Thank you, @thatgermandude, both for the up-vote as well as this solid comment. :c)

Indeed I too have wondered that. I have also wondered at whether the simple process of brushing teeth isn't actually scrubbing away more than the enamel-eating elements but also any inert layer upon the teeth that serves to protect it - and which is also totally destroyed by dentists' drill-cleaning practices.

A healthy set of teeth is not a profitable thing. I kind of compare it to a less-than-honest vehicle mechanic who sort of fixes one thing in your car while either deliberately ignoring that another part of your car is going to eventually fail - or worse - acting to bring such about. Its more profitable to fix a car over three visits than a single one.

The same is true for dentists. Fortunately the worst offenders who will think little of pulling or deliberately damaging and sabotaging perfectly healthy teeth can and do eventually get caught - but thanks to the aura and status, most cannot be called out upon just as one couldn't call out the mechanic for loosening a timing belt or some-such. More instances are gotten away with than not.

Your idea for solution is very interesting - and such would require that some funds be allocated from a nation's budget towards such cases.

That being said a couple of the issues that I foresee with free emergency protection is that such both encourages people to wait until something 'is' an emergency - and it also can result in a fostered sense of entitlement. Its similar to what happens here - except that free care is extended beyond emergencies in the State facilities - and yes - some people opt for such who can really afford paid care - unnecessarily burdening the system.

To base upon your suggestion, I would suggest that post-procedure credit always be an option (to try and avoid a situation where one won't be treated unless they have their insurance papers all sorted - as well as a pre-established means of payment).

I would also propose that State structures require pharmaceutical companies that offer medications above certain price points undergo vetting processes of varying degrees of complexity to ensure that their product is sold within a given nation (small nations may partner up with other nations to unify this process).

Such vetting would include an effective audit and price justification - as well as an identification and analysis of generic alternatives and equivalents.

In this way the profit motive may be balanced against state motives - and part of the justification for these processes would be determining and justifying government subsidy (but never nullification) of treatment costs.

Yes - I am aware that this includes a fair bit of wishful thinking on my part. ;c)

Thank you again!