There are some things that make you ask, "Why are we even debating this?" The debate over preventive health care is one of those things for me. Today Stephen A. Brunton, M.D., FAAFP wrote on the Huffington Post:
Beyond the political and budgetary challenges in Washington and the debate around the relative merits of various aspects of the ACA, these reductions to the Fund are representative of a broader alarming shift in our health care system: a growing desire to cast prevention as expendable and as synonymous with wasteful spending.He goes on to point out, what seems fairly obvious, that this myopic point of view doesn't consider the long-term cost savings and the long-term health benefits for patients that come from preventive health screenings and tests.
The criticisms that this kind of approach does more harm than good is mind-boggling. How can doing nothing be better than doing something? Seriously, I need help understanding the logic from those that don't support preventive health - is it simply a well-funded and influential insurance lobby?