Won't happen...unless you are not including those who just aren't going.
Incorrect. As I pointed out before, anyone who is decently busy won't always have time the next day.
I did some more thinking about the supply side of this and I'm back to thinking that if price goes down supply/access will decrease. Think about this. We agreed that time was the commodity people were consuming, right? But to get real specific what people are consuing is free time, or the amount of time he has available in which to see people. This is most definately true if your assumption is correct that currenlty most doctor's time is not maxed out. Use a week for example. Monday morning at 8 am the doctor has 40 available hours in which to see and treat people. So let's use your assumption and say when the week is over the doctor still had 10 hours in which he could have seen someone. In other words his 40 available hours were not maxed out.
Now we have also agreed that affordablilty increases consumption. And what people are consuming is free time so if more free time is being consumed then there should be less of it.
This does not mean those who do not "need" to be treated immediatelly wait until their diseases are life threatening...rather just that they may not get treatment tomorrow.
Right now we don't really know how long they would wait. I think at least some analysis would be in order to determine if waits for things like cancer treatment will be longer or shorter under socialized medicine. Time is not a luxury most people with cancer have.
No, they won't go to the front of the line because they are poor. That was your assumption, not mine. That came from you asking how they were more deserving than the middle class.
What your assumption was, was that things would be better for the poor under socialized system. That may or not be tue under a need based system. Again just because you're poor doesn't mean you're ill.
Umm sure it does. They will need healthcare at the same, if not a higher rate than the rest of society...and when they don't get it they will continue to need it, while the rest of society gets treated.
I don't know. I think that you're makeing the assumption that since they're poor they must be sick.
Except that not going will never get treatd, while waiting does.
Just not neccessarily in time.
I have never found that it does. I've also found that the most popular of any service, especially a one time service, is generally the shittiest. The "best" major test prep companies are Kaplan and Princeton Review. Kaplan is the most well known and tons of people take them. They are incredibly shitty, and their methods are just fucking terrible. Their teachers are incompetent as well...its really quite sad.
Yes but for things like life threatening cancer people generally go for the best , whether they've had the experience of being treated or not. The best quality hospitls are known for that and not because people have had a bunch of repeatadly good experiences at them. People go to the Mayo clinic for example, because they have the best and brightest.
Exactly what do you think is happening in Britain? And no, if our government provides health insurance they might be inefficient, but they probably won't be refusing all sorts of claims for profit.
turning bedsheets instead of washing them, deprioritizing smokers, to name a couple.