The "con" would probably be that there would be no facility for spinal surgery in a rural area in the first place. She would not be able to choose to be treated there and she's getting on one of those helicopters.
The "con" would probably be that there would be no facility for spinal surgery in a rural area in the first place. She would not be able to choose to be treated there and she's getting on one of those helicopters.
If hospitals are still privately owned, but the government basically starts it's own 'insurance company' that covers everyone that isn't part of the private insurance company plan (similar to Germany) then it's possible that a rural area could still have spinal surgery experts. Even if the hospitals are all government-owned and run (similar to the UK method of healthcare), it's still possible to have spinal surgery experts in a rural area. It just would depend on what was cheaper. Is it cheaper to have a spinal surgery-trained staff at the rural hospital or to fly everyone 300 miles to another hospital? (Or the 3rd option of having staff at a different hospital, but making sure that it is less than 300 miles away -- i.e. spread out facilities that can handle such injuries so that there aren't hugely expensive transit costs for treatment)