Loss of libertyBy Stan Epp Newton, Kan.
The July 9 editorial, “Health Law and Justice,” suggested that the Supreme Court’s upholding the Affordable Care Act was an act of justice. From personal experience, I have a very different viewpoint. Twenty years ago I began suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome. Most of the alternative health supplements that are effective for my healing were not covered by insurance. The same is true today, and the supplements are a significant monthly expense. Our family was able to buy those supplements years ago because we chose to trust God for our health and did not buy health insurance. Had we been required to buy insurance, we might not have been able to afford the supplements.
The Food and Drug Administration is very reticent to approve alternative health measures, and therefore they are not covered by insurance. When the government thinks it knows what is best for us, dictates what items are not covered by insurance and then requires us to buy the very insurance that does not cover the items that are best for us, it is functioning in too big of a role. The loss of our right to choose results in hardship and repression. I highly valued my right to manage my own health care, and that right has now been substantially curtailed.
When we allow the government to take one liberty away, it is easier for it to take another away. I believe this loss of the right to choose concerning health care, along with the U.S. government’s recent attempts to restrict the religious rights of Catholic institutions, are ominous signs for the future of freedom in America.
Comment on the article Loss of liberty
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.