| Kasz216 said: No. Size really does matter. We've hat this argument before... however yes size matters a LOT when it comes to providing globalized healthcare. It needs more layers of bueracracy as you need more and more layers of overseers. To prevent fraud and make sure people are doing their jobs correctly. For example in the UK system decisions are made on a local level of about 150 healtchare councils. These councils need to be watched by people. Now say you've got over 1,000 healthcare councils. You need like 7 times the people watching them unless you want to overwork them, additionally you need 7 times the people watching them... and you eventually need one guy at top. So your going to end up adding layers. With higher salaries. Any international comparisons of healthcare systems are completly assinine though. Look at the link in my post directly above this to realize why. It's funny how research done a decade ago can still be ignored by people. Only interpopulation healthcare studies hold any merit. |
Again, size doesn't matter, urban and rural ratios matter.
What you are arguing for is that we could never compare different locations. If we cant compare the United States to the United Kingdom, we cant compare Ohio to Pennsylvania or New York City to Boston. Of course, no qualitative comparison (like health or well-being) is exact, but comparing like places is still appropriate and helps one reach accurate conclusions. Quantitative comparisons go much farther, and here your logic would not allow you to say something so easily understandable as America is rich and Nigeria is poor, because they are in different places and have different sizes we cant compare them. I'm sure a Nigerian would be happy to trade you places, while you wonder which country is the better one to live in.
You also forget to mention that as size increaseses, relative overhead costs decreases. This is referred to as economics of scale. There is a reason why Wal-Mart can out-compete smaller retailers and while still maintaining huge profits. In government, this is even more relevant because top administrators are not paid high wages, for instance a level I Federal Executive (Secretary of State) only makes $200,000 a year, thats less than what most doctors in the United States make. The president only makes $500,000 a year. Compare that to the salaries of CEOs, where $50 million would nt compare with top earners.
