: They shouldnt I suppose. Perhaps 'they' are led to feel guilty. I would agree with the proposition that a rich lady who spends $30k on 'downscaling' plastic surgery (why not just eat less and excercise more?) could have paid for heart surgery or goodness knows how many smaller operations to the great benefit of others.Like one of the 40 million Americans without health Insurance?
: What does that tell us? That she has more concern with her self expressed 'needs' than those of others. Should she be damned to hell? If so then so should anyone who buys a house, a car, a holiday - infact anything over and above basic suvival needs.
Measure it any way you like, but no-one should be denied, or have restricted access to health care because of poverty.
: If the broken leg demand per year is $1million and a new wave of middle aged rich fat women arrives and demands $500k of vacuuming does that mean that for ever more there is only $500k left for broken legs? No, this new demand sums to $1.5million and attracts new doctors to this market (dont try and persaude me that doctors are all altruists) and increases the pool of doctors. Medical resources are not a static pot. I think the issue your discussing is 1) the time lag and 2) when those additional doctors are in the market it seems a shame for them to do vacuuming when they could be doing broken legs.
Again, we also run into the supply/demand model I explained regarding Private Police:
Q is health care of a sufficent Quality.
At a given time 50 Q is available.
Since we are sticking to Supply and demand here:
Price(P) = (Resources Available/Q Need):(Q Available/Q Wanted).
So the ratio of quality to quantity results in measure= P.
People enter into this equation, not as singular Q requirers, but with regards to the number of Q they can afford, a person who can buy 10Q is 10 people, effectively (10Q does not necessarilly mean being treated fro a broken leg ten times, it can convert into a superior treatment for a broken leg, faster, better service, etc.). Specifically since much of that excess Q is not treatment cost, such people are more *profitable* to sell to, and more likely to pay up, etc. So you aim your resources their way. We have another 30 people each can afford 1Q. Thats forty out of 50Q. We then have another thirty, each can only afford 1/3Q. And so another 9 are used up. We have another 10 people, they cannot afford any Q, but get a 1/10th share of the remaining Q available.
Effective demand supercede actual demand.
: btw there are plenty of myths about nationalised health care.
One being that it works- when we hear about crisis in teh NHS, its because of near failures, or delays, or shortages, or teh threat of rationing, i.e. its not performing to teh fullest standard. but a market health system is in permenant crisis, thats what a market is, a crisis condition, and rationing goes on in the form of poverty.
