• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Well it’s both. Space age treatments… If you can afford it.

    (I’m not saying it provides the best overall outcomes for the whole population, but you can’t contest the quality of high end hospitals like mayo clinic or similar)

    • Jax
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t think you give someone an A+ for doing 1% of the project really really well.

      Like the Nazis were actually environmentalists. They also advanced medical science by decades. Do we praise them for it?

      I don’t mean to invoke Nazis, but you get my point yeah? If the vast majority of the people who need the treatment cannot get it? That isn’t ‘both’ in my opinion.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Their medical work was bunk

        The both is america medical pinnacle is a+. American general availability is c-. (Anyone can go to a quality emergency room but won’t afford regular care)

    • c10l@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      A lot of third world countries have top of the line medical treatments. The difference to socially developed countries is in how accessible it is to the general population.