The greatest good for the greatest number has become a logical fallacy. For a while it seemed to work but when you look at its 21st century incarnation in particular it has been become badly corrupted. . The history and reality behind vaccines is perhaps the best example in modern times. The entire topic of “Public Health” needs to be deconstructed as it is practiced today. Public health is good when the objectives are clear, make sense to everyone and are transparent in implementation and the results measurable. We have wonderful examples - Clean water, sanitation(especially modern sewers, sewage treatment and waste management), clean air in places with local air polution, antibiotics, advanced surgical procedures, efficacious pain management, food safety and finally public education on straightforward matters of health -all of these areas represented great progress in public health and all were largely in hand in developed countries in the 20th century. Things seemed to go down hill from there, particularly with allopathic western medicine which morphed into monetized sick care and then monetized sickness in all of its aspects, an evil that we are living with to the great detriment of so many people. This is the area that now needs to be right in the center of the crosshairs.
It all begins with the UCC implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, truth in labeling, full disclosure of content and constituents, and vigilant regulation with full transparency and a prohibition on gag orders involving claims of harm, criminality and malicious or predatory wrongdoing involving regulated products and their use. Much of this already operates in black letter law. Software and medical products are areas of promiscuous and pernicious exemption. The higher and more effective purpose of regulation is not to use it to punish, but to allow markets to auto-regulate and select-for robust and beneficial commerce and technology progress and effectively select-against corrupt, harmful or predatory practices. Advances in knowledge and technology require we build better human filters. What is orthodoxy but a conspiracy against change?
We could use a federally reinsured no-fault medical harm policy to smooth the transition and keep survivors and victim families harmed immediately remunerated, contributing to the economy instead of 10 years of economic devastation and uncertain arduous legal challenges seeking recovery of what can never really be recovered.
Do this not to award damages or punish the doer, but do so in a spirit of community and devotion to mutualism because this could happen to any of us and any person we love or cherish. We need everyone in the economy with some money to spend and spare us the massively expensive national opportunity costs of time and resources unconstructively spent litigating non-felony, non-criminal harms in our society better spent rescuing the lost productivity and resources so mutually we may better serve the immediate future. Better to improve outcomes than to punish them. Better to be quick about it than drag it out in punishing ways.
We cannot cure all the harms done that may be done to us in a lifetime, but we can create constructive mechanisms that bring comfort to suffering and protect us from criminals and abandonment in times of great need. This is the most important aspect of the public health and the economic vitality and productivity on which we all depend. The institutions, laws and policies we have now are in profound sepsis. Recent history is showing us what we can no longer ignore. Like a tourniquet left on for too long, they have allowed far more harm than good.
Hegseth is the deep state operatives nightmare. Now that he has declared government mandating the jab of experimental drugs required to keep your job in the military and even contractors who had to comply as illegal let’s see what they’ll do to shut him up. He left a multi million dollar TV gig to take on this behemoth government agency tells me he’s a first class patriot. He has my respect.
"To drive home this final point, ... there must be accountability and consequences."
Preach on, brother. What does government even exist for other than to hold anti-social behavior accountable so as to deter it? We hold this truth to be SELF-EVIDENT!!!
But then in crept the philanthropists, who nourished the anti-social; who promoted a state's monopoly on violence, and then left the innocent at the mercy of criminals and invaders. They set the bar low, so that anyone who stood tall for what was right would be disqualified from office. With enough graft, there will always be those figures who emerge as candidates, who will be ready to sell out their constituents.
Very good speech! Regulating vs. not regulating is a tricky path. A few thoughts:
* NOT OK to spend taxpayer dollars on harmful products given away or provided at reduced cost. So if someone wants to eat McDonald’s junk food, drink soda, or eat candy, that’s on them. If someone wants to inject themselves with a harmful shot, they can. But my taxes should not go to pay for — or repair the results of — those things. (I feel the same about financing war.)
* NOT OK to put substances into food, water, air, soil or body if they are administered without my informed consent. So, no, do not fluoridate my water, do not taint my food with glyphosate and other pesticides, do not geoengineer my weather, and do not spread vaccines through shedding or aerosols.
* NOT OK to mandate anything. So, OK with installing seat belts in cars and explaining why I should use them. But NOT OK to arrest me for failing to buckle up. And NEVER OK to force me to use a medical intervention.
* NOT OK to grant liability shield to any person (perhaps with exception of Good Samaritans) product manufacturer. If you administer or make a harmful product, I should be able to sue if I’m harmed by your actions or products.
* OK to regulate such things as smoking or drug use that do not simply harm the individual using them, but also could hurt those around them (e.g., second hand smoke, drug-related crimes against others).
Obviously, regulation is a slippery slope. Remaining pure to one’s principles when analyzing every case is nearly impossible.
But some things seem obvious (probably more as well, but this is a start):
* Pure libertarian or pure authoritarian principles never work well for all.
* The individual must be the most important consideration, followed by family, community, and then all the rest.
* Government must remain small and a light-handed as possible. Just enough for society to function at a basic level, and not much more.
Drs Malone, I mean no disrespect however I disagree with the premise that the MAHA movement came from the left. My parents were democrats and I didn't get MAHA views from them.
I had to fight them on not to feed my children any processed foods, candy and junk food when they went to visit them.
My son got a taste for pressed ham, baloney & bacon 🥓 from his visits with them. When he came home, I wouldn't let him have them. At a very young age he would ask me WHY??? I would reply: Because they're full of sodium nitrates.
In his frustration 🫤 he responded: I wish that there was no such thing as sodium nitrates!!
I'm glad to report that he has continued to eat healthy and organic foods!!!
I have to agree. I think MAHA (at least in the time frame I became aware) was more middle left & right, altho my sister's whole family is pretty far right and they adopted the MAHA movement early on. My sister/brother in law are really far left and they wouldn't touch it with a 50 ft. pole.
I guess no political persuasion can lay claim to the health movement. All we can say that the MAGA movement has embraced it and the "OTHER" people haven't because it is now associated with Trump.
A worthy topic for discussion. But perhaps most easily simplified into something along the lines of "A proper and legitimate government does not mandate what its citizens may do and say and how they may lead their lives." This is what our Founders meant when they offered their lives and fortunes for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." A proper and just government tells the truth, is free of corruption and provides honest information to permit its citizens to choose wisely. And, as pointed out, when government lies, when it it on the take, when it bullies its citizens and covers up for the crimes of malign, foreign governments, "there must be accountability and consequences." The politboro of the CCP is - so far - getting away with the crime of the century. And their handmaidens - Fauci, Collins, Daszak et al, - are traitors who need to be brought to justice.
Very well stated as I’ve come to expect….EXCEPT STRONG OBJECTION that MAHA in concept originated from the left. I am quite surprised by this perspective. First it is not true except for those from the left that lived in their own bubble. That is naive at best. Many of us on the right have been championing this for years just not calling it MAHA…terminology that is borrowed from the right. So in some respect…more of the same…interesting indeed…roots run deep.
just guessing: that statement has it origins in Bobby Kennedy Jr's original, clearly left leaning politics before he entered the fray of jabbous warfare.
The problem with freedom to choose your risk is that the cost of consequences of those risks are largely met with tax dollars and/or inflated insurance premiums. That is the main argument offered by the enforcers and difficult to counter
I agree, bad choices lead to tax payer assistance. However, we can't have items like alcohol, drugs, smoking/vaping, marijuana, and gambling so prevalent. These things also do harm to health. So where do we draw the line? If we "take away" food choices, shouldn't we take away the other 'bad' choices? Glad I don't make decisions for anyone but myself.
YEAH, who chooses. Our beloved Lt.Gov. is yammering about cbd oil and other thc containing products...wants to basically ban them. Been taking cbd oil for relief from inflammation. Decided, with looming ban to test my response to not taking it for a week and am in 3rd week of sciatica as a result.
When it comes to health, what is the motivation and reward? I am "straight," married with adult children, Christian, 67 (68 in June) and I pay the same costs for my medical insurance as all other 67 year olds. I run 3 times a week (avg 15/wk), swim a mile weekly, and walk about 2 miles the other days. I have never smoked more than once a week while in my first and second years in college (and that wasn't even regularly). I don't drink more than once in a while--avg. one drink per week. I am on no pharmaceuticals. I eat organic (unless we go out to dinner and then it's a crap shoot.) I have been fighting skin cancer for years (fair red-haired girl), but have recently gotten more results with Protocel than the decades with the dermatologist cutting and burning. Should I (and others like me) have something like a "good driver award" discount? A "good living award" discount? Charge high risk people more--obesity would be an easy objective "ding"; like too many driving tickets. Maybe then folks would be interested in adopting the good health habits that are/will be taught.
I've said for years the 'trying hard to do right thing' people are sooo penalized for doing so. I'm right there with you!!! What I've heard when I vocalize my displeasure is "Well, that's just the way it is". Load of #$@#^%$&*. It's the way it is because too many have accepted those exact words. I'm beyond words, ready for action!! Let's go team!!!
Do you really not know anyone who does the same as you and is overweight. Weight is not the only marker for health. I know plenty of skinny people who are unhealthy. As a matter of fact, every person I know that died under the age of 40 was thin or average weight. Go figure. Not saying you do not work hard to stay healthy, just saying weight isn't the only marker of health.
I agree. Body weight is not the only marker. I made that point with many of my female students who complained they couldn't make their mile time in PE. Maybe you missed my point. I was focusing on the comment implying I was thin because I inherited it or something...like being white or tall or rich...whatever folks like to whine about. My family did not give me thiness. Two siblings and both parents and half my aunts were all overweight.
My son, on the other hand, maybe considered a bit overweight, but his weight is muscle. He works out at least 5 times a week.
I voted for Trump the first time because it had become clear to me that no professional politician was ever going to address the corruption in our political system. At the time I had no real idea just how awful and deep that corruption was. Trump’s campaign, presidency and Biden’s four years revealed the many layers of corruption and evil that existed. The line you are talking about between individual sovereignty and the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens obviously must be addressed. In order for that to have any meaning the conflicts of interest in pharmaceuticals, medical practice and policy making have to be addressed. You can’t have the people producing the pharmaceuticals, providing medical care or creating policy having perverse incentives that are contrary to the health or wellbeing of the population. It seems to me that most primary care type physicians have not been trained to function in a wellness type environment that Kennedy wants. If I am right that has to be addressed. There will undoubtedly be a lot of push back from the entire system which will want to preserve itself and protect the very people who need to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Our population must be educated as to these realities so the social pressure for consequences and change is overwhelmingly. I do believe we need Divine guidance and assistance.
Don't forget the insurance monolith in cahoots with all those others you listed.
Primary (#1) care only exists to put that doctor at the front of the line in a long line of other doctors if you are truly sick. Oh, and to hand you a prescription (or 5). I have not had a PC dr. spend time examining me in over 15yrs. They mostly spend the 15 min. allotment time with what scripts I'm taking/if I need different scripts/if I want to add scripts.
I hear you loud and clear! I have the same issue with my PCP…. Ive been seeing her for 4 years and can count the times she listened to my heart and lungs on 3 fingers!!
I hate to be cynical so I am hoping and praying for a reset to common sense being at the helm. However, historically speaking, those who are determined to be in charge of others always seem to find a way to rise to their level of incompetence (Peter Principal). The pendulum hardly ever stops in the middle. I always think of the old saying - I know there is balance to life, I can see it as I swing by.
ok ,let's not get too upset. Ole Doc Malone (I am older than he) does us all a favor by drawing some broad brush strokes and saying MAHA came out of the left. It's the broad brush strokes that give us grist to grind on. And to get somewhere in terms of trying to understand where we are, how we got here, where we might go. Don't get me wrong. I love the criticisms. They are right too. If I want to nitpick, I would say that the MAHA/left/whole of gov't versus MAGA/right/deregulation/small gov't is too simplistic. I supported Kennedy from the beginning and I voted gladly for Trump. I'm in. But he's into big oligarchy. It is great to get rich. I am a fan and a critic of Musk. So let's proceed to what Malone is talking about here - a tension, a balance, a dialog b/w opposing sides. Can we get the regulation tweaked so it is just hot enough, just cool enough. Just yummy. This is not childish stuff. This is core essential. For that, we need contested democracy and our constitutional republic. Aren't we lucky right now to have Hegseth, Kennedy, Gabbard, Bondi, etc etc!
The tug-of-war between those wanting total personal sovereignty and those believing that a nanny state is essential, is real and complicated. Personal sovereignty comes with personal responsibility attached, and our society has devolved into one where too many people are only too happy to have their hands held by the nanny state every time they cross the street. Personal responsibility calls for thinking, doing research, and contemplative decision-making - activities that we have nearly forgotten how to do or have simply become too lazy to do. My personal belief is that, like children learning to be grown-ups, we should be given the freedom to do what's necessary or not, to make our own mistakes, and emerge stronger and wiser for having the experience. Ultimately, the nanny state is not good for anybody. I do believe that government can and probably should play a role in the process, but that role is not imposing mandates and burdensome regulations. Its role should be information and education, which will assist people in making the wisest decisions, ultimately leading to the elimination of unhealthy choices. And I firmly believe that the first step in this dissemination of information is to find a way to eliminate the major stumbling block: censorship of the information.
Agree. It's like the info on alcohol and cigarettes. The government has done a good job informing us on the dangers of these products, yet they are still available. Both have actually gone down in usage. Alcohol not as much as cigarettes, but I read somewhere younger generation does not consume alcohol as much.
What a mess and where to start? A first step would be to recover the vocabulary: The science. Not Fauci's science. Not Pharma's manipulated science. Not Rockefeller's self-serving, limited science. No, real science. Get Glysophate out. Ditto toxins in food supply. Focus on what Big Food and Big Ag can't do and work down from there. What we do is our own business. Remember Prohibition.
An outstanding essay/speech! You've added some new perspectives.
Viewing Mr Kennedy and HHS actions, at this point in time, I do think they are off to a worthwhile start. Perhaps down the road, hamburgers using tallow and adjustments in sweetening cokes might help.
The Government. with relevant data, may be able to point out the merits of intervening (available unpasturized milk, no glycosate in food products). The toe in the door seems to be a beneficial banning dyes in food.
That aside, I think I'm detecting psyops, otherwise sometimes characterized as a deployment of 'The Power of Positive Thinking.' MAHA and HHS appear to be trying to get we the people and the impacted industries to see all the positives we can achieve by supporting benefical changes.
They will provide research and the positive directions that its findings can offer. We and industries can make the choices on whether to follow through.
From the Mises/Rothbard economic perspectives Public Health is a worthy concern. Moneys invested in furthering good health and whether they will see rewards in lower costs of dealing with ill health.
Hardly ever hear it mentioned but Phil Wylie's wife contracted brucellosis from unpasteurized milk. That and t.b. 2 dangers that must be tested for in cows providing milk.
The greatest good for the greatest number has become a logical fallacy. For a while it seemed to work but when you look at its 21st century incarnation in particular it has been become badly corrupted. . The history and reality behind vaccines is perhaps the best example in modern times. The entire topic of “Public Health” needs to be deconstructed as it is practiced today. Public health is good when the objectives are clear, make sense to everyone and are transparent in implementation and the results measurable. We have wonderful examples - Clean water, sanitation(especially modern sewers, sewage treatment and waste management), clean air in places with local air polution, antibiotics, advanced surgical procedures, efficacious pain management, food safety and finally public education on straightforward matters of health -all of these areas represented great progress in public health and all were largely in hand in developed countries in the 20th century. Things seemed to go down hill from there, particularly with allopathic western medicine which morphed into monetized sick care and then monetized sickness in all of its aspects, an evil that we are living with to the great detriment of so many people. This is the area that now needs to be right in the center of the crosshairs.
This is excellent.
And to think it's really only happened within 3 generations. My grandfather (doctor) saw it coming.
"For-profit healthcare makes ill-gotten gains."
https://nedb.substack.com/p/for-profit-healthcare
It all begins with the UCC implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, truth in labeling, full disclosure of content and constituents, and vigilant regulation with full transparency and a prohibition on gag orders involving claims of harm, criminality and malicious or predatory wrongdoing involving regulated products and their use. Much of this already operates in black letter law. Software and medical products are areas of promiscuous and pernicious exemption. The higher and more effective purpose of regulation is not to use it to punish, but to allow markets to auto-regulate and select-for robust and beneficial commerce and technology progress and effectively select-against corrupt, harmful or predatory practices. Advances in knowledge and technology require we build better human filters. What is orthodoxy but a conspiracy against change?
We could use a federally reinsured no-fault medical harm policy to smooth the transition and keep survivors and victim families harmed immediately remunerated, contributing to the economy instead of 10 years of economic devastation and uncertain arduous legal challenges seeking recovery of what can never really be recovered.
Do this not to award damages or punish the doer, but do so in a spirit of community and devotion to mutualism because this could happen to any of us and any person we love or cherish. We need everyone in the economy with some money to spend and spare us the massively expensive national opportunity costs of time and resources unconstructively spent litigating non-felony, non-criminal harms in our society better spent rescuing the lost productivity and resources so mutually we may better serve the immediate future. Better to improve outcomes than to punish them. Better to be quick about it than drag it out in punishing ways.
We cannot cure all the harms done that may be done to us in a lifetime, but we can create constructive mechanisms that bring comfort to suffering and protect us from criminals and abandonment in times of great need. This is the most important aspect of the public health and the economic vitality and productivity on which we all depend. The institutions, laws and policies we have now are in profound sepsis. Recent history is showing us what we can no longer ignore. Like a tourniquet left on for too long, they have allowed far more harm than good.
Hegseth is the deep state operatives nightmare. Now that he has declared government mandating the jab of experimental drugs required to keep your job in the military and even contractors who had to comply as illegal let’s see what they’ll do to shut him up. He left a multi million dollar TV gig to take on this behemoth government agency tells me he’s a first class patriot. He has my respect.
Puts an even bigger price tag target on this man's back.
Albeit diminishing his intentions with either usual types of assassinations.
Character or bodily trauma.
It no doubt won't let up till he walks away from the theater of DJT operations.
May God be with him for telling the truth! I am praying for his safety.
"To drive home this final point, ... there must be accountability and consequences."
Preach on, brother. What does government even exist for other than to hold anti-social behavior accountable so as to deter it? We hold this truth to be SELF-EVIDENT!!!
But then in crept the philanthropists, who nourished the anti-social; who promoted a state's monopoly on violence, and then left the innocent at the mercy of criminals and invaders. They set the bar low, so that anyone who stood tall for what was right would be disqualified from office. With enough graft, there will always be those figures who emerge as candidates, who will be ready to sell out their constituents.
Very good speech! Regulating vs. not regulating is a tricky path. A few thoughts:
* NOT OK to spend taxpayer dollars on harmful products given away or provided at reduced cost. So if someone wants to eat McDonald’s junk food, drink soda, or eat candy, that’s on them. If someone wants to inject themselves with a harmful shot, they can. But my taxes should not go to pay for — or repair the results of — those things. (I feel the same about financing war.)
* NOT OK to put substances into food, water, air, soil or body if they are administered without my informed consent. So, no, do not fluoridate my water, do not taint my food with glyphosate and other pesticides, do not geoengineer my weather, and do not spread vaccines through shedding or aerosols.
* NOT OK to mandate anything. So, OK with installing seat belts in cars and explaining why I should use them. But NOT OK to arrest me for failing to buckle up. And NEVER OK to force me to use a medical intervention.
* NOT OK to grant liability shield to any person (perhaps with exception of Good Samaritans) product manufacturer. If you administer or make a harmful product, I should be able to sue if I’m harmed by your actions or products.
* OK to regulate such things as smoking or drug use that do not simply harm the individual using them, but also could hurt those around them (e.g., second hand smoke, drug-related crimes against others).
Obviously, regulation is a slippery slope. Remaining pure to one’s principles when analyzing every case is nearly impossible.
But some things seem obvious (probably more as well, but this is a start):
* Pure libertarian or pure authoritarian principles never work well for all.
* The individual must be the most important consideration, followed by family, community, and then all the rest.
* Government must remain small and a light-handed as possible. Just enough for society to function at a basic level, and not much more.
Concisely and nicely written.
Drs Malone, I mean no disrespect however I disagree with the premise that the MAHA movement came from the left. My parents were democrats and I didn't get MAHA views from them.
I had to fight them on not to feed my children any processed foods, candy and junk food when they went to visit them.
My son got a taste for pressed ham, baloney & bacon 🥓 from his visits with them. When he came home, I wouldn't let him have them. At a very young age he would ask me WHY??? I would reply: Because they're full of sodium nitrates.
In his frustration 🫤 he responded: I wish that there was no such thing as sodium nitrates!!
I'm glad to report that he has continued to eat healthy and organic foods!!!
I have to agree. I think MAHA (at least in the time frame I became aware) was more middle left & right, altho my sister's whole family is pretty far right and they adopted the MAHA movement early on. My sister/brother in law are really far left and they wouldn't touch it with a 50 ft. pole.
I guess no political persuasion can lay claim to the health movement. All we can say that the MAGA movement has embraced it and the "OTHER" people haven't because it is now associated with Trump.
Too bad! It's their loss!!!
Right on!!
Nothing people in power hate more than someone who seriously questions what they do.
A worthy topic for discussion. But perhaps most easily simplified into something along the lines of "A proper and legitimate government does not mandate what its citizens may do and say and how they may lead their lives." This is what our Founders meant when they offered their lives and fortunes for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." A proper and just government tells the truth, is free of corruption and provides honest information to permit its citizens to choose wisely. And, as pointed out, when government lies, when it it on the take, when it bullies its citizens and covers up for the crimes of malign, foreign governments, "there must be accountability and consequences." The politboro of the CCP is - so far - getting away with the crime of the century. And their handmaidens - Fauci, Collins, Daszak et al, - are traitors who need to be brought to justice.
We hanged nazis for lesser crimes
One full generation gone,
is all it seems to take for the reappearance of the same ersatz script.
Very well stated as I’ve come to expect….EXCEPT STRONG OBJECTION that MAHA in concept originated from the left. I am quite surprised by this perspective. First it is not true except for those from the left that lived in their own bubble. That is naive at best. Many of us on the right have been championing this for years just not calling it MAHA…terminology that is borrowed from the right. So in some respect…more of the same…interesting indeed…roots run deep.
just guessing: that statement has it origins in Bobby Kennedy Jr's original, clearly left leaning politics before he entered the fray of jabbous warfare.
as I discuss in the text
Had the same thought
Ditto Rambler.
American Citizen and Rambler, I also was struck by that statement.
The problem with freedom to choose your risk is that the cost of consequences of those risks are largely met with tax dollars and/or inflated insurance premiums. That is the main argument offered by the enforcers and difficult to counter
I agree, bad choices lead to tax payer assistance. However, we can't have items like alcohol, drugs, smoking/vaping, marijuana, and gambling so prevalent. These things also do harm to health. So where do we draw the line? If we "take away" food choices, shouldn't we take away the other 'bad' choices? Glad I don't make decisions for anyone but myself.
I agree 👍.
There's a distinction between good, bad and free choice?!?
Yes, where do we draw the line?
YEAH, who chooses. Our beloved Lt.Gov. is yammering about cbd oil and other thc containing products...wants to basically ban them. Been taking cbd oil for relief from inflammation. Decided, with looming ban to test my response to not taking it for a week and am in 3rd week of sciatica as a result.
Try a few drops of organic hemp oil with black seed oil in morning coffee.
It ramps up your own endogenous Cannabinoid system. No THC in it.
A little goes a long way.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-endocannabinoid-system-essential-and-mysterious-202108112569
Randall, I don't know what to believe anymore!!!!
I was using hemp oil and almond milk and now we have a report from MAHA to avoid them because they are bas seed oils?!?!
All of this is very confusing 😕
I've not heard about the hemp or black seed oil being a downgrade or toxic
Both have been in the analogs of time as forms of medicine or health value.
They told us eggs were bad, and quite a few other food items that are not.
So it's ok Ana. You are not alone.
Welcome to Club Confusion! Nature Bad...$cience factory food good. ??
There is no THC in CBD oil, but I bet you know that.
Thanks for your eyes and input DD. Good reminders!
I plan to investigate the topic of hemp oil further.
It has been of use for many things for many decades, maybe eons?
Yes....no flashbacks for me.
Just meta-flexible vascular hemp type ropes for veins! Haha.
There is but has to be <0.3%
Thanks. May have to do that. Sorry about the delay but you were put in my spam folder
That's odd Doc, Ditto, you wind up in my spam as well. So does Malone.
Along with J. Goodrich reply. Plus a few others that escape my mind.
Maybe because we were the early subscribers or ?
Contracts ....contracts....contracts.....
Where would this all be with out signatory promises..... by all of us?
When it comes to health, what is the motivation and reward? I am "straight," married with adult children, Christian, 67 (68 in June) and I pay the same costs for my medical insurance as all other 67 year olds. I run 3 times a week (avg 15/wk), swim a mile weekly, and walk about 2 miles the other days. I have never smoked more than once a week while in my first and second years in college (and that wasn't even regularly). I don't drink more than once in a while--avg. one drink per week. I am on no pharmaceuticals. I eat organic (unless we go out to dinner and then it's a crap shoot.) I have been fighting skin cancer for years (fair red-haired girl), but have recently gotten more results with Protocel than the decades with the dermatologist cutting and burning. Should I (and others like me) have something like a "good driver award" discount? A "good living award" discount? Charge high risk people more--obesity would be an easy objective "ding"; like too many driving tickets. Maybe then folks would be interested in adopting the good health habits that are/will be taught.
I've said for years the 'trying hard to do right thing' people are sooo penalized for doing so. I'm right there with you!!! What I've heard when I vocalize my displeasure is "Well, that's just the way it is". Load of #$@#^%$&*. It's the way it is because too many have accepted those exact words. I'm beyond words, ready for action!! Let's go team!!!
Have you had someone accuse you of having "thin privilege "?
My parents were both over weight. My reply, "Come join me on my exercises and you can see how to get thin privilege, too!"
Do you really not know anyone who does the same as you and is overweight. Weight is not the only marker for health. I know plenty of skinny people who are unhealthy. As a matter of fact, every person I know that died under the age of 40 was thin or average weight. Go figure. Not saying you do not work hard to stay healthy, just saying weight isn't the only marker of health.
I agree. Body weight is not the only marker. I made that point with many of my female students who complained they couldn't make their mile time in PE. Maybe you missed my point. I was focusing on the comment implying I was thin because I inherited it or something...like being white or tall or rich...whatever folks like to whine about. My family did not give me thiness. Two siblings and both parents and half my aunts were all overweight.
My son, on the other hand, maybe considered a bit overweight, but his weight is muscle. He works out at least 5 times a week.
I voted for Trump the first time because it had become clear to me that no professional politician was ever going to address the corruption in our political system. At the time I had no real idea just how awful and deep that corruption was. Trump’s campaign, presidency and Biden’s four years revealed the many layers of corruption and evil that existed. The line you are talking about between individual sovereignty and the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens obviously must be addressed. In order for that to have any meaning the conflicts of interest in pharmaceuticals, medical practice and policy making have to be addressed. You can’t have the people producing the pharmaceuticals, providing medical care or creating policy having perverse incentives that are contrary to the health or wellbeing of the population. It seems to me that most primary care type physicians have not been trained to function in a wellness type environment that Kennedy wants. If I am right that has to be addressed. There will undoubtedly be a lot of push back from the entire system which will want to preserve itself and protect the very people who need to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Our population must be educated as to these realities so the social pressure for consequences and change is overwhelmingly. I do believe we need Divine guidance and assistance.
Don't forget the insurance monolith in cahoots with all those others you listed.
Primary (#1) care only exists to put that doctor at the front of the line in a long line of other doctors if you are truly sick. Oh, and to hand you a prescription (or 5). I have not had a PC dr. spend time examining me in over 15yrs. They mostly spend the 15 min. allotment time with what scripts I'm taking/if I need different scripts/if I want to add scripts.
I hear you loud and clear! I have the same issue with my PCP…. Ive been seeing her for 4 years and can count the times she listened to my heart and lungs on 3 fingers!!
Through your bulky sweater too… 😡 You simply cannot hear the fine crackles of (C VI’d) interstitial lung disease, or much else through clothing.
Exactly!
Sadly, true.
I hate to be cynical so I am hoping and praying for a reset to common sense being at the helm. However, historically speaking, those who are determined to be in charge of others always seem to find a way to rise to their level of incompetence (Peter Principal). The pendulum hardly ever stops in the middle. I always think of the old saying - I know there is balance to life, I can see it as I swing by.
ok ,let's not get too upset. Ole Doc Malone (I am older than he) does us all a favor by drawing some broad brush strokes and saying MAHA came out of the left. It's the broad brush strokes that give us grist to grind on. And to get somewhere in terms of trying to understand where we are, how we got here, where we might go. Don't get me wrong. I love the criticisms. They are right too. If I want to nitpick, I would say that the MAHA/left/whole of gov't versus MAGA/right/deregulation/small gov't is too simplistic. I supported Kennedy from the beginning and I voted gladly for Trump. I'm in. But he's into big oligarchy. It is great to get rich. I am a fan and a critic of Musk. So let's proceed to what Malone is talking about here - a tension, a balance, a dialog b/w opposing sides. Can we get the regulation tweaked so it is just hot enough, just cool enough. Just yummy. This is not childish stuff. This is core essential. For that, we need contested democracy and our constitutional republic. Aren't we lucky right now to have Hegseth, Kennedy, Gabbard, Bondi, etc etc!
The tug-of-war between those wanting total personal sovereignty and those believing that a nanny state is essential, is real and complicated. Personal sovereignty comes with personal responsibility attached, and our society has devolved into one where too many people are only too happy to have their hands held by the nanny state every time they cross the street. Personal responsibility calls for thinking, doing research, and contemplative decision-making - activities that we have nearly forgotten how to do or have simply become too lazy to do. My personal belief is that, like children learning to be grown-ups, we should be given the freedom to do what's necessary or not, to make our own mistakes, and emerge stronger and wiser for having the experience. Ultimately, the nanny state is not good for anybody. I do believe that government can and probably should play a role in the process, but that role is not imposing mandates and burdensome regulations. Its role should be information and education, which will assist people in making the wisest decisions, ultimately leading to the elimination of unhealthy choices. And I firmly believe that the first step in this dissemination of information is to find a way to eliminate the major stumbling block: censorship of the information.
Agree. It's like the info on alcohol and cigarettes. The government has done a good job informing us on the dangers of these products, yet they are still available. Both have actually gone down in usage. Alcohol not as much as cigarettes, but I read somewhere younger generation does not consume alcohol as much.
What a mess and where to start? A first step would be to recover the vocabulary: The science. Not Fauci's science. Not Pharma's manipulated science. Not Rockefeller's self-serving, limited science. No, real science. Get Glysophate out. Ditto toxins in food supply. Focus on what Big Food and Big Ag can't do and work down from there. What we do is our own business. Remember Prohibition.
An outstanding essay/speech! You've added some new perspectives.
Viewing Mr Kennedy and HHS actions, at this point in time, I do think they are off to a worthwhile start. Perhaps down the road, hamburgers using tallow and adjustments in sweetening cokes might help.
The Government. with relevant data, may be able to point out the merits of intervening (available unpasturized milk, no glycosate in food products). The toe in the door seems to be a beneficial banning dyes in food.
That aside, I think I'm detecting psyops, otherwise sometimes characterized as a deployment of 'The Power of Positive Thinking.' MAHA and HHS appear to be trying to get we the people and the impacted industries to see all the positives we can achieve by supporting benefical changes.
They will provide research and the positive directions that its findings can offer. We and industries can make the choices on whether to follow through.
From the Mises/Rothbard economic perspectives Public Health is a worthy concern. Moneys invested in furthering good health and whether they will see rewards in lower costs of dealing with ill health.
Off and running toward a brave new better world.
Hardly ever hear it mentioned but Phil Wylie's wife contracted brucellosis from unpasteurized milk. That and t.b. 2 dangers that must be tested for in cows providing milk.
Risks versus benefits, right?
Also, nicely stated~~!!