Complimentary, Non-traditional, and Alternative Medicine

Despite almost a year of "discussions on how to best implement national health coverage" (a political term meaning "how to use the taxpayers' money to buy more votes"), one topic seems to have been either neglected or under-reported: to what extent will this new system pay for "Alternative" or "Non-Traditional" Medicine? You might think that this is a trivial matter, until you consider the numbers that will come into play.

According to a December, 2008 report entitled "The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States" the National Institutes of Medicine's National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the National Center for Health Statistics estimate that "...approximately 38 percent of adults (about 4 in 10) and approximately 12 percent of children (about 1 in 9) are using some form of CAM..." (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and that CAM utilization "...is greater among women and those with higher levels of education and higher incomes."

The part about higher education levels and higher incomes might be taken as implying some "unofficial endorsement' of CAM, particularly by those urging that it be included in whatever law makes its way out of Congress. A nice argument, until you pause to consider that such treatments are not covered by a majority of private health insurance plans are thus more likely to be utilized by those with higher incomes. Since it is also known that higher levels of education are closely correlated with higher income, the argument proves to be yet another hall of Congress given over to smoke and mirrors.

A better question would be to ask why those "greedy" and "uncaring" private insurers do not pay for such "treatments." The answer here is actually quite simple.

Despite the ever-increasing number of claims to the contrary, there is no verifiable "evidence-based" medical research that the vast majority of such treatments have any benefit whatsoever; with the possible exception of significantly improving the lifestyles of those that stand to prosper should Congress decide that it is the public's responsibility to provide income guarantees to these latter day snake- (or whatever the source) oil hustlers.

The estimated cost (low end, and depending on which particular liar you choose to believe) of the inevitable leap into government-managed health care is already one trillion dollars over ten years. If we're going to bankrupt the national treasury, can we at least bankrupt it by paying for something that might have the proverbial snowball's chance of working?