axios reports that healthcare stocks have risen more than 9% over three months. Analysts connect part of the rally to hopes that Democratic gains could soften or delay Republican healthcare cuts. Investors are also moving into defensive sectors, so this is not a clean referendum on the election.

Still, I appreciate this glimpse of the free market developing a keen interest in public reimbursement. Apparently government spending can be a menace to liberty and an attractive investment thesis, depending on which end of the payment you occupy.

I am not offended that companies want revenue. I am offended by how often the financial case for keeping care funded receives more respectful attention than the human one. A patient needing treatment is an expense. A portfolio needing treatment gets an analyst note.

Compassion really ought to have gone public sooner.

The useful lesson is not that a rising share price proves a policy is good. It doesn't. A company can prosper while patients struggle, and the stock market can celebrate an expectation that never materializes. Nobody should use a brokerage chart to diagnose the condition of a public service. We have already seen enough confusing claims that healthcare systems are improving while patients wait.

The lesson is that public healthcare money supports an actual economic system. When politicians describe cuts as though they remove only some abstract government excess, they leave out the institutions relying on those payments. Investors, less constrained by the campaign slogan, appear quite capable of noticing.

This is why I don't want Democrats to turn a possible healthcare rescue into an apology tour for spending. Defend the people who need coverage. Explain the consequences of cutting it. You are allowed to say that helping someone receive care is the point, not a regrettable side effect of stabilizing the hospital sector.

But don't sell the coming election as a completed legislative repair, either. Axios describes analysts' doubts about what could pass under divided government. The different healthcare agendas inside a potential Democratic majority describe a coalition, not a single treatment plan. A favorable market bet does not supply the missing votes.

There is also a temptation for politicians to treat the industry's relief as sufficient evidence of success. Please resist it. Patients need coverage they can use and costs they can bear. Shareholders have their own representatives; I gather those representatives are not shy about locating Washington.

The test of a Democratic healthcare agenda should be what happens to the person seeking care, not how warmly a company describes the reimbursement outlook. If the two interests align, wonderful. If they diverge, elected officials should remember which constituency doesn't get to expense a lobbying team.

Let Wall Street enjoy the possibility of more humane policy. Just don't let it redefine humane as whatever keeps the portfolio in excellent health.