In a groundbreaking development out of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, researchers have found that not receiving healthcare that is necessary to one’s well-being is significantly worse for one’s health than receiving it.
Dr. Melanie Kyrie, a specialist in chronic pain and complex psychosomatic trauma, spoke to reporters to expand on the implications of this remarkable breakthrough.
“Despite what the for-profit healthcare system in the United States would have you believe, we’ve actually found that it is better for a patient’s health and overall potential to flourish if they receive necessary healthcare rather than go without it,” Dr. Kyrie explained.
“In fact,” she said, “in my area of work, we have overwhelmingly proven that it is vastly superior to alleviate pain instead of ignoring it.”
Dr. Max Omberson, an epidemiologist, strongly concurred.
“It turns out that treating infectious diseases produces health outcomes that are so much better in comparison to not treating them that it’s absurd to think not treating them is even presented as an option,” he said.
Experiments are already being replicated throughout the US, all of which are expected to yield similar outcomes and conclusively demonstrate that it is bad for people’s health not to receive healthcare which would effectively treat any number of ailments.
However, such a consensus is not necessarily shared among health insurance executives, many of whom have major issues with the notion that attempting to heal sick and injured people is a good thing to do.
One CEO of a health insurance company, who agreed to speak under the condition of anonymity, disputed the findings: “I didn’t get into health insurance to actually make sure that healthcare goes to the people who need it, and our quarterly windfalls should tell you I don’t need to.”