An explanation may be true and useful (better than no explanation) even if it is only applicable to some cases. A given case of bureaucracy may have one or eve

An explanation may be true and useful (better than no explanation) even if it is only applicable to some cases. A given case of bureaucracy may have one or even many among multiple potential causes, inducing (for the requester) latency or cost in order to "separate out the needy from the greedy" being one, the various benefits a manager gains by over-staffing being another (DMV?)... Time and exasperation people are willing to put up with in order to get what they want is a form of co-payment. Part of it is paid for by the insured (as a "proof of real need"), another part being the bureaucracy which is paid by all insured people. Any insured may prefer to wait (than to occupy the bureaucracy by filling useless forms...) because it is far cheaper (no work for him nor for the bureaucracy), but this is rarely possible because there are urgent cases, and also because it seems more frustrating.