Topic: An Analysis of Public Health Care
Since there is a finite amount of doctors and money to support healthcare, I thought how can it have survived for so long.
Then I determined they put those costs off to the future in a variety of means including limiting proceedures and the line method.
Let us first work on the line method. If you have X number of patients needing a specific procedure, and you can only afford so many (Z), then one way to correct the imbalance is to wait for some to die as you progress the line. Thus we have X - Y = Z. Now due to the system you can claim you have 100% coverage while in truth Z/X is your coverage rate.
Y does not need to be deaths, it can be those who sought coverage elsewhere, those who's conditions improved on their own, and so forth.
Due to the nature of things the end of the line would not be 'the end of the line' due to eventual evening out over the length of the line.
As well we need worry about age. Typically the older you get the more costly you get (age 0 to 3 being the exception). This curve dramatically turns in the last 6 months to 2 years of your life. This need not be of old age. And yet we, and our families fight for that extra hope that survival will happen.
So the government starts to determine odds and to play the safe bets, letting people die even if there was hope (A woman in my state was told no for an experimental drug, but was offered a drug cocktail that would end her life, no joke).
The Government also must be frugal. This means less drug medicines that cost lots to make, and more chep stuff. This means less advanced equipment and more bookings to use it. For instance lines for the few MRI devices, lines for complex chemistry kits, and so forth. This also means in disasters more lives lost due to inabaility to have extra sitting free, but I digress.
At times this means some things run out so that doctors must try to be sparing in their usage.
Then we have limiting of procedures so the services of flexible doctors can be forcibly redirected to meet the needs of other area's. This also is a frugal thing, but seperate.
And we have the voter apathy chosen issues such as breast cancer vs other cancers, AIDS vs real diseases (yes I contend AIDS is a made up thing consisting of anything that temporarily or permamently reduces your immune count, it is misdiagnosis, mistreatment, a waste of funds and malpractice), or the current scare vs the real current issue.
Thus we suddenly have billions misspent on Avaian or Swine Flu, and less treatment for pancreatic cancer or heart disease.
Socialist medicine is designed to look good at the text, look moderate in the eyes, and be poorly in reality.
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)