pete75 wrote: Pete Owens wrote:
mjr wrote:It shows there was probably suppressed demand.
Not even that.
In economic terms demand is measured in terms of how much people are prepared to pay for a good or service. (and note pete75 that means a direct charge for that particular service). So unless that road is tolled the demand measured by the fact that people use a recourse provided for free by the state is zero.
Using your definition there's absolutely no demand for NHS services. I think you'll find the reality is somewhat different.
Try reading what I wrote.
Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence.
While fact that people will use something that is provided free of charge cannot be taken as evidence of demand (ie your original claim) That doesn't mean that it is evidence of zero demand - just that without charging we there is no measure of how much that demand is.
I did go on to point out (in the bit of my post that you have not quoted) that I am a lefty and explicitly included health as an example of the sort of thing that should be provided on socialist lines.
It's a common misconception that stuff provided by the state is free.
exactly the point I was making above (the bit starting "note pete75 ...")
It is free to the user (ie free in the general useage of the word)
It is not, it is paid for from our taxes.
but paid for by the rest of us.
This argument is usually brought up by opponents of socialised services such as the health service so it is most odd that you should deploy it in support of free (to-the-user-but -paid-for-by-someone-else