But not only the system needs to change. Our concept of health and care also needs changing.

Politicians and pundits, for the most part, are not helping. The kind of fundamental change that is needed isn’t going to come from the government, and it isn’t going to come quickly or easily. Until we want to be well, and until we take responsibility for that wellness, and, to some degree, the wellness of others, it ain’t gettin’ any better.

A change in the delivery system, from private to government, isn’t going to improve America’s health. Even a successful attempt at making our current approach to health care available to everyone, will not result in our nation being healthier. Most likely, it will only mean a more complicated, more expensive, and more ineffective healthcare system.

Caveat: I’m not an expert on healthcare, health, medicine, wellness, doctors, politics, economics, or America.

A recent article got me stirred up, though it really didn’t have anything in it that hasn’t been said by someone already. David H. Freedman’s The Triumph of new-Age Medicine (a provocative title) is the featured article in this month’s The Atlantic.

I think what he’s saying, if I understand him, is that we have to want a preventative approach to health care and that our physicians have to be incentivized (and trained) appropriately to deliver it. (the Government can’t do this). Our system is predicated on an infectious disease model (ie treatment after the fact) and not on prevention or wellness. The article’s title refers to the almost equally positive results New Age or homeopathic techniques demonstrate in comparison to standard treatment models (ie drugs and surgery). He’s not attempting to prove whether or not alternative approaches are legitimate, only making an interesting observation about their comparatively successful outcomes.

Anyone can find a study that backs up their position, and quotes taken out of context can imply entirely different meanings than were intended by their author, but I’m sharing and doing anyway. Here are some snippets from the article I found to be quite convincing:

Heart disease, prostate cancer, breast cancer, diabetes, obesity, and other chronic diseases now account for three-quarters of our health-care spending.

America spends vastly more on health as a percentage of gross domestic product than every other country—40 percent more than France, the fourth-biggest payer.

Aside from getting people to stop smoking, the three most effective ways, according to almost any doctor you’d care to speak with, are the promotion of a healthy diet, encouragement of more exercise, and measures to reduce stress.

diet, exercise, and stress reduction can do a better job of preventing, slowing, and even reversing heart disease than most drugs and surgical procedures.

A major 2004 study that followed 30,000 people concluded that lifestyle change could prevent 90 percent or more of all cases of heart disease.

Medicine has long known what gets patients to make the lifestyle changes that appear to be so crucial for lowering the risk of serious disease: lavishing attention on them. That means longer, more frequent visits; more focus on what’s going on in their lives; more effort spent easing anxieties, instilling healthy attitudes, and getting patients to take responsibility for their well-being; and concerted attempts to provide hope. Studies have shown that when a doctor speaks to a patient about quitting smoking or losing weight, the patient is more likely to do it.

“Doctors don’t tell you the drug they’re giving you is barely better than a placebo. They all spin.” [Ted Kaptchuk, a Harvard researcher] To be approved by the FDA, a drug has to do better than a placebo in studies—but most approved drugs do only a little better, and for many drugs the evidence is mixed. A number of studies have indicated, for example, that most antidepressants don’t do better than placebos, but patients filled more than 250 million prescriptions for them in 2010. The vast majority of drugs don’t work in as many as 70 percent of patients, according to an estimate from within the pharmaceutical industry. One recent study concluded that 85 percent of new prescription drugs hitting the market are of little or no benefit to patients.

A medical system that successfully guided patients toward healthier lifestyles would almost certainly see its cash flow diminish dramatically. “Last year, 75 percent of the $2.6 trillion the U.S. spent on health care was for treating chronic diseases that, to a large degree, can be prevented or reversed through lifestyle change,” says Dean Ornish of UCSF. Who (besides patients) has an incentive to make changes that would remove that money from the system?

Clearly, if we all started demanding a model of health care that would help us change our lifestyles, it would take some time before the economics of that demand resulted in a change to the system, but it would come. As long as money and elections drive this conversation, we’re going to keep getting the same thing. And in that case, we probably deserve it.

Change is a common mantra during every campaign season. No one’s message is ever, “We don’t need change!” As we’re seeing, the current administration’s promise of change is turning out to be a bit underwhelming, at least it isn’t actually much different than the previous. Some changes in details but nothing of substance.

Libertarians represent a diverse, broad spectrum of beliefs and philosophies. There are liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Some of the big shared themes are these:

• Limited government
• Less spending/Less taxes
• Free markets
• Personal freedom
• Personal responsibility

Libertarians tend to believe that most issues should be decided at State level. They believe the federal government should provide for the national defense but not nation building. They tend to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate. As with any party, there are many different kinds of people but these different types all agree that the government’s role in society should be minimal at most.

As I have learned for myself, most people simply do not understand what Libertarians are about. That’s due to the ineptness of communication and poor marketing on the part of Libertarians as well as intellectual laziness on the part of voters. Many wrongly suppose that Libertarians are only about legalizing drugs. True, there are people who make this their main issue but not all. Most importantly, it the basic philosophy of Libertarianism that allows for it. That basic tenet is that government was not intended to police every personal matter. (I feel confident that, given time, individuals could be persuaded as to the peril of granting government, especially the Federal gov’t, this sort of power and permission.)

The main change we need is less government. With less government there would be no need for the overwhelming burden of taxes we all bear. True, simply decreasing the scope and scale of government would not solve all our problems, but getting government out of the way would allow us to pursue good and lasting solutions. Solutions that would last longer than any one particular administration.

Government is not the hope of our society. It is a false savior and a terrible master. Let’s support a new cause (actually, an old one) and a new agenda, one committed to fundamental change.

“I just got a free golf cart. Actually, it cost me $6,490 — but the dealer, Colin Riley of Tucson, Ariz., points out that there’s a $6,480 federal tax credit on such vehicles. Riley runs ads that say: “FREE ELECTRIC CAR … !” Some consumers probably assume it’s a car-dealer scam, but it’s not. It’s an Uncle Sam scam.”

Read the whole article.

Lawmakers were unable to get enough traction to put a statewide workplace smoking ban in place. That’s a good thing. Unfortunately, as local municipalities take up the cause we will end up with even more unfair situations. Your business may go boom or bust depending on which side of a county road or street you’re located on.

This whole thing is about government encroachment on private property rights. Many well intentioned people would like for it to be about public health and smoking. It isn’t. If it were, we’d just make tobacco illegal. Period.

The smoking issue is tough. Lots of people have lost loved ones to cancer. It is a terrible tragedy. I’m all for getting people to stop smoking but this is not the way to do it. When the government takes the same side of an issue you are on it seems like a great thing. Give the government enough power and sooner or later you will be on the wrong side of an issue. At that point it will be too late. Who will take up your cause?

Let the marketplace and society deal with the issue. Keep the government out. They’ve got bigger fish to fry.

Check out this video.

How Far Will Smoking Bans Go

Photo: Baruch Ben-Chorin/Yang Kun

Critical to note is the distinct lean that each have OFF center.  Come back to center.  Check out the Libertarian Party. 

(Thanks to Tim Maguire for sharing this.)

Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

John Hasnas, Georgetown University, January 2009

Libertarian Party of Indiana

Press Release

Indianapolis City-County Councilor Ed Coleman Joins Libertarian Party

INDIANAPOLIS, IN — Edward Coleman, a member of the Indianapolis City-County Council, has switched his affiliation from Republican to Libertarian. Coleman was elected in 2007 to an At-Large position, and will serve as Indianapolis’ only elected Libertarian official.
“This is not a decision I take lightly, nor did I come to it without deep reflection,” Coleman said in a statement released Monday by the Libertarians.
“I have found that the direction of the Republican Party has changed, and it is not the same party I joined many years ago,” he said. “Nor do I believe its current leaders truly represent the ideals that the party markets and advertises to voters.”
Coleman said he faced criticism from fellow Republicans when he opposed the secretive and expensive affairs of the Capital Improvement Board. “The two old parties want obedient followers, not leaders,” he said.
As the Libertarian Party has long been a refuge for disillusioned voters, today’s announcement did not come as a great surprise to Libertarian officials.
“I commend Ed Coleman on his courage and his recognition that the Libertarian Party is the only political party in Indiana and the United States that truly stands for limited, fiscally responsible government and real respect for civil liberties,” said Bill Redpath, Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. “I gratefully welcome him, as I hope to do with other elected officials who are tired of the now clearly unaffordable politics as usual, and who yearn to join “The Party of Principle.”
“This is an important moment for the Libertarian Party of Indiana, and the Republican Party as well,” said Chris Spangle, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Indiana. “Councilor Coleman’s switch is the result of a personal journey many former Republicans have found themselves on in the last year or two. They feel as though the GOP has left them, and they are left politically homeless. Former Republicans and Democrats are looking for a Party where words mean something, promises are fulfilled, and principles are important. The Libertarian Party is the only viable political party that upholds true free market principles, true Constitutional government, true personal freedom, and a decent future for our Country. The Republicans and Democrats both are long on rhetoric, but hold true to the failed policies of the past. Many who follow politics are beginning to understand this.”
Timothy Maguire, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Marion County, has the interesting situation of being a former opponent of Ed Coleman. “Ed and I were both candidates in 2007, campaigning for an At-Large seat on the City-County Council. While we may have been members of different parties at the time, I came to find that we were in agreement on matters of public policy more often than not.”
For Coleman’s complete statements, visit http://www.lpin.org/node/607
To arrange an interview with Coleman or other Libertarian Party members, please contact Sean Shepard at (317) 513-2406.

About Libertarian Party

The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States, and is the only non-major party with ballot access in the state of Indiana.  Libertarians believe in being SERVED by a small non-intrusive government that is financially responsible, administratively competent and socially tolerant.
For more information on the Libertarian Party of Indiana visit: www.lpin.org
For more information on the Libertarian Party of Marion County visit: www.indylp.org

Libertarian Party of Indiana

Todd Singer, Chairman

Libertarian Party of Indiana | 156 E Market St. | Suite 405 | Indianapolis | IN | 46204

Catastrophe is inevitable without the stimulus(a.k.a. spending) package.  At least that is what our politicians want us to believe.  President Obama is at the top of the list.  I think the Wall Street Journal has it right when they compare the current state of affairs with Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. 

Catastrophe is what is coming as we continue to empower the government and weaken the people.  Slowly, but surely, we are moving toward a new kind of socialism. 

A current Newsweek article points it out.

At this rate, it won’t take another generation to see the consequences.  I’ll be able to watch the downfall of the United States in person.

To join the many who have had their way with Churchill’s well known quote, the U.S. system of government is the worst one out there…except for all the others.

I do agree that we have enormous economic problems to deal with.  While I don’t have a the answer for how to solve them, I am certain that the proposed solution currently on the table in Washington is not the right one and will, in fact, cause bigger problems not too far down the road.

If you happen to agree, visit www.nostimulus.com">www.NoStimulus.com>www.nostimulus.com and join me in signing the petition.

How long will the change take?  What will the revolution look like?  Will the recently-recruited stay engaged?

I, for one, will be hanging out with the Libs.

Obama campaign advertising in EA console game.  Genius!