U.S. Health Care Crisis– Part 1: The Myth of the Medical Model
Gary S. Gruber ND
Recent political rhetoric insists that the best public policy and solution to the “health care crisis” is to make health care affordable and accessible to all. This basic idea that each person should have responsibility for and be empowered by her or his own health care is a very good one. However, there is a hidden issue that is not addressed: What is the best medical model of creating health care?
What if the understanding of what fixes health problems is essentially wrong?
Look at the leading causes of death that create the spiraling costs for Americans: Heart Disease, Stroke, and Cancer. These diseases, although associated with age, in fact affect almost all age groups and are on the increase at rates that are faster than the growth of the aging population. The cost to society is escalating with no end in sight. According to a recent study by Cathy J. Bradley, PhD*, the cost of cancer in the year 2000 of $115.8 billion is expected to jump to $147.6 billion by the year 2020, a leap of almost 30%. In 2008, alone, the American Heart Association estimated the cost of cardiovascular disease to be $448.5 billion**. It is no wonder we feel we are in the midst of a health care crisis.
However, our medical model for dealing with these killers is based on the science of treating infectious diseases. The basic mythology built into this model is that there is a drug to cure every disease (which is why pharmaceutical companies are so feverishly involved in medical legislation and advertising).
This model is simply wrong, and it needs to be replaced by new practices that enable us to detoxify ourselves and our environment. Call the old model “the magic pill cure”; call the new model Environmental Medicine.
To understand the current health care problems we can look back in history and trace the development of American medical care . . . click here to read full article.
* Bradley CJ, et al. Productivity Costs of Cancer Mortality in the United States: 2000 – 2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 1763 – 1770.