Health and disease are NOT opposites

Western biomedicine is disease-focussed. Services are orientated around diseases. There are Hypertension clinics, Dermatology departments, Asthma clinics, etc. Research is focussed on diseases. The "gold standard" of the RCT is based on selection of groups of people with the same disease. (In fact, anyone with more than one disease is excluded from the trial). Teaching is constructed around diseases.
The World Health Organisation defines health as " Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. "
What if we push this definition a little further, to say that health is indeed all that WHO says it is, but it is not about the absence of disease?
Think about this - once a patient has a chronic disease, say, diabetes, hypertension, migraine, arthritis, does this mean that they will never ever be healthy again? Aren't some people with a disease potentially healthier than some people who don't have diseases?
Is anyone ever healthy? With the development of new instruments and machines we are able to diagnose many more diseases before people have any symptoms or signs of those diseases.
If health is a 100% complete set of "normal" biometrics, does anyone ever achieve it? For how long?
However, if health is "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being" shouldn't we be concentrating on trying to achieve it? If we deal with disease then we are only doing a part of a job. The MORE important part of the job is to help the person to achieve health