The Decline is Always Slow Until the Rapid Collapse at the End

Freedom and other necessities for prosperity (such as the rule of law, absence of taxation, and so forth) have been in decline in the US over the past decade. The specific proximate causes for the legislation and social changes that brought this decline don't really matter all that much - there is always some sequence of events that politicians and populace can use as justification and cover to further destroy all the qualities that once made their society great.

Interestingly, the field of medicine has escaped lightly in this time of rapidly declining freedoms. Perhaps this was in part because medical research and development is already hopelessly shackled and wedded to the control of central bureaucrats - innovation is already crushed to a fraction of what it might otherwise be.

Just because something is bad doesn't mean it can't become worse, of course. The present scaremongering over the economy is a grand opportunity for political opportunists to manipulate the system in ways far beyond the pale. Great leaps and bounds are taken down the slope of knives to the natural end of any government. It's only a matter of time before medicine and scientific research is further harmed. Take this for example, in reference to the "stimulus" bill presently being enacted:

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.


The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.


Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

I don't think I need to comment on the intent, beyond noting that it is unusually honest. This approach has been underway in Europe for some time now: see for example, the "fair innings" philosophy.

The fair innings argument (FIA) is frequently put forward as a justification for denying elderly patients treatment when they are in competition with younger patients and resources are scarce.


The whole debate has to be put in context, however. This is related to the operation of the universal health care system in the UK, a system that has long been in the doleful steady state of all such socialist, centralized systems: waste, terrible services, and - most importantly - rationing. Every taxpayer involuntarily funding this behemoth feels that they own a piece of it, and everyone has that tug on their human nature urging them to make sure that no-one gets more than they do. It's ugly, and it's why socialism fails. Along the way to failure, however, it produces dangerous ideas, such as "human beings have a fixed length of life, after which they should be cut off and left to die."

All rapid legislation turns into a wish-list for those closest to power: the faster it is enacted, the greater the scale of corruption, and the more you can be sure that your interests are being directly harmed. The legislation discussed above is a good example of the way in which the politics of central control turn what would be a golden opportunity for a free market in healthcare into the modern equivalent of putting the old people out into the snow.

Don’t be afraid of [healthcare]; it’s actually the leading industry. The demands of healthcare are going to pull all other industries forward. Of course they require new technologies in steel and heavy industry and as well as delivery systems. I think they should be looked at positively. Again I say if this were a privatized system, we would all say "gee it’s wonderful. All these people want more health care, this industry is thriving". Let me put one other analogy. Suppose we made cars a government entitlement. Instead of cheering when auto production went up, we’d say, "Oh my God, we can’t afford this!". How you finance it may greatly affect the psychology and actually the freedom of the economy to take advantage of these new opportunities.

At the end of the road ahead there will be ruins. We can hope that the decline of the US and failure of its current political system is peaceful and rapid, such that growth and honest toil to create prosperity can begin again as soon as possible. It's an unpleasant thing to say for one who came to America with high hopes, but history ever repeats itself, and the downward slope has taken a steeper turn.

Economic ignorance is the death of cultures; it is presently eating away at the US, and is sadly most advanced in medicine and medical research. People who favor equality and envy over wealth and progress are, unfortunately, usually comparatively wealthy themselves and thus largely insulated from the short-term consequences of their ignorance. These dangerous philistines will have to decide in the years ahead whether their dearly-held positions are worth losing their lives to, not to mention the lives of everyone they manage to kill - at the rate of 100,000 with each and every day of delay on the way to working anti-aging technologies.

Of course what is not said in Mr. Daschle's book that there are people who are so important to government that they and their families are exempt from such rules. Can you guess who these people might be?

Posted by: Ron Nord at February 11th, 2009 6:24 AM

So the bomb has finally dropped. Since my state considered its own plan awhile back, which may have included forbidding patients to go out of system, I've been hoping with all my heart that I could finish my treatment before it happened (chances are good that I will).

Another large patient population that stands to be harmed by this are the sufferers of poorly defined illnesses that most doctors don't yet understand, such as fibromyalgia, lupus, and myalgic encephalomyelitis (commonly known as "chronic fatigue syndrome"). It's easy to push these patients out of the office by casting their symptom set as a mental problem, a form of malingering, or, if a sciency spin on it is desired, a "somatoform disorder." Acceptance of the pathogenesis of and cure for these diseases is growing, quite quickly considering the usual timescales of medical science, but not quickly enough to beat this law. Taking these people's initiative and hope away is not a smart thing to be doing to our culture.

Posted by: shegeek at February 11th, 2009 8:44 AM

It's good that you've identified a major problem with the bill. What now? Do you have a plan to have those provisions removed? Because, simply identifying a problem isn't enough.

If you want to do something, here's an idea:

1. Develop a few questions about this issue that can be asked of a bill supporter. The questions should be designed to discredit the person who's asked the questions.

2. Find a few senior citizens in the area who can ask the questions.

3. Send them out with a cameraman and have the find a bill supporting politician or at least a policy aide, and have them ask that person the questions on video.

4. Upload it to Youtube and wait for the Drudge link.

I'll even help edit the questions for maximum impact, but someone else has to take ownership of this and move it forward.

Posted by: 24AheadDotCom at February 11th, 2009 10:48 AM

Amazing! It took this president less than 30 days to break the country financially and ruin our life expectancy.
What a change.

Posted by: Dick Craiglow at February 11th, 2009 10:57 AM

I would think a major effect of this legislation would be a dramatic increase in Medical tourism as people go international for medical treatment.

Posted by: kurt9 at February 11th, 2009 12:56 PM

Now we have the Right (Kass, Fukuyama, Callahan, the bioluddite Bioethics Council, the religious right, anti-stem cell, anti-gene therapy, anti-enhancement, anti-evolution, anti-IVF, anti-birth control) and the Left (socialized medicine, rationing medical care for the elderly, tax-and-spend, anti-GMO, anti-free market, population control, "humanity is a scourge on the planet"). Which party is truly (not claims to be, but truly is) pro-science, pro-medicine, pro-longevity? Republicans or Democrats? Please don't say we need a third party. That's true, but it won't happen in the foreseeable future, if at all.

Posted by: Adam P at February 11th, 2009 6:39 PM
Comment Submission

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.