Medical insurance coverage

Editor: What is universal medical insurance coverage really worth?

Language damages the nervous system. Nothing exemplifies this maxim more than the term “health care.”

It sounds and feels so good, but as commonly delivered, “health care” connotes a corrupt system that does virtually nothing to prevent disease, and then after diagnosis seeks only to relieve symptoms, not attempting to reverse the disease process or effect a cure. Huge dollar costs and a deteriorating quality of life result.

At best, it’s lingering, progressive “sickness care” that is offered. At worst, risky, ineffective practices, medical error, the cumulative effects of artificial drugs and/or hospital conditions cause premature death.

We the people are responsible for the sorry state of sickness care. First, we have ignored the utter failure of the system to prevent, reverse or cure chronic disease.

Second, as individuals, we have failed to take charge of our health by educating ourselves and making informed choices to achieve health and avoid or reverse disease.

Third, we have allowed politicians and bureaucrats, special interest groups, the food and pharmaceutical industries and medical professionals and facilities to run amok, amassing huge profits at the expense of consumer welfare and solvency.

Because of the corrupt system, government and private medical insurance should be considered a curse, not a blessing. As costs continue to escalate, insurance enables the status quo to continue.

Moreover, insurance limits personal choice by not covering the real foods, supplements, nutraceuticals and alternative medical practices that are effective in attaining and preserving health.

Beginning in Massachusetts, politicians are trying to force universal insurance coverage, mandating that uncovered individuals buy insurance or be fined. It’s a socialistic scheme to make sickness care more affordable by making low-level consumers pay some of the costs of high-level consumers. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both support universal coverage, debating only how best to achieve it.

The subjects of debate should be: 1. empowering individuals to take charge of their health and 2. reforming the corrupt system. Yes, we could effect beneficial change, for a change.

Bobby Pfefferkorn, Green Valley