Natural Alternative to Healthcare | Health Blog

Date: 06/15/2007    Written by: Jon Barron

Two More Health Plans


First of all, let me state that I never use this forum to talk politics except as it relates to health. It's not that I'm apolitical; it's just that the purpose of the Baseline of Health® Foundation is to improve the health of its readers, not to change their political opinions. With that said…

Presidential candidate John Edwards unveiled his version of a universal healthcare proposal today. And like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama before him, it's utter nonsense. In summary, the plan offers to:

  • Increase the quality of healthcare.
  • Provide coverage for everyone in the country.
  • And save money in the process.

What's not to like?

  • Well, first of all, you can't improve the quality of health care if everyone is making themselves sicker by the day. Think about it. Which provides a better state of health: getting diabetes and taking drugs to slow down its ravages of your body or never getting diabetes at all? You would think the answer was a no-brainer. Apparently not. The bottom line is that you can't improve the quality of healthcare until people stop using it at no cost for self-inflicted diseases.
  • In a sense, healthcare is governed by the rules of physics, or in this case the Law of the Conservation of Healthcare and Dollars, which states:
    • The total quantity of healthcare and dollars available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less. If you offer healthcare to more people, you have to offer less of it to each of them – or as it's known in England and Canada, long wait times for elective surgery.
    • Of course, if people start taking care of themselves so that they individually need fewer services, you could then redistribute the unused care to cover everyone. But as long as people keep choosing to make themselves sicker and sicker with self-inflicted diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, there isn't enough money in all the universe to provide quality healthcare for everyone.

And how is John Edwards going to pay for his program?

  • He's going to cut costs. Oh please! Where have we heard that one before? And when has government ever cut costs?
  • He's also going to encourage the drug companies to produce new innovative drugs that cure all manner of terrible diseases by taking away their patents and offering them one-time cash payments instead. My goodness! That should provide more incentive than the drug companies can handle. Not!
  • And he's going to “require” health insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their premiums on patient care. Note: Of course, John Edwards himself has worked hard in the past to make that impossible. As a trial attorney he made his fortune suing doctors for malpractice, helping to drive healthcare costs for non-patient related services (i.e., malpractice insurance) through the roof.

Hey, all complaining aside, hat's off to the Democrats. At least they're debating the issue, even if all of their suggestions are utter nonsense. The Republicans have completely avoided the topic – all except Ron Paul. Ron Paul's approach to healthcare is quite different from the Democrats. He sees almost no role for government in providing healthcare. I'm not sure that's either practical or generous. However, his position on the use of dietary supplements is spot on and should be adopted by every politician in every country in the world. Here is an excerpt:

  • The real issue is not whether supplements really work, or whether FDA drugs really are safe. The real issue is: Who decides, the individual or the state? This is the central question in almost every political issue. In free societies, individuals decide what medical treatments or health supplements are appropriate for them.

You gotta love it.

Click for Related Articles


    Submitted by Jon Barron on
    June 20, 2007 - 11:28pm

    You're absolutely right, Tony, we are not 100% responsible for making ourselves sick. BUT, for many illnesses, the choices we make are indeed responsible for 90% of the problems we face or more. Just take diabetes and heart disease, two diseases profoundly impacted by the choices we make.
    Over 1,000,000 people die each year in he US from those two diseases alone, billions and billions and billons of dollars spent each year on those two diseases alone.
    If we didn't have to spend the money and resources treating just the self-infliced portion of those two diseases, we'd have enough to provide real health care to everyone who really needed it. If we don't address that issue, no healthcare system will work.

    Submitted by Tony Isaacs on
    June 20, 2007 - 7:00pm

    I agree, Jon, the answer to better health care lies in keeping our selves healthy through proper diet and lifestyle decisions. In a sense, you are what you eat and do (or don't eat and don't do).
    Eating wise amounts of the right kinds of foods, keeping your body and environment rid of toxins, a bit of exercise, fresh air, clean water and a bit of sunshine can go a long, long way. That and proper supplementation to add in what diet alone can no longer provide due to our depleted soils.
    Yet, I cannot say the we as individuals are 100% responsible for making ourselves sick when you consider 1) toxins in our foods, soils, water and air, 2) nutrition that has been processed out of foods and harmful additives for shelf life, taste, texture and color processed in, and 3) the way generations of our doctors have been taught to downplay nature and nutrition and mislead us into a lifetime of managed illness and prescription drugs.

Add New Comment