First let me say that I dont think that the advantages to the US system just apply to "extreme" situations. I used the word "life threatening" and I think that term is more applicable.
I used the term "life threatening" too--read the quote at the top of your response.
Basically, would you be willing to see a dropoff in care for those with insurance in order to see care more widely available?
I would be willing to see a "dropoff" in care in the "last 6 months" in return for wider, cheaper, better overall coverage. That includes preventive care, although what I mean by "preventive care" here is something that we often don't think of as part of a medical system.
Let me explain. It is the focus of the US medical care system that is skewed. That focus is frequently on the "extreme" or outlier cases. It is on pills, magic bullets, the operation that will "fix" the problem condition, seeing that problem condition out of the context of the individual life and the society at large. But actually medical conditions emerge from broad social and individual contexts. Stress, lack of exercise, poor diet (not synonymous with poverty or lack of food--could well be too much food, in fact; certainly the wrong foods), smoking, etc. We fill ourselves with fats, then are surprised that we need bypass surgery? |
