You see, if you dial up the security knob on your products, you'll get to a point where some of the functions are turned off because sometimes they simply can't be secured. An insecure protocol is insecure, by definition. If you want to turn security up, this protocol will get shut off.
It's a feature, not a bug. That's exactly what was intended to happen.
Too Old To Work Too Young To Retire looks at some well meaning person yammering on about Sweden's "wonderful" socialized health care system, cutting them slack for their sometimes slow ambulance service. TOTWTYTR points out that it's not a mistake when this happens, it's a choice by the people who design and fund the health care system in Sweden:
The conceit that "sufficiently smart people" can design a system that will not fail is precisely that - a conceit. We spend a ton of money on heroic measures; they focus strongly on preventive health. We are willing to allow people to get by without health insurance, but spend astonishing amounts of money trying to save very sick people; they choose the opposite approach.Don’t get me wrong; I’m not making any broader suggestions that Sweden’s health care system should look more like the US’s. My point is just the opposite: if a country with such a fractured health care system can make ambulance services work, shouldn’t Sweden be able to as well?Sorry MS Ahlfeldt, this is not a bug, it’s a feature of the Swedish health care system. All socialized health care systems feature rationing, especially of emergency care. That’s the most expensive part of the system because it can’t be scheduled and cost contained.
It's not a bug, it's a design decision. You can rationally argue that one way is superior to the other, and rational people can find themselves on opposite sides of that debate.
But what you cannot do is to say that there are not health consequences to your decision. Sweden chooses to spend their money in a way that causes some people to die. As do we. The systems work the way they work because that's how the incentive structure is designed.
TOTWTYTR nails the issue. Socialized medicine (including ObamaCare) is sold as helping other people who don't have coverage without hurting those that do. Sorry, that's just not possible. Capacity has to stretch, which means that some people who have care today will get less. If that makes some people feel uncomfortable, that's not a bug - it's a feature, too. Because the Progressives who are so happy about ObamaCare need to understand that services are finite. Giving more of those finite services to one group of people means that there will be less for others. And quite frankly those others include:The intentions behind the Swedish process are good: a more careful screening of emergency victims is intended to cut down on wait times and guarantee care… and possibly save money. But in a twist of irony, instead of feeling as though the care I need is guaranteed, the current model has undermined my confidence that I will get that care at all.I’m not so sanguine as MS Ahlfeldt about the rationale behind the Swedish system. Again, socialized health care is fine, until you need get really ill.
- Their parents, who will need much more expensive care because the elderly are disproportionate users of health care services. Old people are in much poorer health than younger people, because that's what happens to all of us as we age. The $500 Billion taken from Medicare to partially fund ObamaCare will mean that Senior Citizens will live sicker lives, and will die sooner. The resources are being diverted to other people. That's not a bug, that's a feature.
- Very sick children, whose care costs vast sums. Premature babies can cost $100,000 or more during a 2 month stay in the Neo-natal ICU. We're told that our infant mortality rate is higher than European countries', but the dirty secret is that we spend vast amounts of money on heroic efforts to save these babies, and Europe mostly lets them die - and counts them as stillborn. That's not a bug, it's a feature of their system that chooses to apply resources to other patients. We choose differently, but that's almost certainly going to change as cost cutting moves to the fore under ObamaCare. Those babies will be considered expendable.
- Everyone who currently has health insurance will get reduced benefits. This will be driven by two forces. First, costs of their current program will rise to offset the cost of insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. The math is inescapable. Since employers pay much of these costs, benefits will be cut to keep payroll expenses manageable in a tough economy. Second, the pool of people using health care services will go up as more are insured, but the supply of health care providers will remain the same (or possibly go down; it seems that a lot of doctors are nearing the "aw, screw it" stage where it's no longer financially sensible to stay in business and older doctors choose to retire). It will be much, much harder for everyone to get a doctor's appointment.
Because kill it must. There's no magic wand that will increase the number of doctors, there's no health care fairy who will keep lines from lengthening. There's no untapped pool of money to keep Senior's care from having to be raided for your different set of priorities. These people must die, because you want to spend that finite set of health care resources a different way.
That isn't a bug, it's how your system is structured. Some must give up, so that others may have. And the ones who now get the most must give up the most. I guess they're being called on for heroic measures.
You must be so very proud of your higher morality.