Just Say NO to the Jab

Overview

Just Say NO to the Jab

Bitcoin is the truth; the foundation that society will rebuild upon. Fiat is a lie; everything that it touches is by association also corrupted in some manner. In the bitcoin ethos, no one, and no topic is free from criticism. There is no authority that can prevent the signal from getting out, regardless where it comes from. The internet is decentralized and it cannot truly ever be censored. The “trusted” sources are compromised, and people have to piece the puzzle together themselves. I’m not even going to go into how I came to understand any of this, because it doesn’t matter. I didn’t even want to write it, but I felt it was my moral obligation given how the current events have unfolded. Useful Idiots stuck in the matrix are not going to believe anything that the status quo tells them not to, even if it costs them their life. As I write this, they are lining up for the slaughterhouse for the covid vaccinations, or they already received it and it’s too late. Society is hard forking, and the commies are going down a dark path that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.

Controlling the health care system is a core tenet of communism, as is controlling the money supply. These two areas go together like lamb and tuna fish, or spaghetti and meatballs (if that makes you more comfortable). Controlling the health care system is part of the psyop; mind, body, and soul. For example, the placebo effect only works because humans are powerful enough to heal themselves with thought. They think it is working so it does work. Thoughts are things, quantum physics. The central powers running the world view us as cattle. They not only do not care about our health and well being, they are actively trying to exterminate us. What sounded like a conspiracy theory just last year to the uneducated is actually happening right now, with global covid vaccinations being administered causing global genocide. The Khazarian Zionists are the puppet masters behind all of this deceit, and they have effectively bought their way out of mention of the history books.

A common mistake that is repeated in the bitcoin twitter community is assuming that bitcoin was the only lie they were told, and everything else was basically the truth more or less. They think that anything bad that happened was merely coincidental, and authority figures meant well overall. The reality is much more sinister. To understand these covid genocide vaccines, or vaccines in general, and how this all got so bad, it is important to understand a bit of economics and history.

There is still a massive appeal to authority that takes place in this space when it comes to medical doctors, but the reality is most of them are the most brainwashed out of anyone, and do not actually understand any of this. Understanding health care economics is fringe information that is deliberately hidden from the mainstream and history books. That was obviously the goal, or their plan would not have worked so effectively. These central planners always hide and censor the truth, this big tech recent phenomenon is nothing new either. If something was false, the central planners would have no need to want to censor it. That should inherently raise a red flag that the information they are trying to censor is not only true, but very material to their agenda. Controlling medicine and health is crucial to their plans of issuing in one world central communism system.

Economics ultimately comes down to scarcity, supply and demand, subjective value, opportunity cost, and time preference. Economics equates to the allocation of scarce resources. What I consider valuable, and what someone else does may not necessarily align. For example, I would never spend $1000 on rare Nike sneakers, but there are clearly buyers out there that would pay that for certain scarce models. All human actors have unlimited wants, but we have to choose what we want most, since there is never an unlimited supply to fulfill these demands. In addition, every economic decision comes down to opportunity costs, two mutually exclusive decisions. For example, I can’t both be all in bitcoin and all in the US Dollar at the same time.

The theme of this article is while there are generally markets for everything, there is no market for health care. This is because the supplier of the services can generate the demand for said services. The issue of buying the best health care for the lowest price is one of market efficiency, but the issue of what to do for those people that don’t have the resources to be in the market is one of equity. These two issues will always conflict. The fatties are going to cost more money in health care services than the fit, but should we as a society let the fatties just go without basic health care? What is the answer? To have an educated answer to these questions, it is important to first understand how we got here.


Health Care History

The public health field grew out of sanitary engineering. For most of history, people lived filthy lives, where they rarely bathed, washed their hands, or lived long lives. Disease would spread easily due to this, and the idea of health care was something else entirely. The plague that ravaged through Modern Venice was primarily from a lack of adequate sanitation, not because of the courtesans sleeping with the noblemen. The advances in public health sanitation, including antiseptic in the 1800’s in hospitals were likely the cause for the increased human lifespans, but since the central planners write the history books, and normies do not understand that correlation does not imply causation, eugenics tools such as vaccinations get the credit for this. While most private practice doctors are focused on curing their sick patients, public health physicians are focused on improving the overall health of society. Different countries have different health care systems for many reasons, but one major reason is the sequence of events that took place in each country. The outcome is unpredictable at the beginning, where small, often random events early in the process are “remembered” continuing to have influence later on, and as you progress the range of options narrow down materially. This is because there is no time to just rebuild the system and start over, as people will die in the interim. America was always an enterprising nation, and this culture extended everywhere, including into medicine. Early American Medicine was the Wild West.

There are two overall approaches to medicine:

The first one is natural, and has been practiced for thousands of years, homeopathy. This is where doctors use natural remedies such as plants, rest, and adjustments to promote healing. Homeopathic doctors understand that the human body is the most powerful creature created by God, and can heal from within. Homeopathy is often ridiculed as snake oil, but in the early days of America, there were snake oil salesmen and charlatans from both schools of medicine, given the lack of regulation and entrepreneurial nature of Americans. An example of a homeopathic doctor is going to the chiropractor for back pain, or using medical marijuana.

The second main school of medicine is allopathy. This is what normies think of when they hear the word Doctor. In the 1820’s, allopath’s considered all other practitioners quacks, even though their own treatments were no more effective, if at all. Allopathy is essentially the exact opposite of homeopathy, where they think they can essentially play God, and inject, cut, bleed, or drug their way to better “health.” When thinking of allopathy, think of the blood letters, removal of body parts, like the uterus. Trust the science. For example, the word hysterectomy is named that because allopathic doctors remove the woman’s uterus, because they initially thought women were acting hysterically because of it. With the invention of anesthesia, this school of medicine does have some merit, as homeopathy is obviously not going to fix a broken arm, but normies still do not understand just how bad most of it is for their health. This must be how they blindly lined up for the covid vaccine, blind trust and severe brainwashing.

Early American Doctor’s were not revered like they are today, but were often looked at like crooks. A famous allopathic doctor, John R. Brinkley, used to perform surgery on people and sew goat glands onto people claiming it would promote better health. Doctor’s were certainly not the first class citizens they are in 2021. The technology available to doctors at the time was simply primitive, and if someone went under the knife, there was a good chance that they would die from that procedure. In the early days of American medicine, anesthesia did not exist, and surgeons and barbers were on the same level who both performed a barbaric job that was obviously extremely painful for the patient, with little to no success. In addition, there were several types of doctors. There were domestic practitioners, lay practitioners, and professional practitioners, each with their own specialty and purpose.

  1. Domestic Practitioner- Domestic Practitioner’s were known for their rural self-sufficiency. The industrial revolution killed this movement off as people moved towards the cities for work and started trusting strangers for health care. An example is the woman of the house in rural USA.
  2. Lay Practitioner- Lay practitioners were also known as “Healers.” Associated with religion and ones relationship with God. Religion and health care both dealt with life and death. The church was thus Sovereign, their opinion was important on health matters, i.e. you got a disease because you were a sinner and were not right with God. This was the middle ground between domestic and professional medicine; specifically a direct competitor to professional movement. They felt that practicing medicine was an unalienable God given right similar to freedom or free will. It decreased in legitimacy as the professional movement grew. Examples include botanic practitioners and midwives.
  3. Professional Practitioner- Professional movement changed the way doctors were viewed from middle class to upper class. Their advice was “more than advice, less than orders” which meant you’d be stupid to not take the advice, but that was your call. Penicillin helped strengthen the professional movement as they now had a cure for a disease. Used patient-doctor confidentiality to create information asymmetry and not disclose material information to insurance companies. Their goal was sovereignty, so that patients would not challenge their judgment on all matters, not just medicinal. The plague in 1910 established their role at the top of the public health industry in the USA.

Advances in transportation allowed broader access to treatments. Patients could now save money on the physicians traveling fees by just going to them directly rather than receiving costly home visits. These house visits were still available and they got faster once physicians adopted automobiles, which was another major technological shift that doctors were early adopters of. The time for house visits got cut in half after the adoption of cars. Prior to this option, the transportation fees from the doctor were so high that they would cost more than the actual physician fee, which priced out the majority of the population.

Another major technological invention that occurred during this time period was the telephone, which allowed patients to easily contact their physicians, you no longer had to go to their office on foot and pray they were there to contact them about something. This also saved on transportation fees. These advances allowed physicians to work full time as a doctor and start to gain legitimacy in normies eyes. They went from seeing 5–7 people a day to 18–22 people a day, which also caused a greater dependency on physicians. Another dark side of history that is not often discussed are the mental institutions that became very big as American cities grew. The industrial revolution changed the family dynamic, and families started to no longer take care of their own when they got sick. They started to send them to institutions rather than deal with these problems themselves. Early outsourcing of our problems to the state.

Prior to these advances, physicians worked additional roles such as opening drug stores, being farmers, or even robbing stage coaches to make money on the side when their practice was not getting enough business. There was also too many physicians in specific areas so the advances in transportation allowed a broader range of patients to be treated. There was always a profit motive, business aspect tied to these early American physicians. No one is greater than their incentives. In addition, physicians were too expensive for most people to afford during the 1850’s-1880’s. It was not just the physician’s fee specifically that were expensive, it was the entire process end to end. Someone had to pay for that physician to get there, the hospital does not run for free, etc. These costs are all built into the price of health care that the patient, the customer, has to pay. America was largely still the Wild West at this time, and there were no regulations preventing charlatans from literally sewing goat testicles onto people claiming it would make them healthier. Eventually the American Medical Association was formed and got a handle on these quacks and the rise of the current American Medical Doctor was underway. We already can look at our past to see what would happen in a world where there was no regulations, and it is not a utopia that libertarians may imagine.

War can force the hand of the politicians and citizens alike. WWII was a major reason why the Brits moved to a socialized health care system. They could not afford to pay for the injuries from war, and the cities were destroyed from air raids, so there was a huge need for physicians outside of the cities to take care of everyone. Both the physicians and the patients were in favor of this new socialized system. France took a different route and had companies impose a tax on employees for insurance coverage through their employer. They couldn’t change this plan, so they increased the tax to include entire families under the insurance plan. It is actually ranked higher than the US health care system, where Americans pay for health care both at their employer in the form of insurances, and through Government taxation.

In the US, commercial insurers at the turn of the 20th century shunned selling health insurance because it could not be profitable, they are not in the business of losing money. The function of early American health insurance policies were to provide income stabilization by replacing lost wages. Once FDR bullied the Japanese into Pearl Harbor and the USA entered WWII, Government wage controls were a major contributing factor in the development of employer based health insurance coverage.

That is not to say that the universal health care systems in countries such as Britain (1945), Canada (1966), and Australia (1974) are perfect, either. Many see universal health care for what it is, a Bolshevik fantasy. Universal health care is just a coercive system to be imposed upon people by benighted socialist master planners. Again, if it is a right, than what does that make the physician that provides this service? A slave to the state? This is why universal health care is also not the right answer to this public issue. Overall, the current health care system is the result of the central bank funded world wars. Few.


Health Care Economics

Health Care Economics is unique from traditional markets. There is no price. There is no consumer. Health care is not a business, it is a public good. There is no market for health care, because there is information asymmetry, between the supplier (physician) and the consumer (patient). Supply is limited to the total number of medical students that graduate every year. Information becomes a commodity when there is uncertainty, but it is hard to quantify as again, there is no price. All special features of the health care industry are derived from this uncertainty. The entire health care product is filled with uncertainty. This uncertainty includes whether the patient will survive, whether the physician has the appropriate experience and knowledge to handle anything that comes at them, and the knowledge barrier from the patient to the physician to accurately communicate back and forth. A feedback loop.

The nature of demand for health care is different than other markets. Illness is unpredictable, and thus so is the demand. In addition, most hospitals went the non-profit route which demonstrates how the health care industry has departed from the traditional profit motive based industries. Pricing is based on the ability to pay, or price discrimination by income in formal economic terms, including zero pricing for sufficiently indigent patients. This was not always the case, however; physicians were selective in who they saw, and if they could not pay they would not see them, even if a mother was pregnant and trying to have her baby.

Economics is about how markets work and can be improved. The domain of economics is based on market theory, not application. Intellectuals always prefer discussing theory over application in every domain, this way they can never have their views be proven wrong. Promoting application of markets is not within the scope of economics, since not all matters are merely related to markets. Promoting markets does not take into account many other important aspects of life, including fairness, love, beauty, and mercy. As humans we must continually evolve and rise above the prior demons that have faced society.


There are several barriers of entry in the field of health care, such as medical school costs and requirements, liability insurance, the quality and quantity of medical school applicants to be accepted. The supply of medical doctors is restricted to keep the physicians in demand and the price high. If there were thousands of doctors added everyday, there would be too many doctors competing for the same pie, and the price would naturally go down to compensate for the increased supply.

There are five main economic areas:

  1. Macroeconomics: The broader markets. How everything interconnects. For example everything hyperinflating relative to bitcoin.
  2. Microeconomics: Specific individuals and firms. For example, you can exchange dollars for casino chips but they are only valid in that casino.
  3. Public Choice: A market that benefits the overall public. For example, food stamps, homeless shelters, subsidies, etc.
  4. Behavioral: The understanding and application of human psychology applied to decision making abilities for individuals and firms. For example, normies buying the top of the market and selling the bottom of it out of fear.
  5. Personal: Markets ultimately come down to a single individual, a buyer or seller. For example, me buying bitcoin with my stimmy checks.

Health Care Political Continuum

There is an entire political continuum regarding the economics of health care that is correlated to the overall left to right political spectrum.

  1. Pinkos- These are commie sympathizer views. They are fine with normal citizens not having any choice, the communist party determines the health care. For example the one child policy in China with forced abortions by the state. This is not a legitimate view.
  2. Liberals- These are far left, but choice does exists. Liberal as in generous, not as in free (They 1984'd the word). The fatties that eat 10,000 calories a day pay the same price as the athletes that are healthy and in shape, since it is for the “greater good.” In economic terms, the high costs required for the unhealthy are subsidized by the healthy. Legitimate view.
  3. Moderates- Moderates are in the middle between liberal and conservative views. Legitimate view.
  4. Conservatives- Conservatives view that some help should be offered in certain circumstances, but in general less is more. Legitimate view.
  5. Mousekateers- Mousekateers are far right on the political spectrum.They think the free market is the answer to all problems, and the market will work itself out as long as you do not interfere. All government intervention is bad. Many Mouseketeer economists argue that reducing government subsidies to medical schools would cause medical schools to operate more efficiently. A wealthy mouseketeer Doctor does not believe that all children are entitled to as good as health care as his children receive, but they don’t think they should be exterminated either. Legitimate view.
  6. Homoeconomicus- Aka “economic man.” They view all humans as actors having inherently narrow self interests. Homoeconomicus’ are someone that makes all economic decisions as rational pursuits in search of wealth and overall self-interests. This is not true as there are certain things that are not economical, such as our love for our mothers. Would naturally be against national health care. Since certain humans, such as mentally handicapped do not produce any economic value, homoeconomicus’ feel they should be exterminated. They do not care about human life above all else; they treat it as any other commodity. They do not believe in religion and are not spiritual. Economics is not a religion. A male Homoeconomicus believes that the only reason for him not to cheat on his wife is the expected utility is greater if he doesn’t. They think if a blind person shows up to the emergency room and cannot pay, they should be turned away. This is not a legitimate view.
  7. Eugenics- Eugenicists believe strongly in the survival of the fittest, only the “best” genes should be allowed to pass on. Early eugenicists were largely American, such as the Rockefellers, and their concepts and beliefs were adopted later by the Nazi’s. They believe all human value is economic, and mentally retarded people should be exterminated since they do not produce any economic value. Social Darwinist physicians are against health care care charities, because they gave to the poor and it improved the health of undesirable people. Planned parenthood, Big Pharma, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Charles Darwin, etc. are known eugenicists. This is immoral. Furthest right on the political spectrum (“Far right”). This is not a legitimate view.

Further Down the Rabbit Hole

The central power families, such as the Rockefellers, needed to discredit homeopathy and any natural healers as snake oil, and that they actually had the “scientific” based solutions, such as drugs made from oil. These drugs would later be known as “Big Pharmaceutical,” and be normalized into the American culture like hot dogs and bud light. Big Pharma was created not only to add another revenue stream from the oil empire, but it was also to achieve their more sinister goal, total control over the world and depopulation of the masses. This is because they are Khazarians satanists and worship Moloch. Performing human sacrifices to Moloch is all a part of their religion, whether we believe it or are aware of it at all. Pizzagate was real. The central powers (Khazarians/13 families) gained access to all the money printers in the world (Sans North Korea, Cuba, and Iran), so profit was not a big motive anymore, they could print all the money they wanted. Their main goal was eugenics and getting away with the usury scam for once. There is a reason why the chosen people were kicked out of every land they settled in by the Kings.

The central banking powers infiltrated the American Medical schools. They modified their curriculum so that all homeopathic remedies were no longer valid, and only Rockerfeller oil based drugs and vaccines were effective tools at “curing” ailments, even though they all came with severe side effects. There is in fact no evidence that vaccines even actually work as intended, that is injecting a weak form of a virus actually helps anything in the first place. Vaccinations are known to cause massive side effects, but that’s the joke, they aren’t side effects, those are the intended effects. For such a “verify, don’t trust” group, the “science” on vaccinations is suspect at best. This “fact” was part of the curriculum change in the medical schools. Buying influence in industries is nothing new, and only naive simpletons would disagree. Vaccines do not have to go through the same safety testing as drugs, and the vaccine manufacturers have immunity in court against vaccine injury victims. This essentially makes them unable to be held financially liable for their crimes. Medical students do not challenge this, as it would clearly bring unwanted attention and mockery, and then they further perpetuate this lie unknowingly or not. They most likely are unaware of any of this in the first place due to the brainwashing. Most people, doctors included, simply cannot get to the place where there are rich and powerful men that are eugenicists, and want to wipe out everyone they deem inferior to them, but that is the case and has been ramping up over the last century.

Once the eugenicists learned about how to exterminate the masses, it was time to put the play into action. As fiat fund wars longer than they would naturally be able to go on a sound money standard, the world wars were used to push the central power agenda. The central bankers funded both sides of the war, so it really did not matter who won, as long as they still had control over the money printers and health care systems afterwards. Hitler was fascinated by eugenics and learned a lot about it from the Americans. After the war the Nazi doctors were obtained by the US Gov under Operation Paperclip to come over to the states so the lessons learned from the concentration camps could be applied here. It also pushed the Jewish population to the holy land, Zionist Israel, that was actually sold during WWI and they needed a reason to relocate them there for the final solution. These moves were all done intentionally to cause a holy war between the Palestinians and Jews and later try to take down the USA from within. It is no coincidence that they are the most heavily policed and vaccinated nation right now, and the dual Israeli USA citizens have their own agenda.


Health Care Costs

What is the optimal amount to spend on health care? That is determined by the market, but there is no market. A compromise can include some capped public expenditures with no limits on private options. More government expenditures do not necessarily produce better results, this is a strawman concept, i.e. better results to whom? Who defines better results? Utilization reviewers get paid to not pay for your health care costs. In addition, the consumer does not know enough to make an educated decision on health care since it is too scientific. There is also the issue of moral hazard, where patients use more medical services than they otherwise would have because insurance lowers the cost to them. This is a problem for health insurers as it leads to excessive use, increased costs for medical care, and increased insurance premiums. The behavior of insured versus uninsured Americans is the moral hazard the insurance companies are primarily concerned with. This results in information asymmetry where no one really knows the true price. Moral hazard exists if no one pays anything, as they will be likely to go to the doctor for any little thing, than if they had to co-pay a certain amount before they could be seen. This is why the co-pay exists in the first place. In addition, the incentive structure is such that the people that need health care the most, the obese whales with pre-existing conditions, are the most expensive to insure as they are viewed as high risk from the insurance companies, as they should be. Insurance deals in the real world with risk and costs, not the politically correct world where nothing matters.

Given how litigious Americans are, malpractice is a big concern which leads to high premiums that ultimately the customer has to pay for. A very small percentage of malpractice cases are from negligence. This is because the health care field is inherently risky, as it deals with life and death everyday. Also, these malpractice cases generally do not result in a large payout given these inherent risks. We only hear of the big payouts because they are the rare exceptions. Mouseketeers often support the state putting a cap on malpractice premiums; however, this support seems inconsistent with the Mousketeer pledge to support the free-market since the premiums are the cost of doing business. The risk of malpractice litigation may be keeping intelligent individuals from becoming physicians in the first place, but it is also there to make sure that physicians perform the required due care to prevent negligence as much as possible. The largest number of legal actions against physicians are related to the false claims act.


Medicare/Medicaid

The US government spends more money on health care than anyone else. In 2020, 18% of our GDP was for health care costs, and this figure is continuing to rise. Before 1965, 80% of US health care expenditures were spent by individuals out of pocket or by private insurance, i.e. they were mostly private costs. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid were founded, which dramatically increased the role of government in financing medical care. Medicare covers old people, and Medicaid is for the medically needy. These programs were over-budget from the get go in true government fashion. When costs go up, prices go up. Hospital prices rose faster than any other costs in the field. It was about incentives; hospitals had no reason to be efficient as their costs were paid for by Medicare. The elders costs were subsidized by paying doctors less and taxing the young more. This led to less doctors willing to accept Medicare, as they were not willing to work for the decreased wages. Private health care insurance expenditures continued to rise rapidly in the 1980’s.

The creation of HIV further added to the demand of the system. To reduce Medicare costs, they removed the option where you could pick your own Medicare provider, it would automatically be picked for you. This only lasted until the mid 1980’s, when old people could now sign up for HMO’s if they wished, which provided more choice. However, patient’s began to revolt against HMO’s as they learned that their primary care doctor was paid not to refer patient’s to tests, specialists, and procedures. In addition, the government then made Medicare all or nothing in the early 1990’s; a doctor could no longer selectively accept some Medicare patients but deny others. This was how the government got in the pockets of most doctors, as most health care patients are the elderly and they would lose most of their customers if they decided against accepting Medicare. This is also why the best doctors do not accept Medicare, as they do not want the government in their pockets telling them what they can or cannot do, and they generate a high enough demand from their skills and expertise to thrive financially while doing so.

The mouseketeers have always been upset about Medicare/Medicaid. These programs implied paying for human actors that did not provide economic value, the elderly and the retarded. They are still upset because government expenditures are used to pay for this health care, rather than voluntarily. They would be fine with zero government expenditures used for health care and private insurance being promoted as the solution. They would also be open to managed care and setting price caps. They think the free market solves all problems, but this is not the case in health care. More supply would mean less qualified applicants getting into med schools, more doing it for the wrong reasons. It would also create more demand for services would make the price go up. Thus, you cannot have a totally free market and reduce the total costs spent, as costs will go up. Many physicians are currently mouseketeers, but they argue that heavy regulation is justified to protect the health of their patients. The belief that we should remove all government restrictions from health care delivery (Mouseketeers) and those that think the government should control the entire health care system (Pinkos) share one thing in common. Their beliefs are usually derived from their overall political philosophy and a lack of understanding of the complexity of the American health care system.


Sovereignty

The Sovereign Individual is a favorite book of bitcoiners, which predicted the current events two decades in advance. Sovereignty is a core ethos among bitcoiners and American medical doctors alike. Doctor’s should be sovereign, which is someone that has full authority, autonomy, and sets boundaries.

  1. Authority- Doctor’s must have authority, including both dependency (people are dependent on the physicians knowledge) and legitimacy (people view their knowledge as legitimate).
  2. Autonomy- Doctor’s must be independent, and have the freedom to makes their own laws. Often used as the basis for one’s moral responsibility to something.
  3. Boundary Making- Doctor’s must set boundaries, for example they create specific positions with specific duties, i.e. everything is a specialty: surgery, anesthesia, etc.

A sovereign doctor always has the patients best interest at heart. There are clear parallels between bitcoin sovereign individuals and the sovereignty required to be a competent medical doctor. A sovereign doctor employed by a hospital must act in the best interest of the patient. Several things can get in the way of sovereignty. For example, Arizona has a gag rule where if you are a doctor and want to offer a certain drug to a patient but their insurance does not cover it, you are not allowed as a doctor to even talk about it without breaking the gag rule. Insurance companies ration health care services, the American health care system is the most rationed health care system in the world. In addition, wealth is not a requirement of sovereignty. Americans rejected the English model where physicians were upper class, but not paid because it ran against the pluralistic democratic society.

Doctor’s should also be perfect agents and act out of the greater good for society, not their specific self interests like traditional businesses. This is why they take the Hippocratic oath and promise to do no harm. An example of a perfect agent is a judge. They are impartial, and neither on the side of the prosecution or defense.

Beneficence

Sovereign’s are beneficent. Beneficence means to do the best for your people, and implies sovereignty. A beneficent doctor acts in the best interest of their patients, regardless of their wishes or input. If they want a surgery that the beneficent doctor deems unnecessary, he will tell them to go get the surgery from some other [benevolent] doctor. Beneficence is doing something to benefit that person whether he or she wants it or not. They know best, since they are sovereign. A beneficent doctor would tell his patients not to get the covid vaccine, or any vaccine for that matter. They would not inject the vaccines at all.

Benevolence

Perfect agent’s are benevolent. Benevolence means they want to cater towards the consumer’s preferences, not what they necessarily think is in their best interest. If you are a supplier and a consumer wants a beer, and you tell him water is better for him, the customer will tell you off and will go get beer from someone else. Consumers are benevolent, they want their own interests satisfied. Perfect agents in economics strive to be benevolent, since it is in their best interest to maximize their utility. According to economic theory, a rational physician should never be a perfect agent, because being a perfect agent requires him or her to act against his or her own economic interest.

Sovereign’s do the best for their people, but sovereignty does not imply they are a perfect agent, in fact they are mutually exclusive. Pharmaceutical companies are benevolent, they want to maximize their profits, and thus they have spent considerable capital on discrediting homeopathic medicine and any and all mention of building ones own immunity, which would not be in their self interest as they would sell less drugs. This is also why they are able to advertise pharmaceuticals on television in America.

Mutual Exclusivity

Doctor’s cannot be both beneficent and benevolent. For them to be benevolent, a perfect agent, they must neglect their own self interests. For example, benevolent doctors perform unnecessary surgeries if their patients want them, such as circumcisions. Beneficent doctor’s will not perform such unnecessary surgeries since it is not in their best interest to have said surgeries performed, as circumcision violates non aggression principal (NAP), and creates deeply rooted trauma in their early subconscious that effects them for life. The benevolent doctor will say it looks better, and that is what girls prefer, as he gets a new Mercedes Benz with the additional revenue generated from it. Perfect agents are never sovereign, because it goes against his best interest to maximize utility. A sovereign would have their patients best interest at heart, not their wallets. Thus, American doctors are not truly sovereign.

In the theory of economics, the suppliers strive to be benevolent, not beneficent. Thus this is in conflict with the health care industry. People should be able to pay as much as they want for health care. Economics would apply a homoeconomicus view to health care. Only people that can afford health care should get it.


Issues with American Health Care

There are three main issues that have plagued the American health care system historically.

  1. First, there has been a historical problem with professional sovereignty in American Medicine, which has made it hard to improve regulations and standards.
  2. Second, the organization of medical care cannot be understood with reference solely to medicine, the relations between doctors and patients, or even all the various forces internal to the health sector. There are bigger forces such as politics, religion, and money. They all had a huge factor in the building of medical institutions (hospitals, schools, big pharma). This is where any critical thinker can identify that the incentives and consequences here are not aligned for the greater good of humanity, but rather the specific sinister long term goals of a small group of central powers to achieve eugenics and global communism.
  3. Third, the problem of professional sovereignty calls for an approach that encompasses both culture and institutions. Converting the cultural authority of the medical profession into the control of markets, organizations and governmental policy. In other words, nothing is changing without deliberate actions being taken to change the direction in the opposite direction.

Health Care Reform

There is a problem with the financing of health care in the USA. Both in the efficiency with having knowledgeable doctors and equitability with access. If we had a total market for health care, it would be efficient, but not equitable. Treating health care like any other business where the free market can handle all problems is naive thinking at best. The resulting insurance system to bridge the costs does not benefit the patient nor the physicians. Implementing a single payer system for basic health care costs with a private option for the rich is a compromise that would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the current system. This would separate the basic needs of a civilized society not working towards economic interests and the free market. On average Americans pay more money for average mediocre care with the current system, with the rich having the option to get the best health care in the world. It is similar to the overall social divide between the rich and the poor in America. However; it is also clear that health care is unique, and it cannot be treated the same way as buying a pair of sneakers. It is clear that some government regulation is needed to ensure citizens have access to health care. Sorry I know, turn in my bitcoiner card.

The overarching goal of health care reform has three basic attributes:

  1. Leave no one uncovered. Medical debt must disappear as a cause of personal bankruptcy in America.
  2. Health Care should no longer be an economic catastrophe for employers.
  3. We should hold doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug, device companies, and insurers collectively responsible for making care better, safer and less costly. I.e. get the eugenicists out of power.

Lastly, if it isn’t already clear by now, DO NOT GET THE C0VID VACCINATION! DON’T WEAR A MASK! SAY NO TO LOCKDOWNS!


Use Case #1

The Smiths have a baby girl that has a minor heart defect. With minimal surgery she will be fine. Without it she will die. The copay on the surgery is $50. The Smiths decide not to pay, to let her die, throw the body in the trash, and then have another baby, hopefully a boy.

Questions:

1. What law of economics did their decision violate?

2. How did it violate it?

3. What law of human decency did it violate?

4. What might Homoeconomicus say about their decision?

Answers:

1. Human rights.

2. The baby never had a fair chance, and was snuffed because the parents wouldn’t pay.

3. Killing your own offspring.

4. They would agree with the decision


Use Case #2

You are the best breast cancer surgeon in Arizona. Ms. Smith comes to you as a surgeon says she has breast cancer and wants her breasts removed. You run a series of tests and find absolutely no evidence of cancer. She insists that you remove her breasts anyway.

Question 1. In the past (around 1970) in the United States, what would you be most likely to do?

Answer: Not remove her breasts since there is no medical reason to do so.

Question 2. In the current (2021) American health care system where access to care is heavily rationed by insurance carriers, Ms. Smith is not likely to get her breasts removed because why?

Answer: Her insurance carrier will not authorize the payment.

Question 3. In the Musketeer’s dream world of the future where everyone pays for their own health care or goes without and physicians maximize their profit there is no doubt that you would.

Answer: Go ahead and remove her breasts since you get paid.


Use Case #3

A physician does six surgeries on your significant other to cure his or her nearsightedness. The doctor, when interviewed by a handsome witty physician detective, admits that he knew your significant other was not a candidate for the surgery because of a genetic eye disease, but did the same surgery repeatedly so he could bill Medicaid to support his cocaine and hookers habit. Your significant other is now blind and you are committed to taking care of him or her for life. Why might a Mouseketeer support a cap on a jury award for your significant other’s and your pain and suffering of $100,000 might be supported by many?

Answer: Larger awards discourage physicians from practicing in your state.