Dr. McKalip,

It seems you want the medical fascism as much as the government minions that work for the insurance companies, the American Medical Association, and big Pharma.  Only your version is the one you advocate. 

You don't even suggest alternative medical care.  You know, the medical care that is very inexpensive, and doesn't need the "advice" of an allopathic doctor. 

What is this "annual checkup"?  It has been years since I visited a medical doctor.  I purchased vitamins and minerals, a few beers, a night on the town, and alimony payments with the money I saved.  That was MY CHOICE!  Get it?  I CHOSE!

I have friends that have their annual checkup, and 100% of the time, 100% of the time, I want to put a fine point on this, 100% OF THE TIME, those poor suckers are given a prescription of some kind or advised to "quit smoking" or "eat healthy".  And are diagnosed with some malady or other.

The last time I went to a medical doctor he wanted to chop part of my stomach out and toss it in the garbage, then hang a bag on me that he would sell me!  He is a sales agent for the company that produces the bags.  And he was only going to charge me about $12,000,00!  Imagine his generosity.  I declined his offer, went across the street, literally, and for the paltry sum of $195.00 I got cured and still have all of my body!

I understand your concern.  Health care is important.  Preventive health care is the most important!  No member of the AMA of which I am aware, is concerned with any preventive measures.  They seem to be concerned with drugging the customer and/or cutting body parts off for the incinerator after the fact. 

Get out of my life, doc, you and the rest of the medical "profession", get out of my life.  You, nor the government, have any RIGHT to be even discussing my health care.  It is MINE!   leave my property alone! 

If I choose to smoke a little cannibas to alleviate pain, that is my choice.  The government, however, along with the paper industry, the cotton industry, the medical industry, and the police industry, have chosen to interfere with my FREEDOM OF CHOICE!  MY NATURAL RIGHT to take care of myself is being interfered with by you, doc, and the other fascist organizations extant in the good ole ewe ess of ay.  But you have the guns.  Or do you?

Thank you,

Robert Walker

It should be pointed out that greedy and/or misguided doctors (and I am not accusing ALL doctors of being either) helped advance the state of medicine to this point by pushing legislation they hoped would increase their bottom line.  They opened the door to the insurance industry, thinking patients would spend more money on services.  It started at the state level, where sometime in the fairly distant past doctors used their clout to pass laws making it illegal for doctors to even advertise the price of their services and therefore compete like normal human beings.  Then they supported Nixon's fascist/socialist tax deduction and mandated insurance coverage plan that swept in the insurance vipers to micromanage.  

The end result of using political machinations and clout to infringe on others' rights is always the same -- it results in idiocracy.  We could derive some satisfaction from seeing a greed head who went into medicine to make a buck forced to toady to some pimply high school graduate wearing an Obama armband, but I prefer that everyone concerned wake up and realize that government and corporate organizations should not be used to stifle freedom and competition for the sake of a quick buck and easy solution.  Doctors, you have come full circle -- it's time to wake up and smell the colostomy bag your colleagues spilled to begin with.

The problem with health care or medical care is the government has been meddling with it since World War Two.  Each instance of government intrusion has created inefficiencies that has resulted in further government intrusions that only create greater inefficiencies.   This is why we Americans are about to have full blown socialized medicine foisted upon us.

During World War Two, employers offered health insurance as a benefit to get around the federal government's wage controls.  After the war, President Harry Truman proposed a national healthcare plan that was wisely rejected.  Soon after, the IRS attempted to tax health insurance benefits.  This created an uproar and Congress responded by exempting them from taxation.  So health insurance became a standard tax-exempt benefit included in full time employment compensation packages.  Health insurance, rather than being just another purchase an individual made, became associated with one's employment.  So here we had the federal tax code distorting the market.

Nevertheless, until the 1960s, most people paid for medical care out-of-pocket and insurance was reserved for catastrophic care.  In 1965, as a part of LBJ's Great Society program, the federal government created Medicare and Medicaid.  Until then, the medical profession had adamantly opposed anything resembling socialized medicine.  But these two programs allowed doctors to treat the so-called poor and elderly and send the bill to the taxpayer.  Predictably, health care costs exploded.  By 1991, Medicare was costing the taxpayer seven times what had been forecasted at the program's inception in 1965.   Medicare was simply a form a middle class welfare as the only criterion for participation in the program was that a person be over the age of 65.  Medicaid, for its part, was designed to guarantee adequate health care to the poor.  But this was a problem that was already being addressed by the free market.  Prior to the 1960s, it was considered common for doctors and hospitals to provide pro bono or discounted care to the needy.  Hospitals and private organizations routinely held charity events to raise funds.  This is why so many hospitals were named after saints.  And there was no evidence that the poor were being denied quality medical care for lack of money.  Civil society was addressing the problem and doing it more efficiently and justly than the government.  Medicaid merely represented a transfer payment from lower and middle class taxpayers to upper middle class and wealthy doctors.

By the late 1980s, the cost of Medicare and Medicaid alarmed the bean counters in Washington so politicians began instituting de-facto rationing.  This was accomplished by simply reducing the level of compensation the government paid to doctors and restricting range of care these programs covered.  This is why more than forty percent of physicians now refuse to participate in the programs.  This has resulted in a two tier health care system with the lower income elderly and poor receiving lower quality and often inadequate medical care. 

Government intrusion into the health care market has created a third party reimbursement system, where demand is not tempered by cost. This has prevented the market from reaching equilibrium and predictably resulted in skyrocketing prices. Politicians, rather than being chastened by the baleful effects of their previous meddling, are now clamoring for expanding the federal government's role. 

President Barack Obama claims that a federal health insurance program will make the industry more efficient and therefore save hundreds of billions of dollars a year.  But when has a government program ever been more efficient than the free market?  And has the experience of Medicare and Medicaid, two programs that are already headed for insolvency, offer encouragement?  The only way the federal government can control costs is to impose rationing. 

The lesson of the 20th century is that socialism and central economic planning don't work.  Without access to market prices, economic calculation is impossible.  And given that scarcity applies to all human endeavors, health care not excepted, the only way to guarantee that quality is maintained and improved in an economical way is to leave the industry to the private sector.  There is no way the federal government to know exactly how much should be spent on health care or just how many hospitals or medical schools should be in operation?  The answer to these questions can only be provided by a genuine free market.   Government should simply get out of the way and let providers and consumers hash out the details in the marketplace. 

In Switzerland, A Health Care Model For America? : NPR

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731

read between the lines…

At first glance, Switzerland's health care system looks like it could be the perfect political compromise for the United States.

As Republicans would prefer, individuals — not employers or the government — choose from a broad array of health plans, sold by private insurance companies.

And as Democrats urge, everyone in Switzerland has health coverage (it's required by law), with the government providing generous subsidies for those who couldn't otherwise afford it.

So does it all run, to use a Swiss cliché, like clockwork? Yes and no.

Switzerland's 7.5 million citizens are, by and large, quite happy with the system.

"I wouldn't trade it for the world," says Nicole Bieri, an adult vocational education instructor from Lucerne. "I think it's a very good system." 

Look at the potentials of this Heath Care System.

Read between the lines.  Switzerland does not allow Citizenship without a Health Care Plan.

It is the best of all Worlds.

I personally think that a modification of this plan, along with a sliding scale, will help our Immigration Problems at the Mexican border.  It would take time, but an Illegal Alien could not then be legally in the United States of America.

However, we truly do need to help USA Citizens who, through no fault of their own, to be provided with Health Insurances.

The greatest issue at stake here is not even related to health care - it is the loss of personal liberty in the area of "medical care". All people have the natural right to decide what care is best for them for themselves. They may or may not choose to seek the advice of a "medical professional", and they may or may not then follow that advice - either way, they are exercising their natural right to self-determination. Even if the result of that decision results in that person's untimely demise!

A right can no more be forced upon a person than taken away - either one is equally a violation his/her personal liberty.

Dr. McKalip, you have begun to shine the light of truth on the problem at hand. Corporatism is obvious when we look at the military industrial complex but now you have pointed it out also in the form of a "medical industrial complex".  I am a general practice physician in South Carolina in a medium sized town and day to day deal with similar problems on a much smaller scale than you. Staff has to call insurance companies to get approval for more expensive medications when they are needed. Staff has to fill out requests for tests (usually MRI's) so patients can get adequately worked up. All with the underlying goal to save money for insurance companies. Yes, United has begun to rate GP's also on a quality scale.

I have chosen to take the fight directly to Washington DC and am running for Congress in South Carolina's 3rd Congressional District. There are approximately 15 physicians in Congress and if all goes as planned in June 2010, there will be one more.

Peace and liberty,

Mike Vasovski, DO

"To get medical freedom you will need to fight for it. Join up with your local tea party group for marches across the nation on Medical freedom planned by July 4th."

While I agree whole heartily that we the people deserve medical freedom rather than medical fascism, I do not agree that tea party marches across the nation will make any difference. In fact I believe that tea parties for whatever reason is a waste of productive energy. Why? Because as I have observed the majority of the American public, they are apathetic about the issues and have no desire to take personal responsibility for their lives - and the politicians in Washington DC know this. So we can march and demonstrate all we want and no one listens.

This administration, as all previous administrations have their own agenda and they will push in any way they can to get their plans accomplished. What most everyone seems to have forgotten is that our government was set up to help people obtain their own goals, not set the goals for the people.

I participate in this forum because I sense from the written articles that I am hearing views from like minded people that like taking responsibility for our own lives, rather than letting the government dictate the terms we must live by.

It seems to me that we are fast tracking into communisim and very few are concerned about this. So we must be going into the cycle that was predicted in the sixties when it was said that a time will come when america will be governed like the sovial Union and vice versa Russia will have a government like america in the 60s. How ironic that I can now recall this saying and actually watch it happening. 

Liberty is not free and we may indeed end up literally fighting for it sometime in the future. Thank God for the second amendment to the constitution. Our forefathers were wise because they walked their talk, and they knew that for people to protect their liberties, the people would need to be armed.

Our creator has given us a conscience to live by. We may be going through a cycle where people will have to live without liberty for awhile so the desire for liberty will have to be rekindled in conscienceness by living in slavery.

Thank you for your informed article. Rather than marching and attending tea parties, how about talking to friends & strangers about the concept of Liberty, and building the Campaign for Liberty ranks. This I think would have more power.  

Take my advice,

I personally have changed jobs several times and worked for myself, because of this I decided to get my own Health insurance.  I was tired of waiting for the pre-existing clock to reset.  It was actually very easy, I am a 26 year old male in AZ.  My policy is $103 dollars per month.   Hardly unaffordable, it does however come with a high deductible.  My high deductible is a mere $1,500 annually and has 100% co insurance after.  This is actually better and cheaper than my former employer was.  I could have chosen a higher deductible up to $5,000 and would have a monthly cost of under 65 dollars.  Many employers allow you to opt out of there plans and pay you.  I no longer worry about losing my job, and needing to find new insurance.  It is more than liberating.  We all need to move to this type of plan.  It works, and it works well.

The reason this is such a great system, is because I pay for the first 1,500 that means I am careful to go when necessary.  It prevents the sore throat waiting room problem.

As with every other government intrusion, the danger of government run health care is the lack of attention for the individual.  Governments don't have the time or expertise to reveiw every case and determine what medical treatment they should receive.  Nor should they need to, since that is the doctor's job.  But when tax dollars are used to fund medical care, then the government has to start making those decisions and that means generalizing because there is no other way for them to do it.

Take the government out of the picture, and you have just the doctor and the patient, and perhaps an insurance company if the patient has chosen to include one, but it will be an insurance company without a government propping it up.  Then you get health care that is motivated solely by the best interests of the patient.  The patient will be motivated to ease their discomfort and the doctor will be motivated to preserve his livelyhood.  The doctor will also be motivated to check out all possible medical treatments and the lines between alternative medicine and conventional medicine will disappear.  This will happen because pharmicudical companies won't be propped up by the government either, so the push to use only drugs will be eliminated.

In the meantime, it would be in everyone's interest to research all types of health care and take the best care of themselves as they can.  The only way to beat the government right now, with all of its current intrusions into health care, is to do your best not to even need a doctor.  Modern medicine is a wonderful addition to natural cures, but today it is often seen as the only option.  However, there are many other truly effective ways to relieve medical problems and ensure opimal health.  Good nutrition is the absolute best way to boost your health followed by adequate exercise.  Herbs can ease the discomfort of disease and even cure some problems considered uncurable by modern medicine, such as hemrrhoids, colic, and graves disease.  Accupressure can be administered easily at home and can be effective for relieving many ills as well.  There is no reason to rely solely on stressed-out doctor's offices who are busy trying to jump through government and insurance company hoops just for the "priviledge" to practice.

The best thing to do would be to get the government out of health care, but even if we can't do that right away, at least we can get ourselves out of government-run health care.

CTLovesNathanHale,

 If you're going to blame doctors for our problems in health-care you might as well blame the human race in general for all of the lack of freedom not just in health-care, but in every other aspect of our lives.

What did you expect?  You have a central government with the legal monopoly over the use of physical force and law.  It is the only legal channel for violating the rights of the individual.  And you just wanted this entity to sit there and do nothing?  Why?  because we have a Democracy and Democracy is so great because people are just so brilliant and smart, that they simply wouldn't dare to use this entity as a means to obtain ends by violence.  Yeah, ask the doctors not to lobby for legislation, and then ask the labor unions, the teacher unions, the farmers, insurance companies, oil companies, plumber association, pre-school association, etc........

That's what happens when you insist on the absurd idea that a government is necessary to protect your freedom. 

Dr. McKalip,

You corredtly point out many of the problems with healthcare both here & abroad. I would, respectfully, like to say that your proposed solutions are mere half steps.

The healthcare crisis has 2 sources, govt money, & govt licensing & regulation. You have opposed govt financing of healthcare in the article, that 's great. What you haven't advocated is ending govt licensing & regulation of the medical, pharma, & insurance industries.This is the only way to introduce true competition in the field & the only way to bring costs down.

It seems that most people don't understand the word insurance.  Many people who have medical insurance get aggravated if their insurance does not cover something but those same people have failed to read their insurance contract.  Insurance is a contract that says if you pay this much money (called a premium) the insurance company will pay the bills described in your contract.

People don't expect their car insurance to pay for their oil changes, brake replacements, new tires, etc.  These are routine maintenance things that people understand they need to take care of regarding their vehicle but for some reason these same people seem to think that health insurance should take care of every single thing they go to the doctor for.

A national single-payer health plan would be a horrible thing for the people in our country.  Currently, if you don't like your doctor or the care you receive you have a choice to go somewhere else.  If you don't like your insurance contract you have a choice to get a different insurance contract.  A one size fits all does not work when it comes to insurance and medical care.

There are many people in our country who CHOOSE to not have medical insurance, just as there are many people in our country who CHOOSE not to have house insurance, renters insurance, car insurance, cell phone insurance, nursing home insurance, life insurance, boat insurance, motorcycle insurance, phone line insurance, water line insurance, short term disability insurance, long term disability insurance, travel insurance, etc.

The choice to choose the type, if any, of insurance should belong to the individual, not the federal government. 

In the USA there are safeguards for people who have a catastrophic injury and don't have insurance coverage.  It is called Medicaid.  A government that forces people to pay for something to benefit people who had previously made a conscious choice to not pay for is going in the wrong direction.

I am not your keeper, should you be mine?  If you don't have health insurance but you have a souped up car, car payment, cable television, cell phones, rented furniture, do drugs, drink alcohol to excess, and don't have medical insurance because those things are more important to you why should I be responsible for paying for your health insurance?

Robyn Hamlin

Thanks for your fine article.  It is apparent that feelings are fairly strong on this subject.

Doesn't it all just go back to "he who pays the piper, calls the tune?"

DA 521,

Right that's kinda my point -- WE are at fault for allowing the slide to the present facist/socialist/collectivist government.  Freedom in all forms demands eternal vigilence to survive.  It's easy to complain about government as if it is an evil giant human being.  But WE are the government, and must share the responsibility for the society we live in.  So, even doctors, who include in their numbers some of the finest Americans, can as a group cause evil to grow through personal avarice or other motives (including the dreaded do-gooding).  So I'm saying, don't just try to stop Obama's rotten plans, support repealing all the crooked legislation that brought on this mess to begin with.

p.s. I believe there is a need for strictly limited, small government -- you seem to support anarchy -- is that true?

print ~ fold ~ distribute ~ repeat

MedicalFreedomOrMedicalFacism.pdf

Liberty Handbills

I remember arguing about this to my best friend regarding the tobacco tax.  While the core sentiment of providing care to our children WHEN NEEDED is good, the goal is off the mark.  I think it would be much cheaper to the entire nation to improve the type of food going on our shelves and lets get the kids exercising.  Providing healthcare to everyone does not solve the problem of WHY we are getting sick in the first place.  It is the most ridiculous thing I can think of in a socilist society, which we are unfortunately in.  I wish I could take my logical understanding and place it in my best friend's mind to make him understand the fallacies of his logic.  He says, "You don't know how things will turn out."  Ah.  But I do.  You see:  Socialized healthcare has been attempted and failed over and over again.  Again.  He makes the assertion:  "We aren't Canadian or British."  I suppose that makes us special?  No.  My friend.  I believe we are in fact much worse off.

I am amazed that there is a new article about medical and governmental fascism which absolutely ignores instances of facism that are being smeared into our faces by the media almost daily.  How could the author have missed that?

Take the case of young Daniel Hauser's, who is being physically forced (by gun-toting agents of the State) to recieve chemical poison against his (and his parents) will, supposedly to "cure" cancer.  For resisting, the family has experienced constant threats of being broken-up, which is nothing except a terroristic policy of revenge by both the doctors and the court.  When he mother returned home after being out on the lamb, the doctors were actually enraged that the family was not to be immediately split up, despite the fact that the family finally agreed to submit to the doctors will, as if they were God -- and apparently they believe that they are.  In this case, the medical industry is being used as an excuse to expand State power to the point that even the family unit itself falls under its jurisdiction.  It is disgraceful, but what is worse is that the whole argument of "saving" young Daniel with poison is based upon the lies of the completely fraudulent cancer industry.  The numbers and statistics games they play to justify the very questionable "treatments" of chemotherapy and radiation are the envy of many lawyers.  Notice they never mention their cure to kill ratio, and they have redefined the meaning of "cure", "treatment", and "success" to confuse us into not understanding what they are doing, and from holding them accountable.  We wrote about the game in-detail, and about how it is played against us at:  http://naturallygoodmagazine.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090521-100957

The word disgraceful just is not strong enough, but of course, the regular media is applauding the whole thing and telling us we should just sit down, shut up, and be good sheeple.

I do agree that every person needs to choose the manner of their health care and not relegated by an uncaring government concerned with only the bottom line.  Also, this effects those that prefer alternative medical treatment, even though it is not directly mentioned here.  The effects of certain procedures, such as chemotherapy, are just as harmful as the cancer.  It should be up to the individual to decide what they should do or not do.  If they chose to go a doctor, that is their business, not some bureaucrat, who receives a monetary benefit.

A personnal experience I had with HMO/PPO health care... I was in my 20's, my company had good insurance but somehow got convinced to try this "new" program. Unfortunately my regular OBGYN was not on the list. Long story short, I went to the "primary" care physician and paid the $20.00 co-pay with a severe obdominal pain and was told I had an infection and was perscribed antibiotics. A month or so later, I had to schedule another appointment because the pain had come back. After paying another $20.00  co-pay I got a different script of antibiotics. A month or so later I was in pain again, but this time I was "referred" to a specialist and after waiting months for an appointment, again paying a co-pay, I was told I had pre-cancer!!! I was scheduled for an inpatient procedure, again another "co-pay". This is $80.00 so far (not counting the cost of meds) After 6 mo's I had another bad PAP - more co-pay, more appointments to a specialist. Another procedure and more meds... I'm out about $200 of senseless appointments and referrals so I finally decided to call my old OBGYN (which would have cost me about $80 at the time) but somehow he was able to arrange for me to be a patient with this lame insurance. Come to find out I had cervical cancer - I had to have surgery. I have had paps every 6 mo's for 10 years and I am still cancer free!! Had I not gone to a "private" doctor would I still be here today talking about this??? I for one DO NOT want to be told where, when and who I can see for a medical reason!!!!

One is entitled to any level of care they choose....as long as they can pay for it.  One problem of many is that about 50% of bancruptcies filed before the world economic meltdown were due to unpaid medical bills.  The system is set up to hold down the number of providers and prevent the utilization of computer software driven diagnostics.

Some type of price control is needed.  I'm tired of being an extortion victim at the hands of the medical insurance industry.  My families' out of pocket  costs last year for premiums, deductibles and co-payments?  Over $23,000.   Nothing huge, just a couple of tonsilectomies, some female cervical minor surgeries and a colonoscopy. 

And that's why I continue to drive a 1997 Plymouth Voyager with a cracked windshield while GM's going belly up. 

HealthWyze...

You are most certainly right - medical freedom must include the discussion of whether we should be able to decide for ourselves what treatment we want to subject ourselves and our children to. 

I was there in the courtroom when the judge gave the Hausers parents an ultimatum - either agree to the chemo for your son and keep custody or decline the chemo and loose custody of your son.  Either way the boy gets the chemo - power to the court!  It was a sickening display of fascism.  Mrs. Hauser was in tears, barely able to contain herself as she said yes to the chemo in order to "keep" her boy.  Now they have a sheriff making sure they go to every chemo appointment.  Do we live in America anymore????????