The view that President Obama and his staff are taking on HEALTH CARE and HEALTH INSURANCE in this country needs a BROADER, MORE ECOLOGICAL APPROACH. They're giving the public the message that if you have healthcare insurance you'll be TAKEN CARE OF and SAFE. Their goals emphasize the STATISTICS of everyone being covered, but what good is it to have coverage if that coverage means hospitals and physicians that, due to PRESSURES OF TIME, PEER REVIEW, and LOBBYISTS (from the confines of their narrow discipline or what's in vogue or making money at the time), NARROW THEIR PERSPECTIVE?
I remember hearing Teresa Heinz Kerry during the 2004 election, eloquently speaking about the need to GET RID OF POSSIBLE POISONS, PESTICIDES, AND POLLUTANTS in the inner city where children are at a high risk, rather than primarily focusing on statistics and treatment of asthma. Isn't it better while focusing on the asthma problem to deliver a MORE ENCOMPASSING APPROACH rather than just providing inhalers and steroids to these children?
IT IS A MULTI-FACETED ISSUE.
In order for health care to be effective and COST EFFECTIVE, we have to be more prudent, and have more watchdogs looking out for the safety of people. Attention must be given to what is going on in the REALITY OF HEALTH CARE, rather than just thinking that GAINING INSURANCE IS A PANACEA.
If a neighborhood has a relatively HIGH INCIDENCE of BREAST CANCER, attention should be given to ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS which could be IMPACTING on this incidence. For example, PESTICIDE USE, CAR EXHAUST, WATER CONTAMINATION, and HISTORICAL USE OF THE LAND (was it a nursery, was it next to a landfill, or was it near an industry that spewed noxious waste?) are all potential irritants.
This sounds good but it's not simple, because we are DEPENDENT on the VERY INDUSTRIES which may be POLLUTING to make our ECONOMY VIBRANT. This means we have to address the issue gently with a big stick, and RETHINK, RETOOL, and RETRAIN these industries which have negative effects on human welfare.