跪求一篇文章中心思想的理解！！！！

以下是研究生入学考试2003年的阅读理解中的第四篇,以及其中的最后一问。如下:
4
It is said that in England death is pressing, in Canada inevitable and in California optional. Small wonder. Americans’ life expectancy has nearly doubled over the past century. Failing hips can be replaced, clinical depression controlled, cataracts removed in a 30-minutes surgical procedure. Such advances offer the aging population a quality of life that was unimaginable when I entered medicine 50 years ago. But not even a great health-care system can cure death -- and our failure to confront that reality now threatens this greatness of ours.
Death is normal; we are genetically programmed to disintegrate and perish, even under ideal conditions. We all understand that at some level, yet as medical consumers we treat death as a problem to be solved. Shielded by third-party payers from the cost of our care, we demand everything that can possibly be done for us, even if it’s useless. The most obvious example is late-stage cancer care. Physicians -- frustrated by their inability to cure the disease and fearing loss of hope in the patient -- too often offer aggressive treatment far beyond what is scientifically justified.
In 1950, the U.S. spent $7 billion on health care. In 2002, the cost will be $1,540 billion. Anyone can see this trend is unsustainable. Yet few seem willing to try to reverse it. Some scholars conclude that a government with finite resources should simply stop paying for medical care that sustains life beyond a certain age -- say 83 or so. Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm has been quoted as saying that the old and infirm “have a duty to die and get out of the way,” so that younger, healthier people can realize their potential.
I would not go that far. Energetic people now routinely work through their 60s and beyond, and remain dazzlingly productive. At 78, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone jokingly claims to be 53. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is in her 70s, and former surgeon general C. Everett Koop chairs an Internet start-up in his 80s. These leaders are living proof that prevention works and that we can manage the health problems that come naturally with age. As a mere 68-year-old, I wish to age as productively as they have.
Yet there are limits to what a society can spend in this pursuit. Ask a physician, I know the most costly and dramatic measures may be ineffective and painful. I also know that people in Japan and Sweden, countries that spend far less on medical care, have achieved longer, healthier lives than we have. As a nation, we may be overfunding the quest for unlikely cures while underfunding research on humbler therapies that could improve people’s lives.
60.        The text intends to express the idea that _____C___.
[A] medicine will further prolong people’s lives
life beyond a certain limit is not worth living
[C] death should be accepted as a fact of life
[D] excessive demands increase the cost of health care
我有以下的几个问题不明白:
    1,该问题的答案的是选 C ,但是你认为C就是本文的中心思想吗?能否用汉语说说本文的中心思想是什么
    2,本问作者的最终落脚点是在什么地方,是劝说美国人接受死亡的必然性,还是要求国家增加基础保健科学研究的投资。及本文的主要是说了一个思想还是一个建议?是主要陈述了一种思想的方方面面,而建议只作为思想方方面面的一部分,还是先陈述了一种思想作为铺垫,为最后的政策建议做准备。
    3,本文到底说了个什么事,是一个思想还是一个建议。
        谢谢!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1：文章开头举了一个例子，来引出话题，这种手法在汉语写作中也很常见。开头讲个小故事来引出自己想说的话。所以在这个例子结束之后的话，很可能是坐着的中心论点即But not even a great health-care system can cure death -- and our failure to confront that reality now threatens this greatness of ours.
Death is normal。对这段话进行提炼来回答60题，[A] medicine will further prolong people’s lives
[D] excessive demands increase the cost of health care显然这两个选项所说的并不是中心意思，太过表浅而且在中心句中无法找到依据，B选项不合常理简直是胡言乱语太过偏激直接排除。C选项，注意破折号后面这句and our failure to confront that reality ，即本文中心意思直面死亡与C选项符合。
2&3其实是一个问题，即作者写本文的意图，我的愚见是：本文讲的是一种对待死亡的态度，之余末端所说的只是想告诉大家直面死亡，但不可过于偏激，在不浪费医疗资源的基础上适当延长生命。主旨还是直面死亡，后面的文章只是想让文章圆滑起来，不至于偏激。是对文章主旨的一种补充，也是一种写作技巧

原帖由 t9010 于 2009-5-10 00:08 发表
1：文章开头举了一个例子，来引出话题，这种手法在汉语写作中也很常见。开头讲个小故事来引出自己想说的话。所以在这个例子结束之后的话，很可能是坐着的中心论点即But not even a great health-care system ca ...

确实是这样，讲大家直面死亡但又不可太过偏激。

确实是这样的话，为什么不给奖励呢？？呵呵呵