Tuesday, August 25, 2009


Any comments, memories, reflections are welcome.


  1. I am sorry he suffered. He accomplished a lot of good and was an icon in the Senate. For those of us who are older, he was a reminder of a time in America when the world loved us and our wonderful President; a time a lot of us would like to recapture.

  2. Boy, the accolades are just rushing in, aren't they? I'm sorry Diane, if you respected him then I hope your memories bring you happiness.

    I'm just happy he's finally Gone. It's unfortunate that he had to die, to leave, but Sen Kennedy to me was a accomplisher of growing Govt into the unmanageable Godzilla which today is bent on inflicting Bankruptcy on us all. If Universal Single Payer Healthcare were at all possible, we'd have had it Ages ago.

    There isn't a politician in America who wouldn't have delivered it in a Heartbeat - and thereby ensured their own Re-Election in perpetuity - if the equity had ever, or could ever, exist to properly fund it.

    We don't have Single Payer already, because even the Federal Reserve doesn't Dare, print the IOUs to underwrite it.

  3. Ted Kennedy was a fellow human being, complete with flaws just like most of us. Within his own family he was the " go to man" on almost every issue, simply because he survived.

    He will be most remembered for some of his major successes, raising minimum wage, COBRA (healthcare in between jobs), and worked tirelessly to champion equal rights.

    He, like many others were no match for the wall of corporate greed that runs and ruins our government.

    The problem now is that we do not have someone who is so self made and independently wealthy to stand up and be the "true north".

    We have lost a great statesman, a consistent and tireless champion of health care reform.

    He will be missed.

  4. I guess inevitably this turns to a discussion of "issues" rather than the Senator himself.

    For me, his capacity to "reach across" brought both good compromses and undesirable ones. Some I disagreed with at the time, I changed my views about later. And vice versa.

    I did not find his specific positions consistent, but, again, I accepted that as part of the political machinery. As for virtually all, principle and practicality changed depending on context, including political climate, etc. His ooverall committment to the issue was certainly consistent.

    I would like to understand this statement from D. Bunker: "If Universal Single Payer Healthcare were at all possible, we'd have had it Ages ago."

    Obviously, it is possible in every other industrialized country. What is it about the U.S. that makes it impossible?

  5. Justice, If you're an actual Judge, please don't take this personally. But do you really Want to have to deal with a Govt employee, to receive Health Care? You can't fire them. They don't care, because they don't have to. They're protected.

    Our national Debt exceeds $9.3 Trillion already. That's 372% of GDP. In the crisis of the 30s it peaked at 301%. Here, (if I'm grokking their Keynesian nonsense) our Debt is at $11.7. Foreign nations are already balking at buying more of our debt. It's approaching junk status. We can't afford yet another layer of patronage Bureaucrats on Top of subsidizing the French, (suppressed drug prices) and everyone Else's Single Payer systems, which are failing and bailing.

    France's Program - Assurance Maladie - advertises a cost of 11% of GDP. (against our 16%) France is now looking to Us for ideas to keep themselves solvent.


    "A Frenchman making a monthly salary of 3,000 euros has 350 of them deducted for health insurance. Then the employer throws in an additional 1,200 euros. " (It costs More than Half of what the worker makes, just to insure them. That's more telling than % of GDP. ... )

    ... Drugs developed in America at enormous expense do cost less in France, which decides what drugs are to be used and at what prices. American patients in effect subsidize the French, who take the same pills at half the price because American pharmaceutical companies don't want to lose the French market. Assurance Maladie has run in the red since 1989, and this year's shortfall is expected to be 9.4 billion euros ($13.5 billion) and 15 billion euros in 2010, about 10% of its budget. Official World Health Organization statistics show the U.S. lagging behind France in infant mortality rates — 6.7 per 1,000 live births vs. 3.8 for France. Halderman notes that in the U.S., any infant born that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth."

    Figures Massaged to FIT AGENDAS.

    "In France — in fact, in most of the European Union — any baby born before 26 weeks' gestation is not considered alive and therefore doesn't "count" in reported infant mortality rates."

    Britain's NHS has women giving births in Elevators and Toilets to keep itself afloat.


  6. Our current Medical System is burying at least 85,000 patients and wasting $35 Billion a year, through Sloth & Stupidity.

    Here, at Death by Medicine, it's Far worse

    "This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be 2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year.

    The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year. The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251"

    At least 40% of Doctors can't even Bother to read the FDA drug labels before they inflict those drugs on people.

    American Chain Hospitals Continued Non Profit (Govt Subsidized) status itself had to be questioned by Sen Grassley in 2005.

    The FED DOJ announced HEAT to combat Health Care Fraud. Its funding boasts a 50% increase, of a Whopping $311 Million, which doesn't even kick in till Next Year. $311 Million is peanuts to combat a Nation Wide Epidemic of Fraud, to say nothing of wholesale Medical Incompetence.

    Couple that with Billy Tauzin's recent statement.

    Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. “80 billion is the max, no more or less,” he said. “Adding other stuff changes the deal.”

    $10 Billion a year is parking meter change to Pharma. Given our President's Cap & Trade, et al. Inflationary agenda, that $80 Billion will cost Pharma less than $50 Billion in equity by 2019, as a Bought Congress grants them Price Hikes to maintain or Improve their current profit margins.

    Health Care is a Commodity, not a Right. The corruption and high prices will never burn themselves out of it until it is DOJ busted Out of being a Govt Protected/Subsidized, Plutocratic Oligarchy with the economic muscle to Capture its Regulators, and no need Whatsoever to Compete for customers, with itself.

    If you're Govt guaranteed that you Can't Fail out of business, what's your Incentive to provide products & services which work, at all, let alone better than the next guy? Doctors and Nurses will be paid less, and resent it. That will attract Fewer & Less qualified applicants to further exacerbate the lethal mistreatment of patients we're seeing already.

    Remember; the French shortage of Govt Wage Suppressed Doctors in the August 2003 Heat Wave killed 15,000 elderly French Citizens.

  7. D. Bunker,

    Thanks for the facts and figures, however, we need to finesse how the dots are being connected.

    Health care is a right and not a commodity. However, allowing our health care system here in the US to become for profit, has turned it into a commodity. That needs to change. People need to go into medicine, science and research with more of an attitude of a calling and a greater desire to help suffering people and not so much with big ego's wrapped up the promise of big money. Health care workers should be paid well, everyone who undertakes the care and time to educate and develop professional skills deserves to find some reward for their efforts.

    Your posts show us exactly why we need to fix the health care system - status quo will not work.

    Kicking government in the teeth every chance we get isn't going to help us. We elect these people in government, the country runs through our government. The government is not perfect, but you are not telling us what we would do without it. Will it just become a "every man for himself system?" - which by the way inevitably happens in the current for profit system.

    Yes, I want government; a democratic and fair government, very involved in my health care. It is this government that protects my safety and security in this country, writes and interprets the laws that we all must abide by and which stabilizes our country. It is the government that we elect and entrust with the powers to serve WE THE PEOPLE who elect it and not the corporations who employ WE THE PEOPLE.

    At the same time, all of us have to remember that we are consumers. We are also health care consumers and we need to take responsibility for what we consume. Improving lifestyle choices and educating people at an early age to make better lifestyle choices is key. Many diseases can be prevented. Education is run by the governments, so governments are the first layer in the complex system to address the prevention of disease.

    Why do so many drugs and devices kill so many people - it isn't entirely the governments fault. Market research companies track doctors prescriptions which drives more sales reps and marketing programs toward the doctor. Some scenarios go like this Sales rep: "Hey Doc is there something wrong with drug XYZ, we've noticed you haven't wrote a script in a while. Did you know there is a CME event next week, I can maybe find you a seat if you are interested.."

    Drugs are good, if you need them and when you need them. However, if you are ill because of poor lifestyle choices you need to be coached to change your ways - stop smoking, lose weight, move more, drink less alcohol, lower stress levels, make good food choices. We have to stop thinking that there are quick medical fixes to everything, that there is one magical pill to make up for our inability to take better care of ourselves for whatever reason.

    This is just a short answer, to your post, I will be thinking about it more. But in the meantime, here is an article about 'Le Treatment" you might find interesting....

  8. “Govt/Industry finessing of dots is exactly how American medicine descended into such an atrocious state.

    I don't Care how much money people make. I Do care about Medical Scientific Fraud making them that Money, at the cost of Other people's Equity, Rights, and Lives.

    Where in the Constitution do we find Health Care enumerated as an Inalienable Right? Which Section or Amendment addresses anyone’s Right, to Health Care? The argument that HC workers Should, be paid well, and Should, be competent, and Should, care, is refuted by the Actuality in France, Britain, and our own nation. Govt mandates to control redistributive compassion funding shortfalls murdered 15,000 of the elderly. Should, is precluded by Socialisms historically irrefutable record of “Every time the Rubber Meets The Road, all four tires blow out.

    Health care Used to be a calling, before Govt stuck it’s Vote Pandering, Un Constitutional, Redistributing claws into the pie. With Govt funding comes Govt rules/guidelines etc. Doctors are today Far more concerned with navigating all that Govt Payee Paperwork, and keeping their butts from being sued, than they are with the Patient.

    "Government that protects my safety."

    Which Government? The FDA which told Congressman Braley that the Supremacy Clause justified FDAs Preemption grab, and theirAmbassador didn’t even Know the 7th Amendment? After swearing an Oath to Uphold it?

    "We are also health care consumers,"

    “EXACTLY! Human beings cannot Consume, a Right. Such consumption is a Scientific Impossibility. ”

    Improving Lifestyle Choices? Education by Govt funded/defined curricula has Home Schooled kids making a mockery of those processed through our miserably failed Govt Schools. Citizens are not equipped with the skills, to even Consider true, Lifestyle Choices, (Intellectual Liberty) thanks to Govt curricula corrupted, politically agendized Schools. Life Style choices are None of Govts legitimate business. What’s next? Govt funded Political Education, as a mandated prerequisite to Voting the Rascals out? (Hello, Campaign Finance Reform?)

    It isn’t the Govt’s fault? Oh Yes it Is!

    Industry funded CME co-option of Science to serve Marketing is killing consumers, wholesale. I’ve one piece of Eli Lilly funded CME suggesting that the underlying disorder of Schizophrenia causes physical degeneration of brain tissue, and suggests a pre-emptive poisoning with antipsychotics to stave off that deterioration.

    NIH gave $38 Million to Dr Nancy Andreasen to take brain pics of Schizophrenics, which Prove that the degeneration is Caused by the drugs themselves. Psychiatrist Andreasen subsequently admitted that she then Sat On the proof for Two Years. Such Life Style Choices need to be identified for what they are. This evidence with-holding holder of the National Science Medal, (from President Clinton) has Still not been arrested.

    "one magical pill?"

    “I differ. There IS one magic Pill. Govt financial support of, and extension of Legislative, Extra Legal cover to, Incompetent Quacks, is Precluded by the Inalienable Rights of Sovereign Citizens as codified In OUR Constitution. (which is Not the property of Govt, nor subvertible by Govt, but meant Exclusively, to Conclusively, Restrain Govt)

    Again, with respect Sir: Health Care is Not a Right, and allowing it to Masquerade as such is opening Pandora’s box. Another Govt in Europe commandeered Health, Finance, The Auto Industry, and the Environment 70 years ago. That Govt. turned Germany and all Europe into a Charnel house, and 69 Million lives were snuffed out Reinstituting the Rule of Law, and Real Rights.”

    Feel Free to click on the link 'Holocaust' on my page for histories of Govt Medicine's initiation of, and perpetuation of, those horrors.

    “Govt is like fire: a Dangerous servant and a Terrible master.”

    George Washington

    Thank You Former Marketing for the informative NYT piece.

  9. To all, I suggest tuning in to Bill Moyers program that reports on the book Money Driven Medicine by Maggie Mahar.

    I don’t normally agree with Bill Moyers positions as I have a more conservative viewpoint but this book appears to cut through the partisan politics bull and get down to the real issue in the healthcare problem.

    Simply stated – The problem is that the healthcare system is too profit oriented, even to the point of not caring about the patient. The waste (that is much) is mainly caused by competition between hospitals and competition between pharmaceutical companies for the patient’s money.

    Republicans like me feel that the government can’t solve this problem because of political corruption and inherent government wasteful practices. Democrats feel that the free market can’t solve the problem which is obvious because that’s what put us in the current position.

    As we duke it out the healthcare industry and pharmaceutical companies stand to be the only winners in this battle because ultimately nothing will be done to get to the root cause of the problem.

    See the program; it will change your perspective.

  10. And so the genius of Billy Tauzin becomes evident.

    He offers an $80 Billion plus $150 Million dollar package to the president and blatantly calls it "protection money". In doing so he further bakes in partisan politics to the health care debate.

    If the president wins and PhRMA has to pay up - that's OK profits are still massive, if the president loses and the health care political battle continues, so much the better.

    Bottom line - as long as partisanship is involved NOTHING will be done. The big money concerns have both sides tied in knots. The only way to untangle the knot is a full frontal assault by both parties in agreement.

    And the chances of that are???
    Totally depend on us.

  11. HolocaustHistorian35yearsAugust 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM

    I'm interested in D.Bunker's Holocaust page. Do you have a link?

    Beyond that, there is more issues in these arguments than I have time/energy to put into right now.

    So I'll just pick up one small bit. Hard as it is to integrate, Nazi public health policy had some enormous successes. They were essentially the first to identify radon and asbestos as significant health concerns. They conducted what probably remains the most successful smoking cessation program in history. For more particulars, See Proctor, _The Nazi War on Cancer_.

    The point is _not_ that this is the good news about the demonic. It is that the obsession with "cleansing" the "German body" had more than one facet. Some of it had to do with exterminating those contaminating "vermin" and "maggots" (Jews, Slavs, Roma, "disabled", etc.) who were corrupting it. Some of it had to do with stuff like radon.

    Proctor calls in "homeopathic paranoia"--the obsessive fear of "small things" that can infect and corrupt you--whether asbestos fibers or those deemed subhuman bacilli.

    The relevant point here is that Nazi medicine and public health policy had only tangentially to do with governmet control of industry (and even those industries--Bayer and Hoechts (now
    Aventis) for example--retained a surprising degree of autonomy. They vigorously competed with each other for slave labor and to use Auschwitz for their "medical experiments"-- corporate "projects" sometimes overridden by Himmler and sometimes not. Getting the Zyclon B contract for the gas chambers was also an example of (semi) free market competition in terms of who could cut the best deal with the SS. Perhaps, like pharma, they should have been freed to effort to compete and negotiate with Nazi "Medicare."

    So any suggestion that, inherently, "the market" offers protection that the government does not is certainly not supported by this history.

  12. HolocaustHistorianAugust 29, 2009 at 12:56 PM

    These are obviously enormously complicated issues, but here is a not too bad summary from Wikipedia:

    "Under the Nazis, free competition and regulation by the market greatly decreased.[88] Nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to disregard competition and private property.[89] Privately, Hitler stated in 1942, “I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative”.[90]"

    Hitler is also on record as saying that the "socialism" he intended in "national socialism" had nothing to do with socialism as understood in a Marxist context.

    Of course, this is not a particular the death panel crowd wants to think about.

  13. Holocaust Historian;

    My Apologies, & Corrections: I have a Series of posts under the postings LABEL, not link, "Holocaust" & of course the Tauzin deal of an $80 Billion reduction over 10 years is $8 Billion per year, not $10 Billion.

    And as food for Further thought, might we Also consider the 13th Amendment Prohibition of "Indentured Servitude" as it applies to Compulsory Coverage: with its attendant Govt mandated HC worker Wage Suppression & HC Commodities Price Ceilings?

    And: IF, the French deal with Drug Makers receiving Half the Money Americans are paying were Not still profitable enough to be attractive to those Drug Makers, why would the Makers have accepted it, rather than simply walking away from the entire French Market? They are not in business to Lose Money.

    The most oft heard reply to WHY We are paying 100% More for the Same Drugs is that WE, must underwrite Pharma's exorbitant R&D outlay. That, is not National Socialism, but Global Socialism.

    We Are subsidizing Other Countries Universal Plans, which Are digging themselves ever deeper into debt, & preordained collapse.

  14. Thanks for the links,DB. I haven'te read it all, but what I have seems generally accurate and well documeted.

    So the quesiton becomes--what are you tryig to show through this history. It it the story of one nation that went nuts? What happens when a state manages healthcare? Or what?

    Regimes like Naziism are very specific in their goals. Their aims are, quite literally, to create a "new man"--in their case, some sort of "Aryan" blond beast, uncorrupted by cosmolotans, urban life, and _especially_ Jews.

    Most of the major geneocides of the 20th century were similarly directed. Some version of race theory was at the core, and weeding out inferiors, while protecting superiors, was the same. This is how postive change happens in history according to these views. The genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Statin Soviet Russia followed the same essential model.

    In any case, the difference between _all_ of these horiffic histories, and outrages that tend to be focused upon here, is not that certain groups become targets to be "cleansed" away. Rather, people--young, old, in-between, are simply "collateral damagage" in someone else's project--make the drug a "block buster," ignore red flags, etc. is all in the surface of profits. Those who are killed on the way are, from that perspective, unlucky folks. Nothing personal, just trash in the wrong place.

    So you can have disposable people because some are directely targeted, in mass numbers, or disposable simply because they are part of your "customers" up unti the point your project yets yanked as a killer.

  15. Where does it say in our constitution that Health care is a right? In the preamble of the Constitution we have this: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The Constitution has a total of twenty-seven amendments. The first ten, collectively known as the Bill of Rights.
    The ninth Amendment by it’s wording is generally seen, though much contested as, the amendment that speaks to the part of promoting the general welfare of the people which would have to include accessing health care. “In the year 2000, the Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn gave a speech at the White House on the subject of the Ninth Amendment. He said that the Ninth Amendment refers to "a universe of rights, possessed by the people — latent rights, still to be evoked and enacted into law....a reservoir of other, unremunerated rights that the people retain, which in time may be enacted into law." I will agree that the argument might be a difficult one to make, but consider that the government is involved in health care by virtue of the FDA, NIH, and Health and human sciences division of the government in general. In fact, I would raise the very question of how we can do any of what our forefathers expected us to do unless we are healthy to carry it out.
    More on my next post

  16. Further to what I said above, the United Nations adopted, in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Rights. The Preamble is:
    Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
    Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
    Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
    Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
    Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
    Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
    Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
    Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. Article 25:

    1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
    2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

    More on my next post

  17. Access to health care is a right. It is a universal right and we need to get more serious about ensuring that every citizen accesses it. We can do that through health care reform and that is what we must do.

    Can we consume a right? Well sort of, it is a game of semantics though. We can invoke our rights, and when we do that we have to have an understanding of what we are doing. So, like consumers, we have to be informed individuals and we have to have access to objective, unbiased and meaningful information.

    We have learned important facts from the misdeeds of those in the past, Vioxx for example. Now is the time to examine regulations that serve and protect people who are accessing health care as well as those who provide access to health care. This can only be done through government.

    When anyone hides, misconstrues or denies information to any individual which would interfere with that persons ability to improve their general welfare, then the government must invoke the law and ensure that we protect those inalienable rights. In this respect, I would point out to you that charging excessive prices for any aspect of health care, whether it be drugs, devices, or access to health care professionals is discrimination.

    Do people in the United States pay higher drug prices in order to subsidize the lower prices paid by other countries of the world? If we do then we have to fix it. I would say that Pharma in general should stop spending $57 billion dollars a year on gifts to Physicians and other marketing paraphernalia, because they can't afford if we can't. Remember it is our health care money, the money deducted from our salaries through employer programs or paid in insurance premiums or deducted through taxes that is used to pay for access to health care and the drugs and devices that go along with it.

    Quite frankly I would rather spend more of my money on prevention of illness wherever possible, than trying to recover from it.

  18. The reason we have laws and courts is to establish new institutions, or reinvigorate old ones, based on sound and rational policy.

    Appeals to the Constitution on such issues are usually red herrings. While it took formal amendments to grant rights for women to vote, African Americans to exist as citizens, etc., no amendment was needed to create Social Security, Medicare, FDA, and a host of other institutions most of us (yes, with fringe exceptions) now consider essential.

    BTW, it took until the 1960s to get a Supreme Court decision that said anti-miscegenation laws were un-Constitutional.

  19. Justice,

    I think appealing to the constitution is the right thing to do. The constitution provides the framework of rules at the highest level and therefore sets the tone for the laws and institutions of the country and states.

    In light of the discussion in the comments above about the extent of Nazi involvement in health care issues, we need to revisit the Nuremberg code of ethics.

    Please follow the link :Nuremberg Code of Ethics

    We need to pay attention to this important document. It is being challenged on a regular basis.

  20. Hi Former,

    It seems we often differ on the importance of codes of ethics--not in their substance, but in their impact. No doubt German docs also had some version of an ethical code before the Nazi era. Perhaps it made a difference to some; not many, as far as I know. Once people are defined as not-human--indeed, as health threats themselves--anything can follow.

    Re: appealing to the Constitution, of course, if there is a case to be made. My point is that it's a two-edged sword. If one claims something is a "right," and does not find it explicitly in the Constitution, than that is the end of the discussion for some people (conveniently enough). But there are obviously things we recognize as rights in a broader sense that are not, in fact, _literally_ in the Constitution.

    I suppose the real question is literalism versus the possibility of interpretation in contemporary contexts.

  21. There's an interesting link to an article about the erosion of medical ethics leading up to the Nazi period, at:


    While I haven't accessed the full article, it sounds like the emphasis is on the various expressions of the eugenics movement that was central in all the Western countries.

    Interestingly, perhaps, the entire thalidomide episode was based on distributing a med to pts with nothing resembling "informed consent" or any information at all about what they were receiving. Gruenthal, a German company, developed thalidomide (and Grunenthal was not without culpability during the war), but thalidomide was distributed in the same way everywhere. And all this after the Nuremberg Code.

  22. Hi Justice,

    I like that we have different view points. I would like to know what your specific complaints are with the Nuremberg code so that I can be enriched by your knowledge. I do not think the Nuremberg code is the final word. However, I do think the issue of informed consent is very critical and has far reaching consequences. But like you say, it depends on who and how it is being interpreted. We need to re-visit these documents and finesse them all the more.

    In my mind, informed consent is the one area that we must work on in order to fix what is wrong with the system.

    I will follow the link you provided.

  23. Former Marketing

    The preamble introduces the Hoped For Blessings our Constitution Desires to ensure for us, not the mechanics of carrying them to fruition. It is but a Preface, enticing the reader along to the Riches within which it then enumerates, cataloged by and through, the numbers. Those Riches are not an open ended General Welfare Improver subject to the changing whims of political exigencies.

    There's no end of the mischief Congress has already created through legislating into existence the "General Welfare" in trade for reelection.

    The very substance of the 27th Amendment serves proof against our trusting in the honorable intentions of Congress. Amending the Constitution is no small beer. If Congress hadn't been repeatedly caught red handed and howled at, for decades, Why, was this Amendment needed? (The actual amount involved was Chicken Feed compared to their day in day out Blitzkreig on the Treasury) If Congress were trustworthy At All, that could have been done through legislation. But they have repeatedly proven themselves So untrustworthy that the News Cameras Demanded it be Set in Amendment Stone.

    Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn is welcome to espouse whatever opinions he wishes wherever he wishes. But unless and until Constitutionally Amended into existence through Article V, Bailyn's unremunerated rights will remain unremunerated. They may become Law, but they won't become rights.

    As to our forefathers wishing us Health, they would be Turning in their Graves at FDA approving Vioxx, Abilify, Asenapine, Fanapt, and so on, wholesale, while issuing General Mills a Butt chewing for advertising that Cheerios reduces cholesterol, due to Regulations, as Law, smothering Horse Sense. FDA certifies as safe and effective, Neuro Toxins which have Murder as a side effect. Those approving and selling these drugs have no way of knowing Who their Manchurian Candidate might go off against. What about the General Welfare of the victims and their families?

    9th Amendment:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other Rights retained by the People."

    The 9th Amendment specifically guarantees the Rights of the People, protection From Govt. The framers intended the First 8 Amendments as Individual Rights. Historical scholarship, and numerous Court decisions have born ample witness. Why then, would they have meant to confer an opposite construction upon the word 'people' in the 9th?

    There was heated dissension over even Including a Bill of Rights on the ground that future generations would misconstrue those first 10 as opening the door to intrusion upon all other Rights which had Not been spelled out.

    Even should one extend #9's "rights retained by the people" as empowering the individual States to represent the Rights of their Inhabitants, that construction Still expressly says Hands Off to the Federal Govt.

    The UN:

    When, and Where, did the America People decide that anything emanating from the UN should supersede our Constitution? When did WE the People (not Secretaries of State) abrogate Our Sovereign Liberties to UN decrees? Speeches and Resolutions are all fine and dandy. So are Ferris Wheels. What, has the UN done for Human Rights in Zimbabwe? Rwanda? The Sudan? Tibet? Bosnia? Burma? The list is endless.

    I've seen photos of a young Iranian woman buried to her waist, and three men with shovels surrounding her as a forth stomps down the dirt at her short rib. I will never forget the horror in her eyes, awaiting their stones, and the impish glee in theirs. She and millions more are the UN and its toothless, Human Rights Resolutions.

  24. Justice;

    The Court has proven itself Quite capable of falling Flat on its face. Eminent Domain?

    Buck V Bell has the Judiciary promoting the "General Welfare" over Individual Rights.

    "Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in 1927: We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

    Article I Section I

    "All legislated powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."

    All, Legislative powers are Granted, to Congress, by the people. Congress can Not grant itself, anything. The Judiciary are to Rule on matters of Law (what Congress legislates) and Fact: thereby Restraining Constitutionally empowered Legislators from exceeding their Granted powers, not to aid and abet them. Even Through the intentionally difficult Amendment process Congress has dropped the ball. See Amendment 18 requiring Amendment 21.

    But more revolting even than Justice Holmes overreaching (through Not overturning the "substantive Law" he hid behind), is that 7 of his 8 fellow usurpers piled on.

    It is indeed a sorry commentary that even in today's straits we can speak of Constitutional Issues being red herrings, and the shameful fact is, that they are So widely and generally treated as such.

  25. DB--Yes, that's everyone's favorite O.W. Holmes quote. Eugenics was not the creation of the Court. It was the "common sense" of the public in those days (as expressed in the vast majority of newspaper editorials), just as white supremacy was. Holmes was actually a bit of an exception on the latter count.

    I did not say that Constitutional issues are "red herrings" in the sense you ascribe to me. What I wrote was that an appeal to the Constitution as the sole criterion to support or condemn a position is a limited way to argue policy (which is not to suggest how the Court, qua Court, should rule).

    In any event, not all of your argument is clear to me. But it does seem that you understand that the Court itself does not rule exclusively on Constitutional questions. Many of its decisions--like Riegel v. Medtronics--are statutory, and have nothing whatsoever to do with Constitutional issues (other than the fact that Congress passed the MDA, and the Constitution granted them the right to legislate in such contexts).

  26. Former,

    I have no argument with the Nuremberg code. My comment was on the importance we place on such codes as making a difference in moral practice.

    Thus the way virtually all drugs were "tested" (like thalidomide) until 1962. Whatever Nuremberg said meant squat in the context of how "business" was done.

  27. D. Bunker,

    So what argument are you trying to make? Is it something along the lines of all government is corrupt, ergo down with government? So how do we fix this mess, through anarchy?

    I think we fix it by examining what isn't working. Call me naive, but I believe in government and I believe in the ability of the majority of citizens to "do the right thing". But yes, we human beings can do some extraordinary amazing things, and we can also do some very dastardly things.

    You haven't convinced me that the 9th amendment doesn't include the idea that there were rights that need to be protected that were not listed. The 9th amendment speaks to that past and to this the future.

    The UN does not supersede our constitution. Again, we all agreed with the spirit of the UN. If the UN isn't working, then we need to fix it. Do you have an alternative suggestion? I believe that we all need to get together, every country in the world and agree that we are all going to take care of our citizens and that is what the International Charter of Human Rights is attempting to do. It is better than nothing.

    Importantly, look at where these recent atrocities are happening. They are happening in countries who do not take care of their citizens, who do not promote education, wellness or even bother to be concerned about food and sanitation issues. Probably due to high level government corruption in those countries, which is another form of anarchy. It makes me realize how well our systems work in the more developed nations of the world in spite of us not quite hitting the high level of standards we have set for ourselves here.

    We have to keep reaching and while it is very good to look to the past, we must never let that slow our progress. We must not forget our history, but build on it, bench mark ourselves and continue to challenge ourselves.

    I believe in the pharmaceutical industry and in the health care system. Neither of them are perfect but with continued awareness and involvement by all of us, we can fix it. We can take what is very good about it and make the improvements necessary so that all citizens can access education, and health care.

    Imagine what it would be like if we could assure every person in America equitable access to post secondary education and access to very good preventive and therapeutic health care.

    A more level playing ground allows more of us to improve our livelihood which inevitably improves the bottom line of the overall health including financial health of this country.

    Justice, I agree, we not only have to appeal to the constitution but follow through. All talk and no action hardly does anyone any good.

    Without going into too much detail, as I am working in this area, I will say again, that the Nuremberg code makes an important issue about informed consent. This is the key argument....But more on that one day in the future...

  28. Former Marketing;

    Nazi Germany's indictment of Socialism transcends time and geography as a Universal Constant. Socialism is merely an Excess of Govt: which is a Consumer, not a Producer. And the cost is always Eugenic in one way or another.

    To improve Our Healthcare, we need first determine what constitutes Actual Medical Need, and prune from it Fraud which has on every hand Driven affordable, quality Healthcare out of reach.

    Psych Ed today has 1 in 5 suffering from a Diagnosable Mental Disorder. Major Red Flag! The Physical problems Psych drugs cause, cost us far More than even the $40.3 Billion they took in last year: perhaps 5 or 6 fold more in creating Real medical problems for countless people.

    How much Actual Bio-Scientific Proof exists of Mental Illness being a Stand Alone Phenom?

    0%, NONE.

    Enter the Incurably Opinionated with their Financial Interest in Imaginary Diseases. Very few are yet up to speed on what a lethal joke Psychiatry actually is.

    "Psychiatry lacks the fundamental elements of any field claiming to be a science."

    Its DSM hosts 374 Different Billing Codes to condemn people as Incurable.

    'Unspecified Mental Disorder' is one. Simon says, ..... "Poof, you're, ..... Incurably, Ill. Pay the receptionist on your way out. And keep coming back weekly to continue paying the receptionist."

    2 documents are particularly damning of the Degree of damage Psych Drugs inflict.
    Psych drugs Cause Epidemic Psychosis. See Whitaker (Conclusion pg 11)

    MH Treatment is 1 drug, followed by more to counter the 1st's adverse effects, and on and on exponentially disabling Patients into psychotic vegetables, or corpses. It is still Eugenics.

    Psych drugs Cause Suicide. See Jannel

    Govt Payer Will fund/is Now funding, the selling of More drugs – which Cure Nothing. Antipsychotics take 25 Years off a life. Shrinks and GPs hand them out like PEZ. The FDA label on Risperdal weasels its way around a 100% Increase in Suicide attempts upon Discontinuation, while claiming its potential for addiction is unknown.

  29. Former Marketing;

    TMAP and its clones put those Toxins on State Medicaid Formularies at Ridiculously Inflated Prices over older drugs through claiming the newer drugs are Safer. The Facts have surfaced. They are not safer.

    From whence TMAP? See Allen Jones, pg 3

    " ..... former Texas legislator, Tom Robbins, was annoyed that his colleagues seemed to pass legislation that they had not even read, let alone understood. To prove a point he introduced a resolution to honor Albert de Salvo. The language of the resolution stated in part:

    "This compassionate gentleman's dedication and devotion to his work has enabled the weak and the lonely throughout the nation to achieve and maintain a new degree of concern for their future. He has been officially recognized by the state of Massachusetts for his noted activities and unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology."

    The Resolution passed with a unanimous vote.

    Albert de Salvo was, of course, the Boston Strangler."

    Should Idiots like These be determining Anyone's Health choices? This crop was Not a Fluke. They are the Industry owned Standard of Both political parties. They will continue to fund even more 1 in 5 Psychiatric Opinion until we reject IT, or at least their, 'Compassion.'

    My entrenchment in narrowly defining Rights is Not to disparage those who desire people receive Much better than they're getting, but is predicated upon the ideal that we have no Right to further inflict this economy busting Pharaonic Plague of Incurable Opinion upon our Nation.

    Bust the fraud - financial, scientific & regulatory - out of the game, and costs will drop as Health Outcomes improve dramatically, Without Single Payer: which we can't afford anyway.


Note - Due to a time out issue with Blogger, you may receive a message that requires you to resend your comment. This will not affect its contents.