here, I cite from a recent abc.net.au article:
Patrick Wright writes in "Budget Measure Could End Natural Therapy Rebates" (2012-05-09)[my comments are in unquoted bold]:
"a federal budget measure could see natural therapies excluded from private health insurance rebates unless there is clear evidence they are clinically effective [...]";
ah, yeah, sound's like the ETHICAL thing to do.
"a review into the 'clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness, safety and quality' of natural therapies [...aka] complementary medicines [...] was announced in the budget handed down by Treasurer Wayne Swan [...] natural therapies found to be clinically ineffective will be cut out of government-funded private health insurance rebates [...] including homeopathy, aromatherapy, ear candling, crystal therapy, flower essences, iridology, kinesiology [specifically, I believe, applied kinesiology, not the regular science known as kinesiology] and naturopathy could be found ineligible [...]";
I applaud. Most of the list are actually in a naturopathy curriculum. Why should taxpayers pay for such NONSENSE? Notice that the category of "natural" or "complementary" is truly NONSENSICAL.
"professor Ken Harvey from La Trobe University's School of Public Health [the Australian Consumers Association Consumer Champion for 2012...says] there really is no scientific validation for the homeopathic medicines or the principles [...yet] Australian Traditional Medicine Society president Dr Sandi Rogers [a naturopath] says the announcement came as a surprise [...she said] 'if natural medicine didn't work, then why do consumers keep coming back for more? [...] we would just like a fair playing field' [...]";
so, yet lacking scientific support and actually in fact quite often scientifically ejected, "natural" nonsense wants fairness to, in my opinion, EXPLOIT [the fairness to be false, absurdly]. Popularity does not confer efficacy, again I find myself repeating: e.g., 1600 years of Galenic medicine did not make it in fact valid.