In utility based sense, GDP is not a measure because one dollar has zero utility if you cannot spend it on something you need.
Even $100k can have zero utility if you need cancer treatment that is more expensive than this.
This is because service costs are usually not negotiable, and especially not privately if you have zero power.
Deriving utility from money directly is an exercise in futility.
In comparison, items can be used for the intended purpose, meaning they have utility for that and related purposes.
Money has unknown utility depending on prices and other various factors.
Without specifying purpose and other constraints you cannot actually talk about utility of any asset.
PPP adjusted GDP is better, because it relates money value to a certain basket of goods which have utility for certain common life purposes.
However, the basket typically skips critical pieces like shelter (housing), clothing or indeed weighted averages of medical care.
(Medical care is especially tricky because it is very heavy tailed in cost. Low probability events have huge costs, which means in normal average they're hidden. What is needed is the likelihood of a person hitting any of the expensive conditions, which can be had by binning expensive ones together.)
Not to mention if a service is paid by taxes, PPP essentially should count the cost by using the tax value split among all the free services. If it is gated conditionally, then likelihood of that condition has to be counted in. (E.g. free for people making $x or less.)
Even $100k can have zero utility if you need cancer treatment that is more expensive than this.
This is because service costs are usually not negotiable, and especially not privately if you have zero power.
Deriving utility from money directly is an exercise in futility.
In comparison, items can be used for the intended purpose, meaning they have utility for that and related purposes.
Money has unknown utility depending on prices and other various factors.
Without specifying purpose and other constraints you cannot actually talk about utility of any asset.
PPP adjusted GDP is better, because it relates money value to a certain basket of goods which have utility for certain common life purposes. However, the basket typically skips critical pieces like shelter (housing), clothing or indeed weighted averages of medical care. (Medical care is especially tricky because it is very heavy tailed in cost. Low probability events have huge costs, which means in normal average they're hidden. What is needed is the likelihood of a person hitting any of the expensive conditions, which can be had by binning expensive ones together.)
Not to mention if a service is paid by taxes, PPP essentially should count the cost by using the tax value split among all the free services. If it is gated conditionally, then likelihood of that condition has to be counted in. (E.g. free for people making $x or less.)