“HEALTHCARE REFORM”: SOME HARD TRUTHS

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.

“Healthcare”
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!

PART TWO

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.

-End-

TRUMP DAY

January 16th, 2017

Another inauguration. Typically, the victorious politicians — this time in the charade of swapping stations, Republicans — will be celebrating their access to power; money; and, yes, sometimes even sex. Nothing new there.

“Never give a sucker an even break.” -W. C. Fields (1880-1946) in Poppy (1936)

Now in control of the federal government, will the Republicans the voters an even break? Will they embrace Science over Politics — the Science of Human Behavior? Fat chance!

Consider their call to repeal and replace the unconstitutional disaster called “ObamaCare”. Replace it with what? So-called Medical Savings Accounts? Country-club Republicanism as its worst. The average American can’t afford a car, let alone a “Medical Savings Account”.

Control of medical care by local politicians instead of federal? Good luck there!

See “MEDICAL DELIVERY: A TALE OF WOE”.

No, most likely it will be business as usual — the same toxin but with a different flavoring in a different bottle but with the same stench. Preferring politically-motivated and politically-manipulated policies and programs, once again their efforts will be doomed to failure. Then what?

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

DISSATISFACTION GUARANTEED

January 9th, 2017

“Life outside society would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” -from Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

We Westerners live in societies that, throughout the relatively short history of our species, our forbears would have considered miraculous. Until well into the 20th-century, life for most remained as Hobbes as described it.

“Death borders upon our birth, and our cradle stands in the grave.” -Joseph Hall, Bishop of Exeter (1564-1656)

Consider the following: As late as the end of the 19th-century, one out of ten births ended in maternal death. Two out of ten, in fetal death. Surviving infants faced substantial mortality from commonplace disease and unavoidable trauma as well as even greater morbidity therefrom.

Depending upon geographical location and climatic changes, humans faced the threats of hunger from famine and thirst from drought. Periodic plagues swept across the land; for example, Bubonic Plague (“Black Death”) that killed as many as 200-million in the 14th-century. The threat continued; for example, influenza in 1918 that killed as many as 100-million. It continues today.

What changed a context dominated by fear and despair? Not idiosyncratic ideologies. Not superstitious myths. Not charismatic charlatans with their empty promises. Only Science and its applied derivative, Technology. The scientist Isaac Newton (1643-1727) alone contributed more to overall human betterment than all political leaders combined.

Science and Technology changed the quality and quantity of human existence. Consider just the luxuries of air conditioning to cool and central heating to warm, never mind the necessities of clean water to drink, untainted food to eat, and medicines to cure.

Consequence in the Western world? For one, satiation accompanied by dissatisfaction with the benefits with which Westerners have been blessed.

“A fool hath no delight in understanding,
But only that his heart may lay itself bare.” -Proverbs 18:2

Now, consider the hordes of whining, spoiled, self-indulgent ingrates demonizing those betters throughout history to whom they owe their comfort — nay, their well-being and, for most, their lives. More dangerous is their demonizing the means of their good fortune — Science and Technology — in favor of misguided ideologies and mystical superstitions.

“There is gold and a multitude of rubies;
But the lips of knowledge are a precious jewel.” -Proverbs 20:15

Beyond comfort, health, and longevity, we owe Science an unpayable debt for bestowing upon us the gift of knowledge — knowledge of our world; our universe; and, yes, ourselves. Yet, when we employ that branch of Science describing our own behavior, cognition, and emotion — the Science of Human Behavior — to better society, we reject it, preferring charismatic charlatans and pseudo-scientific myths.

“The light of life is insufficiently bright to overcome the darkness of reality.” -Erich Maria Remarque (1898-1970)

For our disregard of that branch of Science, we humans likely shall pay a heavy price. What price? Our existence.

The two, most perilous threats to human existence coming from the darkness of reality are nuclear war and plague. The former is a consequence entirely of our own behavior. The latter, largely a consequence of it.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” – John Heywood (1497-1580)

The time is not too late. The clock, however, is ticking. Tic-toc … Tic-toc … Tic-toc.

Before we as a species cease to exist and while time remains, let us try, at least, to see the Road to Redemption by brightening the light of life. How? By using the fuel of Biobehavioral Science and its offspring, the Science of Human Behavior.

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

HISTORY BY HOLLYWOOD

December 19th, 2016

Note (26DEC2016): A poem —
‘Twas Christmas Day and throughout the land,
Racial propaganda was cinematically at hand.

In “selected theaters”, Hidden Figures had opened as planned
To spread misinformation labelled as grand.

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

In these United States of America, who in the present controls telling the history of the past? Who shapes Americans’ view of history? Who? The producers of entertainment — otherwise known collectively as “Hollywood”.

Consider that Americans’ most trusted person in the world is . . . .? You guessed it. An actor! Tom Hanks, whom Americans know not by his own persona but by those of the characters whom he has played via shadows projected onto an otherwise blank screen.

“Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.” -Petronius (1st-century A.D.)

The real Tom Hanks? In reality, he may be a great guy. Who knows? What’s worse, who cares? Apparently, not the American public as a whole.

The Real History
“No government ought to be without censors & where the press is free, no one ever will.” -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

Since the cinematic studios moved from New York City to Los Angeles early in the 20th-century, “Hollywood” politically and sociologically has tilted towards The Left — economically, too, except as economics applies to “Hollywood”. Early on, some of its productions tested the bounds of common decency, leading to the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures (established originally in 1909) finally to begin real censorship in the early 1930s. Need one comment on the current adherence in “Hollywood” today to common decency?

Then, beginning in the late 1930s “Hollywood” — a number of the most illustrious members of which were card-carrying Communists — evidenced a burst of good old, American traditionalism after Kristallnacht in Nazified Germany. Until that time, “Hollywood” had allowed Nazis’ censors dispatched to these shores by Adolf Hitler in Berlin to alter American cinematic productions. Hey, Germany represented a lucrative market — Nazis or no Nazis.

The Nazis’ censorship notwithstanding, also in the 1930s “Hollywood” began to promote the image of the American Negro. How? Initially, simply by inserting as so-called cameo-roles gratuitous glimpses of well-dressed, upstanding-looking Negroes, for example, standing in public buildings.

“Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together.” -Deuteronomy 22:10

After World War Two, “Hollywood” accelerated its push to turn these United States of America from a predominantly Christian, Euro-Caucasoid nation into a so-called multi-cultural one; including the promotion of racial miscegenation, which had been illegal in many States and today remains contrary to Scripture.

“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

So went the words of the late-Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy about legislation promoting so-called familial reünification — legislation that was to open the floodgates to Africans, Asians, and Latins. Consequence? The dispossessing of the American majority. Meanwhile, Senator Kennedy — himself a philandering, cowardly drunk who later caused Mary Jo Kopechne’s drowning in 1969 — was promising Mr. and Mrs. America that the legislation would not change the complexion of the country. It was a flat-out lie.

He also flat-out lied with the following promise: “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.”

Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000. Thirty years later, it was more than 1,000,000. Kennedy also lied when he promised that few immigrants would be from Asia.

“Not representative of the typical politician!” you say? Perhaps.

Once passed into law by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President, the bill did change the complexion of the nation. It drove a stake through the demographic heart of these United States as it had been previously.

“I the Lord search the heart,
I try the reins,
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings.” – Jeremiah 17:10

“All for the better!” you say? Perhaps. Best to judge behavior by its consequences.

In doing so, forget your preconceived biases. Ask yourself the following: Objectively, are these United States better off today than in 1965? Economically? Educationally? Legally? Militarily? Politically? Sociologically?

Acceptance by the then soon-to-be dwindling Euro-Caucasoid majority reflected the incessant barrage of propaganda from the self-styled elitists of The Left in “Hollywood” — later the elitists in academia and the electronic Media. By 2008, the minds of Americans had become numbed to the point that voters elected a Marxist-oriented, Mohammedan-reared Mulatto of uncertain origin — someone who never had served in the military, never had owned a business, and never had held an honest job — whose primary goal seemed to be to have destroyed that which remained of “White America”. Consider his wife and he listening for twenty years to their pastor, Jeremiah Wright (b. 1941), screaming, “God damn America!”

How could such a transformation occur? Hollywood, for one!

It was said, for example, that without the actor Denzel Washington’s (b. 1954) idealized portrayals of Negroes in moving pictures Barack Hussein Obama II never could have moved into the White House.

The Latest
The most recent cinematic revision of history by “Hollywood” comes in the form of Hidden Figures. To begin, ask yourself the following: Whence came the name “computer”?

According to reports about Hidden Figures, its derivation lies in those electronic machines being named after a group of Negresses led by one Dorothy Vaughn at NASA. These women supposedly computed the trajectory for the rocket that carried the Astronaut, John Glenn (1921-2016), into orbit around Earth. Among them was the light-skinned Negress, Kathryn Johnson, who worked on the project as an electrical engineer. “Hollywood” and its sycophants now are characterizing these women as “the brains” behind NASA.

So, were these women actually the first human computers? No.

The truth is that U.S. Army contracted for the development of the first, functional electronic computer years previously during World War Two. The two, male, Euro-Caucasoid developers — John W. Mauchly and John “Pres” Eckert, Jr. at the University of Pennsylvania — named the machine after a group of Euro-Caucasoid women each laboring to compute the trajectories of individual pieces of artillery. These women were the first human “computers”. As a prelude to the future, the first electronic computer, Eniac with its 18,000 vacuum-tubes, was intended to replace them.

[Note: John von Neumann (1903-1957; aka/Johann von Neumann). Hungarian-Jewish mathematician, having made truly important contributions to both mathematics and physics as well as game-theory, sometimes incorrectly is credited with the development of the first electronic computer. See McCartney, S: Eniac. New York: Walker & Co. (1999).]

So, were the Negresses actually “the brains” behind NASA? Did they even provide the computations used by NASA? No.

Electronic computers actually provided the trajectories. Subsequently, these women checked the computations for possible errors.

Does Hidden Figures represent just another in a long line of historically-oriented productions that exceed by a wide margin poetic license and that fall into the category of misleading propaganda? Historical hogwash by “Hollywood”. Apparently.

Do Negroes require such phony propaganda in order to present a creative, productive image? Apparently, “Hollywood” believes that they do.

In this age of a declining American nation on fire, to present phony images of Negroes who, nevertheless, did make notable contributions is to demean those contributions and those who made them. Doing so only fuels the fire of divisiveness and resentment.

See “Truth & Consequences” herein.

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