March 20th, 2017

As he had for more years than he cared to count, the elderly gentleman dressed in a three-pieced, dark-grey suit with white shirt; striped, grey-and-red tie; and black, wing-tipped shoes pushed through the revolving door to the old-style drugstore at the corner of Main and Grove. He removed a light-grey fedora from a head still covered with once-blonde, now silver-white hair parted neatly on the left. Clear, blue eyes surveyed a scene from generations before, a scene in which he had participated since opening his medical practice, a scene refusing to die.

The hour still was early. Slivers of first light were appearing. The soon-to-be bright Sun barely illuminated the dark nighttime sky.

Being a widower, Doctor Rufus Jenkins preferred not to breakfast alone. Years before, youthful passion had overcome prudence waiting to mature. Still a student, he could not afford to marry his sweetheart from high school.

Passion, however, screamed, Yes!”

Prudence murmured, “No.”

Passion ruled. Three months later, Emma fell ill. Acute leukemia. Weeks later, she died. In those days, effective treatments remained hidden beyond the medical horizon.

Grief never departed. Romance never returned. Marriage died with Emma.

Instead, he dedicated his life to his chosen calling, medicine. Medicine, not a job. Medicine, not an occupation. Medicine, not even a profession. For “Doc” Jenkins, medicine represented a calling like the clergy.

In an age of “healthcare” instead of medicine, “healthcare-plans” instead of insurance, and “providers” instead of physicians, such a man had become an historical relic.

Another historical relic was Parson’s Drug Store & Luncheonette. It clung to life, a symbol of a previous era, alone in a modern smorgasbord of homogenized, self-service “fast food” from cookie-cutter outlets filled with uncomfortable seating limiting long stays — factory-food served in an atmosphere of depersonalizing anonymity by human robots with empty minds expecting you, the unthinking customer, to fill their jars labelled “TIPS”. Reminder: Don’t forget to bus your own table, leaving your droppings for the next customer as the previous one did for you — droppings that rarely are cleaned. The sign on the trash will thank you for feeding it.

The town itself still existed only as a consequence of a former native-son’s having returned to buy a building left vacant by its previous owner, a manufacturing firm that had fled to China then to Viet Nam with headquarters relocated to Ireland. Revolutionary robotics of today instead of traditional textiles of yesterday. With the change, the once dismal future of the town suddenly seemed secure, at least for the moment. Chance and change would tell the tale.

As for the pharmacy, Abraham Parson had opened his apothecary in an age of bromides and enemas. His son, Ben, succeeded him. His grandson, Adam, maintained the now-profitless pharmacy still closed on Sundays with its luncheonette still open for breakfast and lunch. An old-fashion “phosphate”? Still available at Parson’s!

Yes, “chain-stores” selling everything from medicines to motor-oils had challenged the old-time pharmaceutical tradition. They offered longer hours and lower prices with the ubiquitous depersonalizing anonymity and sense of isolation increasingly prevalent in a society firmly ensnared electro-magnetically in a man-made web of radio-waves.

Alas, the independent pharmacy was receding into the past as was the traditional practice of medicine. Even the local supermarket offered not only a pharmacy but a “walk-in clinic” staffed by “Dr. Nurse”. Why should anyone want a physician in a medical office, anyway, when he can have a nurse in a supermarket? Quicker? Yes. Cheaper? Yes. Better?

Fortunately for those few customers who still preferred amiable social intercourse with a knowledgeable staff that knows you by name, Adam Parson had made a tidy sum trading foreign currencies via the Internet. Had he not done so, Parson’s Drug Store & Luncheonette would have become a distant memory among only the elderly losing theirs. Even so, many of his long-standing, loyal customers were departing for their final voyage. Destination? Unknown.


As usual, “Doc” Jenkins was the first customer of the morning. As usual, he strolled the same route to the counter. As usual, he selected the same stool that he always selected.

Yes, the elderly physician had become partial to small rituals. Continual change with its often spurious sense of novelty seemed more suited for the young. Familiar routines with their spurious sense of comfort seemed more suited for the old.

“Any port for an old ship in a storm,” he told himself.

While unfolding his daily, printed newspaper, he heard a familiar female voice calling from the other end of counter, “Morning, Doc! The usual?”

Without moving his gaze from the printed page, he replied, “The usual please, Lulu.”

Hearing approaching footsteps, he looked her way. The years had transformed a young, pretty, curvaceous and vivacious cheerleader with long, straight, naturally chestnut-red hair into an old, wrinkled, tired waitress with hair now short, frizzy, and reddish-orange. He watched her now-dumpy body with fleshy arms and swollen ankles carry freshly brewed, hot coffee his way. Her sad eyes belied her forced smile.

“Doc” Jenkins mused, “No wonder the young feel aversion towards the elderly. Someday, thereto go they. Scares the Hell out of them and rightly so. Little gold to be found in the Golden Years.”

Moments later, Sam, the short-order cook, handed Lulu the usual plate of two eggs over-easy accompanied by crisp bacon and well-buttered wholewheat toast. With a sigh but no smile, the aged waitress delivered the traditional, satisfying, American breakfast decried loudly and widely as “unhealthy” when they who made the claim, ignorant of their native tongue, meant unhealthful.

Lulu mused, “If I had a buck for each of these, I’d be a millionairess. Well . . . close.”

About to take his first bite, “Doc” Jenkins sensed a new presence. A young man, almost still a boy, took the stool on his left.

The youth was handsome with his black hair and eyes as grey as a wolf. Hair shaved on both sides left a wide swath slick from pomade combed back from a perfectly formed forehead atop an unshaven face. His arms were littered with tattoos, the most prominent reading “Born to die!” and “Mom” inside a heart. Some claim that tattoos are windows to the soul.

Glancing at the lad, the physician continued his previous line of thought. “Seniors! The Media call us ‘seniors’. A sick joke. What does it make the younger generation, ‘juniors’? Seniors! A pathetic euphemism straining to mitigate the specter of ageing.”

In that which sounded like a whisper, the young man said, “What luck! Am I glad to find you here, Doc.”

The elderly physician nodded and replied, “If you’re going to whisper, move to my right. My hearing is better on that side.”

Switching stools, the young man said, “Hey, no problem. I didn’t think I was whispering.”

The words caused the physician to cringe. “Oh God, my hearing must be getting worse. Another joy of old age.”

Truly, for all but a lucky few, entering old age heralds a continuing series of losses with few gains, fewer head-colds being one of the gains. A poor bargain, indeed. Little wonder that depression and the elderly become frequent companions.

Lulu approached the young man. “What can I get you, Hon?”


“Coca-Cola? For breakfast?” With a shrug, she turned and headed for the soda-fountain.

With a glass of colored, fizzy water sweetened with syrup from corn not sugar before him, the young man almost shouted, “Like I said, Doc. Dumb luck finding you here.”

“Pipe down! I can hear you without your shouting. Why so glad?”

The young man placed his unshaven upper lip next to the physician’s freshly shaven ear and whispered loudly, “I’ve got a problem.”



“Come see me at my office. Make an appointment.”



“Did you hear me, son, or you going deaf, too?”

“Deaf? Me? Going deaf? No, way! No problem there.”

“In that case, do you want to tell me what is your problem, or shall I guess?”


“All right, son, I’ll guess. Your problem is sexual.”

“How’d you know, Doc? Who told you?”

“You did but not in words. Supposedly, b fsy chance, you spied me here. You came in because you don’t want to come to my office, right?”

“Yeah, right.”

“Why? Because you don’t want a medical record.”



The young man’s concern was justified. Like all his medical colleagues, Dr. Rufus Jenkins employed a computerized medical record offered by a local hospital, one of a large chain of hospitals all using the same inter-connected system. The old-style physician had resisted. Reality, however, has its way. Had he been willing to forego payment for most of his services, he could have continued using ink on paper stored in folders.

The new system actually proved less efficient than the old and certainly more public. Instead of dictating the findings of an initial History & Physical or jotting in ink from a pen a quick Progress Note onto paper, he endured the cumbersome, sometimes confusing task of searching for the correct box in the correct image projected onto the screen of an electronic monitor. Worse, the “techies’ continually were “updating” the system with changes initially befuddling even for users much younger and more savvy.

“O brave new world that has such people in ’t!” -from The Tempest by William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

Worse yet, when taking a medical history from a new patient or listening to a chief complaint from a current one, his focus was on a screen and keyboard — not on the patient’s face and body. More than once, he had complained to medical colleagues, “It’s an evil change . . . evil in the name of progress. Worst of the worst is patients’ loss of privacy. Change? Yes. Progress? If so, it’s progress without a conscience. Who would design such perfidy with no thought to consequence?”

Admittedly, loss of privacy can create an adversarial system between physician and patient; whereby, the patient withholds vital information, not wanting the rest of the world to gain access to it. Truly, the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship has been violated. Is the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship next? Apparently.

The new electronic context had put into a bind the elderly physician bound to tradition. If he even listened to his potential patient without creating an official record, be there a lawsuit, he would have no written documentation for his defense. Contemporary legal contingencies demanded that, to be true to his malpractice-insurance, he create a record. Traditional medical contingencies demanded that, to be true to his calling, he render service. What to do?


Pondering his dilemma, the elderly physician noted tears in the eyes of his young companion. Youthful tears dissolved elderly caution.

“Doc” Jenkins recognized that he was leaving himself totally vulnerable. An unfounded, vexatious lawsuit filed by an avaricious lawyer of whom no shortage existed likely would become the final insult among so many others to his remaining in practice.

“All right, son, I’ll tell you what I can do for you. Accompany me to my office. I’ll see you before we open. There’ll be no electronic record. There, however, will be one on paper kept privately by me. Also, there’ll be no charge.”

“No charge?”

“No charge! No financial charge . . . no financial record.”

With a smile revealing neglected teeth, the youth exclaimed, “Hey, Doc, you’re a cool dude.”

“Cool dude, eh? Tell me, son, why do you find the need for such secrecy about a malady so common? Today, young people carry venereal disease almost like a badge of honor. It’s a sign of . . . what do you people call it, ‘hooking up’? In my era, a first date more likely ended with kissing not copulating. Anyway, why the secrecy?”

His question seemed rhetorical. He already had noted the wedding ring to which the young man pointed.

“One night. One girl. One mistake, Doc.”

“One ugly consequence. Behavior has its consequences, you know. Bad consequences usually follow bad behaviors.”

“Yeah, that’s it. Consequences. My wife . . . I really love her, you know. She might not divorce me but knowing would break her heart.”

Later, while walking in silence to his office, “Doc” Jenkins considered some of the ramifications of human sexuality. He recalled the famous quip attributed to the long-dead Englishman, Philip Stanhope (1694-1773), “Sex:— the pleasure is momentary; the position ridiculous; and the expense damnable.” He himself added, “The expense can be more than money. Some things never change. Yet, who today remembers the scourge of syphilis in the fifteenth century, killing more than a million Europeans covered head to foot with pustules?”

Especially in the Western world, invidious forces had been undermining the age-old, worldwide concept of female chastity and male fidelity as virtues. Promoters of those forces proclaimed newly-coined “rights” based upon nothing but abstract and idiosyncratic, ideological proclamations. The undermining became wholesale with the introduction of pills to prevent conception. A pill a day keeps a baby away, allowing women to go astray. There always is a man handy willing to oblige a willing woman.

With “the pill” had come the bill — diseases. Not just syphilis. The so-called Sexual Revolution brought diseases previously unknown. Fully one-quarter of young American women now carry a venereal disease. The portals to pleasure have become the portals to pathology.

“And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.” -Matthew 6:13


With medical history taken and physical examination completed, “Doc” Jenkins sent his young patient to a nearby laboratory for medical tests including a smear of exudate from the male member for purposes of microscopic examination as well as culture and sensitivity. The diagnosis, however, appeared obvious — gonorrhea! He hoped the infection would prove treatable.

[Note: In 1943 with the advent of penicillin, treatment of gonorrhea had become simple and speedy. Previously, as for Emma’s leukemia, no effective treatment existed.

Prior to penicillin, men usually had cleared the infection themselves. Untreated, the infection may resolve but with urethral scaring. Scars contract. Contracting causes strictures. Strictures cause urinary retention. Treatment? Passing a metal sound through the urethra. Painful? Excruciating!

Women contracting the infection often had suffered its transformation into pelvic inflammatory disease. Untreated, “PID” can localize into an abscess then explode into widespread abdominal infection. Widespread infection can cause death. Consequence of surgical treatment? For those who survived, infertility.

“The future isn’t what it used to be.” -Paul Valéry (1871-1945)

Penicillin and other antibiotics had changed that terrifying scenario. That change, however, was yesterday. Today, a new change — actually, more of an old one. Some strains of the bacterium, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, have acquired resistance to all known antibiotics. Welcome to the past! In the case of gonorrhea, Monsieur Valery was wrong; the future is that which it used to be.]

Before the young man departed, “Doc” Jenkins announced, “I need the name of the girl. Even more than you, she needs treatment. I’ll do for her what I’m doing for you . . . if she wishes.”

“No, I’ll tell her, Doc.”

“Nothing doing! I need to inform her myself and document . . . privately . . . having done so as well as getting the names of her other sexual contacts.”

“Other contacts?”

“Come now! You don’t fancy yourself her only stud, do you?” He thought that, perhaps, he should regret having used the pejorative term. He did not.


“No, I guess not. Okay, you can tell her.”

After his patient had departed, not waiting for diagnostic confirmation from the laboratory, “Doc” Jenkins telephoned the contact. If he waited, he could not predict how many sexual contacts she might have during the interval.

The young woman answered immediately. The elderly physician explained as gently as he could the situation.

Her reply was swift and not gentle. “No way, Doctor! That’s not how it happened. I was a virgin until that . . . that . . . until he almost raped me.”

The physician thought, “A virgin? At her age? Rarer than a real silver-dollar.”

“Raped you? Serious allegation.”

As any prosecuting attorney can testify, rape is the easiest crime to allege — the hardest to prove. In an age of radical feminism, men become presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent; a challenging task, at best.

This young woman proved to be other than a radical feminist. “All right, maybe it wasn’t real rape. I suppose that I didn’t say, ‘No!’ Anyway, I also didn’t give him ‘the clap’. He gave it to me. I’ve seen my ‘Gyn’, and I’ve been tested.”

“Doc” Jenkins took a moment to collect his thoughts. Surprise — a frequent companion of sex.

Then, he asked, “Do you know from whom he contracted the disease?”

In a softened tone, she answered, “Look, I’ve known the guy for a long time . . . pretty close. We work together. I admit it. I might’ve been partially at fault. He’s good looking. I liked flirting with him . . . nothing serious . . . just joking, or so I thought until that one time.”

“So, if he didn’t contract the disease from you, from whom?”

“Good question! He told me he’d never fooled around before . . . never cheated on his wife. Personally, I believe him. He’s not only good looking and real nice. He’s a straight-arrow.”

“So, from whom?”

“His wife. Who else? There’s been talk. The husband is the last to know, right?”

Even after all his years of medical practice, her answer made the old gentleman feel slightly sick. He silently recalled a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “Frailty, thy name is woman.” He added, “And just as often, men.”

“Two more questions, Miss. Have the results of your diagnostic tests returned?”


“Yes. Gonorrhea.”

“Antibiotics. Is your case sensitive to antibiotics . . . any antibiotic?”

(Silence then sobbing.)


© Gene Richard Moss (2017)

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


February 27th, 2017

Note (13MAR2017): As the nation descends into a semi-psychotic depravity promoted by disestablishmentarians, have you wondered what is the primary controlling factor governing the support of such societal insanity by more than one hundred, major corporations? What reïnforces their corporate behavior? A clue resides in the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Psychosis n.: A term formerly applied to any mental disorder now generally restricted to those disturbances of such magnitude that there is personality disintegration and loss of contact with reality. -Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary

Can it not be said that the personality of a society, if you will, originates in its biology and presents itself as its culture? Compare, for example, the African Negroid pygmy with the Scandinavian Euro-Caucasian.

Be such the case, is not the personality of these United States of America, as we have known them, disintegrating? Is not the nation, as a whole, losing contact with reality?

Consider demographics. Has not the exponential increase in racial and ethnic diversity of the nation since 1965 ignited a fire of divisiveness that is disintegrating the prior biological and cultural persona of the nation?

See “Diversity”.

Consider sexual identity. Is not redefining sexual identity no longer as a biologically determined, physical characteristic but as a mentally driven, verbal statement a sign of having lost contact with reality?

Is it any wonder that the Chinese now characterize these United States as a nation in terminal decline? What possible justification can support the American madness? Humanitarianism?

[Note: The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 proved to be one of the most important pieces of legislation of the 20th-century, directly leading to the “multi-culturalism” of the early 21st. The original legislation sponsored by two Democrats called for admission based upon skills. It fell victim to Rep. Michael Feighan (D-OH), who called for admission based upon “family-reunification”. Ironically, anti-immigrant Feighan wrongly believed that the consequence of the change would be to admit fewer immigrants who were not Euro-Caucasians. Instead, the consequence was admission of more — neither Euro-Caucasoid nor skilled.

Both LBJ and Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy (1932-2009), younger brother of the late President, supported the change. Kennedy promised that the legislation would not change the complexion of the country. He lied.

Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000. Thirty years later, it was more than 1,000,000. He also claimed wrongly that few would be from Asia. -End of Note]

Humanitarianism n.: Concern for human welfare. -Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” -Samuel Adams (1722-1803); essay in The Public Advertiser, c.1749

Humanitarianism has become a self-righteous obscenity camouflaging a multitude of sins. Instead of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number, it has degenerated into sacrificing the whole in order to serve a part, often an undeserving part; even a minuscule, undeserving part.

In the name of “humanitarianism”, while invoking so-called rights that never have existed nor should exist, the disestablishmentarians have concocted a euphemism for a particular form of sexual perversion; namely, “trans-gender”. Then, to protect the perverts who cloaked themselves in that euphemism, less than one-tenth of 1% of the population, the disestablishmentarians are destroying a millenia-old history of basic morality, commonplace decency, and personal privacy of the most intimate kind.

As for ostensibly protecting children characterizing themselves of the opposite sex, the majority of such children revert to normalcy by the time of their adolescence. Beware of those subverting society in the name of “protecting the children”.

The false claim of “trans-gender”as a sexual identity is based upon subjective, cognitively-modulated mental activity. True sexual identity is based upon objective, genetically-determined physical attributes.


The issue is biological not psychological. To deny this fact is to deny reality; which, in turn, furthers this nation on fire in its descent into semi-psychosis — exactly that which the disestablishmentarians desire . Abstract, idiosyncratic, misguided ideologies promoting outrages of semi-psychotic proportions in the name of so-called social justice subvert any sound, rational basis for law, policy, and social intercourse.

Whence comes the recent clamor for legitimizing the illegitimate? From those who ascribe to traditional American ideals and values? From those who ascribe to written Judeo-Christian doctrine? From those who ascribe to the Constitution of the United States of America as written?

“He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

No. The clamor comes from those atheistic and agnostic secular-relativists who, striving for power, distort history and destroy not only traditional American ideals and values but all of Western civilization. Paradoxically, many are themselves self-loathing Euro-Caucasians whose own biological and cultural heritage they desire to destroy.

Common sense bears witness that any society expecting to survive over generations must provide some format by which to bear and rear children. For millennia, the format worldwide had been families consisting of legal unions sanctioned by government between men and women. Persons violating that format typically received severe condemnation; often ostracism from the rest of society; sometimes death.

Consider the plight of the American Negro as a tragic paradigm. The politicians and bureaucrats, especially the Democrats, intentionally have turned Negroes into serfs dependent upon Big Government. They’ve destroyed the Negroid sub-culture by destroying the Negroid family. Eighty-percent of Negroid births is out-of-wedlock. What future have these children historically considered bastards?

Among American Euro-Caucasians, 38% of births is illegitimate. In 1950, 2% was.

What more effective way to wreck traditional Americana than to destroy the traditional American family? What more effective way to destroy the American family than to abandon common decency in favor of a depravity rarely witnessed before in human history, if ever?

The goal? To have replaced current, concrete reality with an abstract, ill-conceived, quasi-Marxist utopia impossible to achieve.

This declining nation now on fire faces an uncertain and unsettling future. As we descend into the pit of moral anarchy, let us remember that which becomes our ultimate destination — the Hell of tyranny.

Biobehavioral Science tells us that behavior has its consequences. The response of that which remains of a sane society to counter the current attack will determine the ultimate consequences of our behavior as individuals and as a society.

So, what best to do and how to do it? Are there answers to those two questions? Fortunately, yes.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


February 13th, 2017

“To sleep, perchance to dream; aye, there’s the rub.” -from Hamlet by William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

Prince Hamlet was referring to death, but what if the rub refers to insomnia? What then to do?

insomnia n.: Prolonged or abnormal inability to sleep. -Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary

So, insomnia comes in two forms. The first can be merely a prolonged inability to sleep, which per se may not be abnormal, dependent upon context. The second is abnormal, independent of context.

In the first case, the independent variable (controlling factor) is environmental. Some environmental stressor is eliciting a negative physiological response in the form of an inability to sleep, be it an inability to fall asleep, to stay asleep, or both.

Treatment? Simple! Remove the stressor, if possible, or at least try to diminish its potency.

How? There, too, lies a rub. The ability to meet that challenge is that which separates winners from losers in life — hugs, kisses, kind words, and other “warm fuzzies” notwithstanding.

Meanwhile, a simple set of procedures is available:
1) Use the bed only for sleeping or sexual activity. Do not lie awake in bed.
2) Avoid intake of stimulants such as caffeine with or after supper.
3) Avoid use of alcohol before bedtime, the rebound from which involves wakefulness.
4) Avoid stimulating activities directly before bedtime, including watching television; which, contrary to a widespread misconception, is not relaxing.
5) Practice meditation or Relaxation Procedure.

How detrimental is insomnia in healthy people? The answer remains unclear. Some claim that a lack of sleep per se never killed anyone — directly, that is; mishaps in the biological context of somnolence notwithstanding. In fact, forced wakefulness actually relieves depression, which does kill people. Two points: 1) worrying about insomnia promotes insomnia; and 2) best to avoid sleeping medications, if possible.

In the second case, the independent variable is biological. Some pathological condition is eliciting a negative physiological response in the form of an inability to sleep, be it an inability to fall asleep, to stay asleep, or both.

Treatment in this case depends upon the underlying diagnosis. What is the pathological condition? The answer may be complex if more than one condition is the cause.

In the elderly, for example, insomnia may herald the onset of dementia. Add to dementia delirium, and the combination can present a real medical challenge. By the way, delirium interfering with sleep may accompany dementia once manifest or other neurodegenerative diseases.

Regarding circadian rhythm, older insomniacs display advanced sleep-phase; whereas, young adults display delayed sleep-phase, often the consequence of simply remaining active past normal bedtime playing video-games. Treatment, especially for the elderly, may be use of a bright light possibly coupled with melatonin. Whatever the case, only a comprehensive medical evaluation by a competent physician can determine the underlying condition, if any.

That medical evaluation begins with a complete medical history, increasingly difficult to come by in this era of the Sovietization of American medicine when patients increasing are attended by “Doctor Nurse” instead of “Doctor Doctor” and even by the latter for diminishing periods of time. Often, the patient’s bed-partner provides the best information. Despite all the fancy and expensive technological innovations, 80% of medical diagnoses still are made by history, 10% by physical examination, and 5% by routine laboratory-tests.

Once diagnosed, the underlying condition can be treated as best as practicable. When such treatment proves inadequate, the physician can prescribe a pharmacological agent. Some newer agents are relatively safe even long term and maintain sleeping architecture; i.e., normal phases of the sleeping cycle. Avoid “over-the-counter drugs” because the benefit:risk ratio often is uncertain, at best.

Sleep is a natural function found in most vertebrates, if not all. It restores the neurochemical balance. Sweet dreams!

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


January 23rd, 2017

Note (06FEB2017): More Republicans now plan not to repeal ObamaCare but to repair it. What would Mr. Peifer say (See below.)? Why? They have no credible replacement even though one has existed since 1994.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

Elected and in-office, Republicans now face some hard truths associated with issues challenging this declining nation on fire. One is ObamaCare and the Republicans’ pledge to “repeal and replace” it. Words have power.

“Not on fire,” you say.

Witness the new President’s address at his inauguration; never mind the protests nationwide, some violent. Would you characterize it as conciliatory? Aggressive? Words have power.

In any debate, it is reasonable and appropriate to ask the opposition — the entrenched political establishment, Democrat and Republican — to define the terms that it uses; in this case, “healthcare”. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) does not list the term even. Whence cameth it?

What exactly is “healthcare”? As the term denotes, it is a governmentally concocted, pleasant-sounding euphemism that refers to caring for one’s health. (In contrast, “medicine” is not so pleasant-sounding because it denotes suffering.) “Healthcare”, however, is amorphous and includes everything from washing your hair to brushing your teeth to cutting your toenails. Simply put, “healthcare” is not synonymous with medicine. Words have power.

Another governmentally concocted euphemism, “healthcare-provider”, includes anyone and everyone who promotes himself as rendering advice, assistance, or instruction in the care of one’s health. It is intended to diminish the stature of the lynchpin in medical delivery, the physician. Words have power.

What is medicine? It the healing art based upon science the mission of which is the relief of suffering caused by disease and trauma. Its practitioners are known as physicians; those whom they diagnose and treat, patients. Words have power.

Repair Not Replace
Definitions notwithstanding, of “repeal and replace”, “repeal” is the easier; whereas, “replace”, the more difficult — the much more difficult. Accordingly, some Republican legislators now are talking about “repair” instead of “replace”. Surprised?

“An error lurking in the roots of a system of thought does not become truth simply by being evolved.” -John Frederick Peifer

The basis of this “repair” seems to be a new, politically concocted term — “Health Savings Accounts”, which are merely “Medical Savings Accounts” in new verbal clothing. Country-club Republicanism as its worst! The average American cannot afford a car, let alone a “Medical Savings Account” by whatever name.

“Catastrophic Coverage”?
Some opponents of ObamaCare, such as Tucker Carlson at Fox News, are promoting “Catastrophic Coverage” rather than basic medical coverage. “Catastrophic Coverage” may play well on television, but basic medical coverage offers the biggest bang for the medical buck.

Who most needs “Catastrophic Coverage”? The unproductive old.

It has been known for years, for example, that, during the last year of life, Medicare recipients spend 30-cents of every dollar expended on medical care during their entire lifetime. Of the 1% of Medicare beneficiaries with the highest costs in any given year, approximately 50% die. Of the 5% with the highest costs, approximately 40% die. Of the elderly who survive, 50% are demented by the age of eight-five. Therein lie the reasons that Medicare alone is bankrupting these United States of America. Hard truths!


Today, a major question facing physicians and the rest of American society is whether the consequence of past declines in mortality is an increase in active life-expectancy or merely an expanded and grotesque period of frailty, enfeeblement, and dependency. Apparently, the answer is the latter.

“Diaper, madam? Catheter, sir? Don’t worry. The young and productive will be paying tomorrow for the old and unproductive today.”

Not a pretty picture! Even physicians do not like looking at it. Chronic, debilitating illness — not dying — is becoming our worst medical enemy, individually and socially.

Meanwhile, who least need “Catastrophic Coverage”? The productive young who generally require only acute medical care for acute medical problems with occasional exceptions. Therein lies the reason that premiums would be so cheap to insure, really insure, all American young for serious medical events.

Fooling The Public
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, and them’s pretty darn good odds.”

Be not fooled by self-styled gurus on television or in the newspaper spinning misinformation. Be not fooled by power-hungry professional politicians seeking to retain control of medicine.

Remember Obama’s promises about the benefits of ObamaCare, such as keeping your doctor and your plan? Once again, those who direct public opinion are acting against the Public Good by promoting inefficient systems politically based and politically directed.

Science And Medial Delivery
A patient’s seeking medical care is a behavior. A physician’s providing medical care is a behavior.

There is a science that describes behavior as well as thoughts, feelings, and physiological responses. That science is Biobehavioral Science.

“What?” you say. “Biobehavioral Science? Never heard of it!”

Therein lies the problem not just for you but for nearly all humanity. Guess what? Ignorant about Biobehavioral Science themselves, were they not, the politicians would not want you to hear of it; especially its derivative, the Science of Human Behavior. To them, it would represent an anathema.

Were they willing to listen, they would screech in terror, “Specificity, Objectivity, and Accountability? Never! Never, I tell you!”

Any system not scientifically based and scientifically directed to deliver medical care to a population must be, by its very nature, fatally flawed and fated to failure — doomed to delivering care that is of decreasing availability and decreasing quality. Less availability. Lower quality.

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” ―Benjamin Franklin

Do you care? Actually, few do until they fall ill or become injured. Too late!

We already are suffering from the Sovietization of American medicine; whereby, for example, you see “Doctor Nurse” not “Doctor Doctor”. When you do see “Doctor Doctor”, he — or increasingly she — is looking mainly at the computer-screen not at you. Why? In order to fulfill the increasing regulatory demands of governmental bureaucrats for increasing documentation of decreasing care.

Meanwhile, a scientifically-based, scientifically-directed, detailed plan for delivery of universal medical care by a competitive private sector characterized by the following attributes is available and has been available for more than 20 years. It is characterized by the following:
1) Simple;
2) Straightforward;
3) Free of special taxes;
4) Minimal regulations;
5) Minimal bureaucracy;
6) Free of fraud at taxpayers’ expense; and
7) Acceptable to insurance companies.

No, it is not the failed ClintonCare. In fact, the opposite.

Will the politicians ever acknowledge it, let alone adopt it? Fat chance! Unless, of course, you make them. It’s your health. It’s your life.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.