: Like one of the 40 million Americans without health Insurance?Thats a possibility, leads us to....
: : 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.
You seem to be avoiding the logical conclusion of what you are saying. "no-one should be denied, or have restricted access to health care because of poverty" requires that it takes precedent over *anything* else - including the fellow who buys a washing basket for he must be, in principle, as wrong and as 'denying' as the fat lady because his $10 could have also contributed to some healthcare somewhere or other. The same goes for any activity undertaken by any person which at first has not been passed through the test "will this in some way deny an impoverished person access to medical care". Clearly buying washing baskets does. Unicef regularly inform us that $4 buys a quick fix to dysentry etc.
Such an absolute rule requires those consequences if its to be consistent. If that isnt quite what you meant then what can be applied?
It also requires that other people attend to supplying the attentiona regardless of whether they wish to. It seems to indicate that poverty must not be a factor in any choice regarding whether or not to offer meidcal care whilst other things might be. Such as? perhaps the practitioners preferences?
: 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.
This is a good point, in that the 'medical treatnebt market' consists of thosands of sectors in which different profits are realised, different motivations and morals can be applied and so forth. My argument was that medical resources are not a static pot, it is ofcourse correct to point out how resources can become somewhat focussed on activities which may not seem essential. Although these are self defined needs expressed through effective demand, actual demand has no expression save the self defined extend of the 'need', so lipo suction might be expressed as more important than leg fixing in a competition between resources with no arbiter except subjective opinion.
: : btw there are plenty of myths about nationalised health care.
: One being that it works-
yes thats a myth too. No one really says works at....., just that it works. it delivers uneven medical care and as the link demonstrates - in many cases its well below the commonly believed standards.
