Triggerband Web Journal

At the center of the healthcare industry lies a corrupted system that is the source of innumerable troubles. That core is the medical profession.

Medicine underwent a period of growth, reform, and cohesion in the latter part of the nineteenth century that formed the medical profession of today. Newly transformed, during the first half of the twentieth century medicine used advances in technology and industry to cure infections and injuries that had been previously untreatable.

Unfortunately, the medical profession failed to adapt itself to a new wave of epidemics surfacing during the second half of the twentieth century. It had served the profession well to use drugs as weapons against a deadly array of pathogenic infections. However, medicine did not change its tactics to meet recent challenges of lifestyle- and pollutant-related illnesses.

One might wonder why a profession that prides itself on being modern has stubbornly resisted change. The answer is that there is no good reason why physicians abandoned rational thought and adaptability, but there are reasons:

1. Self-preservation. Physicians fear that fundamental changes in the practice of medicine could limit their viability, jeopardize their livelihood, and require further educational pursuits.

2. Self-esteem. Too many physicians have sacrificed their families, friends, and identities for the sake of their practices. Having failed in every other area of life, emotionally it is unthinkable they have also failed in the practice of medicine.

3. Indoctrination. Strange though this sounds to the outsider, a cult-like mentality prevails within the medical profession. Members are expected to believe the tenets of medical philosophy and not think for themselves. Most American physicians are competitive, ambitious professionals who long for approbation and acceptance. Only a rigid framework of universally-held “doctrine” provides them with a concrete measurement of their achievement.

4. Unholy alliance. Why do physicians willingly cater to the business interests of pharmaceutical corporations by prescribing expensive and unnecessary medications? Drug companies ensure physicians keep their niche as gatekeepers of the medicine cabinet (see reason 1, above); drug representatives are readily available as buddies to physicians on a personal level (see reason 2, above); and drug companies determine the “standard” in medical care (see reason 3, above).

What is notable is that all these reasons have to do with the physician and none have to do with the patient. Physicians have subordinated patient results to their own interests, including their desire to feel like they are helping patients.

The profession has become so corrupt and ineffective that there is a trend toward marginalizing physicians – replacing them with nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical therapists, nurse anesthetists, and online pharmacies. Healthcare’s rotten core must be either repaired or replaced. In other words, to reform healthcare we must also reform medicine.

Alexander Typaldos, JD

After the stock market declined sharply in September and October of 2008, it was revealed that investment manager Bernard Madoff had been running a giant Ponzi scheme for decades which allegedly stole $50 billion from his investors. But is it the biggest Ponzi scheme ever?

Ponzi schemes “work” by promising and posting unreasonably high returns on investments, and funding payouts with money brought in from new investors. The schemes inevitably lose money over time because payouts to both investor and investment manager exceed revenues. Usually, Ponzi schemes are short-term cons. However, if performed artfully, they can last for a very long time.

Surprisingly, the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme apply to the stock market itself. To maintain the value of stock, investors must believe there will be future demand for that stock. And future demand itself depends on the belief that there will be more future demand. This is true of many assets, but in the case of stock investments, most investors have little use for the assets other than later selling them for a profit.

Monetary dividends from stock investments are far too low to justify their value. Dollar for dollar, bonds pay much higher returns. And as a practical matter, most investment funds and virtually all small investors have no use for the voting rights of common stock. It takes a lot of shares for your vote to count in a large corporation, and even then you probably want those who are more involved with the organization making decisions.

I need to clarify that stock ownership itself is not a Ponzi scheme, only trading on an open stock exchange. When you own stock you own a piece of a corporation. With it, you have the right to vote and you are entitled to a portion of earnings paid out each year. The value of the right to share in profits and make decisions should equal the fair market value of stock.

In the case of publicly-traded corporations, their stock is typically valued higher because public trading adds an element of speculation. This fact becomes apparent when a corporation “goes public,” meaning it allows its stock to be freely traded in a stock market. Share values can spike (although it is not guaranteed) and the corporation’s current owners and executives often enjoy a windfall, for two reasons.

First, offering shares for sale in a public exchange drives up the value of the shares the owners and executives already own. Second, when investors purchase the newly issued shares, their investment money goes directly to the corporation, which becomes more valuable as a result. If you think this infusion of cash justifies the heightened stock values, keep in mind that in a Ponzi scheme the infusion of cash from new investors merely perpetuates the scheme. It cannot turn losses into gains nor reconcile the book value of investments with their real value.

Caught red-handed

Many economists think the mortgage and credit crisis caused the recent stock market collapse. In actuality, the credit crisis had no more to do with causing the collapse, than the collapse itself had to do with causing Mr. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

The mortgage crisis has instead revealed fundamental instability in the stock market. Values on paper were too high, and as shocking as it is to witness trillions of dollars in assets vanish over a period of several weeks, understand that those assets were never really there.

Government intervention

When millions of Americans suddenly have reduced assets resulting from drastic losses in their stock portfolio, they effectively have less cash because they can no longer sell their investments for the same amount of money they could several months ago. The Federal Reserve Bank can now print large amounts of currency without an immediate risk of corresponding inflation. The federal government is able to use this money to purchase toxic mortgages, bailout companies, and stimulate economic growth.

However, more currency does not equal more value; we must add valuable goods and services to our economy to sustain growth. If we try to force growth by speculating in stocks and printing currency, we are setting our economy upon a weak foundation – one that will be subject to more crises and a prolonged recession.

I know corporations need a way to quickly raise capital. I know investors claim future growth is the justification for otherwise unjustifiably high stock prices. I know market values have climbed more or less steadily since the great depression. But could it be that a time will come when the world’s largest Ponzi scheme collapses, losses are measured in trillions, and everyone wonders why the signs were ignored? Could it be that time has already come?

Alexander Typaldos, JD

Some people think the growth of healthcare is a good thing for the United States economy. In fact, it is a tremendous burden. Let me provide a simple explanation that most can relate to. Is it a good thing for healthcare costs to grow as a percentage of your family budget? Of course not, because every dollar you spend on healthcare is one less you have to spend on things you really want. Likewise, at the national level, healthcare’s growth as a percentage of the economy is draining the resources of other industries we would rather foster, such as education and construction.

It is best for our economy to keep healthcare small, because healthcare is what I classify as a negative industry. A negative industry is one that corrects errors, solves problems, and fixes things when they go wrong. It takes bad situations and makes them neutral. In short, a negative industry is one that would not exist in a perfect world. This includes healthcare, law enforcement, social services, and armed forces, among others.

A positive industry is one that creates something of value. It turns neutral situations into positive ones. Examples are agriculture, transportation, textiles, and communications, to name a few.

Negative industries are not bad themselves. They are equally important to society as positive industries. However, our goal should be to reduce the size of negative industries, while ensuring they are still able to accomplish their purposes. This makes more resources available to positive industries so they can create the goods and services we really want to spend our money on.

From Negative to Positive

America’s healthcare system is fundamentally flawed. And society is so dependent on its services that it is pouring massive resources into healthcare just to keep it functioning. The obvious solution is to reform healthcare so it can function better than it does now with far less resources.

In this article, though, I want to go beyond the issue of healthcare reform and share my vision. In society today in America, we are too focused on preserving what we already have and protecting ourselves from fears, real and imagined. We should be more focused on growth, advancement, and improvement.

What this means for healthcare is that we can fix the system. More than that, we can reform the practice of medicine so that all conditions are treatable. How will we do this? By systematically categorizing the various but limited causes of illness and injury, and then logically, rationally, and reasonably analyzing treatment options, while placing value on creativity and having one goal in mind – results. We have the talent and technology to do this; it is medicine’s bad ideas and philosophies that stand in the way.

My ultimate objective is to turn healthcare into a positive industry by inventing protocols and procedures that enhance the mental and physical performance of already healthy individuals. Your annual checkup will become a comprehensive diagnostic process to look for ways to improve energy levels, mental clarity, flexibility, even appearance.

Again, we have the ability to do this; it is just not a part of medicine’s culture. Lasik surgery is an example of this type of treatment, because it can give people with good 20/20 vision even better eyesight. With a focus on nutrition, hormone levels, the musculoskeletal system, habits and health practices, this approach offers a lot of promise for improving Americans’ quality of life.

Growth in this part of healthcare will not take from our economy, it will add in the form of healthier workers and products and services we can export overseas. Economic growth is not certain; it happens only when we add something new and valuable. We await a revolution in medicine on the scale of the industrial and technological revolutions that preceded it.

Alexander Typaldos, JD

You are at a sink to wash your hands. You have used this sink before and know that if you turn the knob beyond two thirds, the water will be too hot. Less than one third of a turn is too cold, and halfway is warm – perfect for hand washing. This is your model.

So you turn the knob to halfway and begin washing your hands. However, the water heats up faster than you expected and reaches an uncomfortable temperature. This new evidence conflicts with your model, and you are faced with two choices. The first is to continue believing that at half a turn water is ideal for hand washing. You would thus wash your hands in scalding water and convince yourself that something other than the water’s temperature is causing your pain.

Your second choice is to carve an exception into your model: Turn the knob halfway and the temperature is usually pleasant, but is sometimes too hot. When you make this choice you are adjusting your model to the evidence. And this gives you mental freedom to turn the knob until the water is at a more pleasant temperature.

Tomorrow, you find that the halfway mark is still too hot for comfort. In fact, every time you use the sink for the next month, a half turn is uncomfortably warm and one third turn is ideal. Either there has been a permanent change in the plumbing, or the original model was incorrect.

Regardless, it would probably be a good idea to change your model. If you do not, the following routine will ensue repeatedly: you turn the knob halfway until the water burns your hands. Then you apply the aforementioned exception and lower the knob to one third turn.

A very unsexy truth

The answer to America’s healthcare problems, and the catalyst for a medical revolution, will not be found in politics, technology, or economics. The answer lies in mental thought processes and philosophies. At its heart, this means better education and training. Let me clarify that better is not added years of formal education and a more rigorous curriculum. It means doctors must be taught how to adjust and refine their models and methods by what they see in practice.

Alexander Typaldos, JD

Yesterday, I ordered a personal computer with impressive specs. Featuring the new Intel® i7 processor, this system has high quality memory, hard disks, graphics, and optical drives.

It is about time for a replacement. My current pc is almost three years old, and was low-end even when new. I tried upgrading it with a new memory stick and video card, and they made the system usable . . . for a while. The problem is that when I upgraded one component, another needed to be upgraded to match, or the first could not achieve optimal performance. Eventually, limitations such as a weak power supply and outdated slots on the motherboard thwarted my upgrade ambitions.

Thus, I was resigned to purchase an entirely new system – one that is truly capable of accomplishing my demanding tasks of graphics and video editing. The components to the new pc are so superior to the old pc’s that it would have been impossible to upgrade to this level, one piece at a time. Progress required an entirely new system.

High Technology is Fun

I can easily see why careers in computer science are so popular. We are now deep into the technological revolution, where we can enjoy the practicality of many current innovations while still eagerly awaiting the next advances. High tech is a very positive field, with frequent and measurable improvements.

On the other hand, medicine as it once existed is a dying field. True, physicians still have numerous job opportunities and large salaries. But decisions about how physicians practice have fallen to third-party medical researchers, pharmaceuticals, HMOs, insurance, government regulators, and even malpractice lawyers. More disappointing than this, most doctors are deprived of seeing consistent, measurable results from their treatments – the kind of positive results tech professionals are accustomed to seeing in their line of work.

The tech field is not without problems, mentioning corporate monopoly tactics, product incompatibilities, and computer gaming addictions. However, these problems are of a type that is common to humanity. Medicine’s problems are of a different, more fundamental nature.

For example, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Intel each design distinct central processing units, but they are in agreement that a successful processor design is faster, smaller, consumes less energy, and is compatible with other hardware devices. However, the healthcare industry is devoid of basic consensus as to what constitutes good, quality medical care.

Are doctors judged by their results, how personable they are, whether they can avoid malpractice claims, or how many patients they see? Is a good physician one who simply manages patient complaints cost effectively, or one who uses more resources but actually cures patients’ conditions? Should doctors try new treatments or stick to the book? Who is writing the “book,” anyway?

America’s Medical Revolution

Many Americans believe we have already undergone a medical revolution of sorts. After all, it was but a few centuries ago that bleeding – the barbaric process of removing large quantities of blood to free the patient of supposed evil vapors – was standard medical care.

True, there have been great advances. But those advances are largely the byproduct of industrial and technological advances. Of course medicine will improve when it gains access to the microscope, life support equipment, biochemical and genetic research, and diagnostics technologies such as MRI. These are advances in medical technology, not medicine itself.

If you look at medical philosophy 100 years ago, you will find surprising similarities with medicine today. Back then, doctors administered dangerous “medicines” like opium and mercury to change their patients’ biochemistry and make them look, act, and feel better. Thankfully, modern science has replaced those drugs with much safer and more effective ones, but the medical profession uses these new drugs in the same way.

This idea that we ought to take medications that reduce symptoms is outdated. Fever, runny nose, even vomiting and diarrhea are the ways our bodies kill germs as well as remove the wastes and toxins those germs create. When we suppress symptoms, in effect we suppress our immune response and increase long-term physiological damage. This is a major reason why so many 40-year-olds are weak and in pain. Aging is not the cause; these people are wearing out.

Physicians have lost control over their profession because, overall, they have failed to meet society’s demands for quality, affordable care. Granted, society can be very demanding, but when doctors claim that IBS is neither caused nor worsened by a poor diet, it is difficult to take them seriously. When physicians habitually treat depressed and mentally ill patients psychiatrically, without considering the neurological or hormonal implications, then society – in the form of its businesses and regulatory officials – must step in and look for ways to reduce the burdensome cost and improve patient outcomes.

Opportunity in Difficulty

I view the medical profession’s decline with great optimism. Although I highly respect physicians, I think the profession needs a complete reformation. Doctors will not reorder their profession voluntarily; it must be forced into something akin to bankruptcy.

Alexander Typaldos, JD