Can you give a central example about a situation where more people receiving healthcare is worse, and why we should characterize that situation as one where more people receive healthcare?
If the government restricts the supply of meat (and food generally is adequately distributed), then the finite supply of meat makes it positional, and the fact that all needs are being met (within the scope of the example, at least) makes the outcome satisfactory.
If you thought that I intended some element of “maximize production even if all needs have already been met”, then we have completely failed to communicate.
Can you give a central example about a situation where more people receiving healthcare is worse, and why we should characterize that situation as one where more people receive healthcare?
If you do cancer screeing for a person, you might find things that would go away on their own. A lot of women lost part of their breasts that way.
After analysis of the issue the Obama administration restricted the amount of breast cancer screeings because the additional breast cancer screeings were not believed to reduce mortality by breast cancer.
If you reduce the number of surgeries that surgery salesmen can perform then the surgery salesmen don’t try to sell surgeries to everyone but focus on selling the surgeries to those who profit from them.
Denmark cut a third of their hospital beds from 2000 to 2018. The fact that every hospital bed finds it’s patient whether or not there’s a real need for treatment is healthcare economics 101 and you find plenty of public policy that’s controls the supply of healthcare services to prevent overconsumption.
Why are you characterizing “contraindicated cancer screening” as “healthcare”? In either case, it’s not central to the issue where rural specialists have two-month waits for appointments and four-hour waits from the appointment time.
You said “More healtchare isn’t always better”.
Can you give a central example about a situation where more people receiving healthcare is worse, and why we should characterize that situation as one where more people receive healthcare?
If the government restricts the supply of meat (and food generally is adequately distributed), then the finite supply of meat makes it positional, and the fact that all needs are being met (within the scope of the example, at least) makes the outcome satisfactory.
If you thought that I intended some element of “maximize production even if all needs have already been met”, then we have completely failed to communicate.
If you do cancer screeing for a person, you might find things that would go away on their own. A lot of women lost part of their breasts that way.
After analysis of the issue the Obama administration restricted the amount of breast cancer screeings because the additional breast cancer screeings were not believed to reduce mortality by breast cancer.
If you reduce the number of surgeries that surgery salesmen can perform then the surgery salesmen don’t try to sell surgeries to everyone but focus on selling the surgeries to those who profit from them.
Denmark cut a third of their hospital beds from 2000 to 2018. The fact that every hospital bed finds it’s patient whether or not there’s a real need for treatment is healthcare economics 101 and you find plenty of public policy that’s controls the supply of healthcare services to prevent overconsumption.
Why are you characterizing “contraindicated cancer screening” as “healthcare”? In either case, it’s not central to the issue where rural specialists have two-month waits for appointments and four-hour waits from the appointment time.