What should stop you from doing right
I know that not every time can one take the right step. For example, there shouldn’t be racism, yet lot of minority people are given extra attention. But is it always required to think of consequences even when you are doing right thing? And if you don’t take that right step to avoid some consequences, don’t you bring other?
In America, these days, a new issue is being discussed. Obama changing rules to provide better insurance to people. Which pretty much means that doctors will have more patients. An advertisement said that since number of doctors are not going to change, this will harm people who need special medical attention. It doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, those who are already using medical services may have to wait, but what about those others who so far were not able to use medical services? Just because there are not enough doctors doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be more patients. The first problem in hand is that there are people who need medical services but are not able to get that. Make arrangements to do so. And if the shortage of doctors creates problem, deal with it. Thats what I feel. The right step is to let everyone (who needs it) to use medical services. And its consequence might be that there will be shortage of doctors. On the other hand if you don’t do that, there will be people who were not using services (even though they needed it) and will not be using it in future as well.
I am glad my research is about probability. Because this world sure doesn’t have certain answers 
One could always follow a “prevention is better than cure” lifestyle.
Indulge in a healthy lifestyle. It’s not too tough; you’ll probably lose the “thrills”, if any, of giving the doc a visit. But, hey, how about making it up by keeping yourself occupied with other things in life?
@Naresh V
Kindly note that such a comment is drawn from the assumptions that the USA, unlike India or sub-Saharan countries, can afford to lead a healthy lifestyle. And more healthy people leads to lesser number of people requiring to visit a doc at any given instant. Right?
@Naresh V
God. Why can’t I give wholesome arguments. I’ve dropped more assumptions here.
Another assumption:
1. Many cases in the US hospitals are solely due to the unhealthy lifestyles people lead.
2. If those who can afford to lead a healthy lifestyle and do so, they’ll essentially make space for those who couldn’t make it to the doc earlier.
3. The minorities, I assume, simply can’t afford to lead a healthy lifestyle OR/AND are involved in physical activities which tend to expose them to more accidents (which may not be easily preventable).
All your three assumptions are true. However, America supposedly has 50 million people who do not have insurance as of now. Thus, they do not use medical services. Here, if you get into accident, and you don’t have insurance, you will have 2 options. 1) Die 2) Go to emergency room (they can not deny service in emergency room) and then declare yourself bankrupt. So, health insurance is pretty much required for everyone, even if you are leading a healthy lifestyle.
Now if these 50 millions people get health insurance, some of them will be using medical services leading to busier doctors.
What’s the QoS lower threshold for determining the point at which injecting more people into the hospitals while keeping the number of doctors constant becomes just as bad or worse of a problem than we have now?
If you are trying to say that the situation is already very bad, I agree.
Heh. The US government has put its hands in all the wrong places in the past (war, etc.) and has misappropriated funds for a long time. Too bad Obama – whom I assume wants to do the “right” things – has to deal with all the crap the previous governments have done. So, assuming that there will be better expenditure on basic amenities such as health, would it be fine to assume that the number of health centres and doctors would increase? (Is there a dearth of doctors, btw?)
Yes, medical system here is pretty bad. Lack of doctors and there is always a bamboo for doctors. They have to take way extra care before they treat any person (thats why costly service).
As far as basic services are concerned, I think American style is a little different. They don’t want to be socialist at all. Government tries not to do anything as much as possible (which is not bad, its a totally workable style). That is why, there are no government insurance as of now, and no public hospitals. But I agree, government should involve itself in medical service, because capitalistic style didn’t work out well for sure.