It seems that every time there is a new direction set for health care or a change in recommended protocols there are skeptics and naysayers.
Generally that is because any recommendation for less care, screening or prescription is in conflict with our more is better perception of health care. I recall that George Washington’s death was hastened because standard medical care at the time involved bleeding people so our views can change. I also recall the introduction of HMOs in the 1980s when any attempt to manage care was labeled skimping on care purely for profit.
I urge you to read this story from the New York Times. The subject matter itself is not important, but rather the way it describes the pros, cons and potential harm caused by health care we have been convinced was only a good thing.
Beyond the benefits/harm discussion there is also the cost/benefit discussion that is largely taboo in America but routine in other countries. Proponents of affordable single-payer health care should take note.