Skip to main content

The governments role in health care

"Let the consumer decide, not the government."

The government has a role in freeing up the healthcare market, making sure it is free of collusion and big firms bullying smaller firms out of the market, and in ensuring the poor have access to adequate health care.

Currently, health care is deeply corrupt in the west, with too few companies controlling the market and with governments only exacerbating the situation by providing market protection for these firms.

The end result is high prices and poor products leading to poor health outcomes.

What needs to happen is opening the health care market up to competition by leveling the playing field with the government getting out of the business of picking winners and losers. That is for consumers to decide as they do in other markets, and is based around branding.

Good products and manufacturers will do well as their brand succeeds in the marketplace, while poor and overpriced products and their providers will disappear.

The level playing field needs to apply to all types of medicine, including natural and traditional products, alongside modern chemical derivations, which are currently heavily promoted (and government subsidized) for profit reasons rather than any inherent superiority.

This neutral role of government means no one type of medicine should be subsidized by governments above others, although insurance firms can design whatever policies they prefer, the success of which will be up to consumers to decide.

True competition will ensure only effective, popular products survive and less popular, over-priced ones do not.

Unlike the elitists and those with a naive faith in government, I would prefer to see millions of decision makers, rather than a small handful of government agents, free to make their own healthcare choices.

After all, only the individual knows what is right for them, and to claim a stranger subject to corrupting influences is a better judge seems downright dangerous to me!


Popular posts from this blog

The only meaningful science on vaccines...

Is missing.

What is that science?
Comparing children who receive various regimes of vaccines against those who receive none at all, for a wide variety of health outcomes, over the next 15-20 years of their life, and beyond.
Such studies are not done because they are deemed unethical.

Why unethical? 

Because it is assumed that childhood vaccines do more good than harm, and that the current childhood vaccine schedule is fine, and to deny children vaccines when they are presumed safe and effective would be an act of criminal negligence.
None, because it would be "unethical" to complete the studies that would prove this.

Catch-22, anyone?
Therefore, we don't know if these assumptions about safety and effectiveness are true or not.
And we never will, unless such comparative studies are done. 

And such studies would only be meaningful if conducted by someone without a dog in the fight- that is, not aligned with promoting or resisting community vaccine uptake.

And, as anyone…

Conflict is best avoided

Interpersonal conflict wastes valuable time and energy that could be better devoted to other, more fulfilling things.

Our energies are best spent creating a fulfilling life for ourselves and those we care about, not attempting to destroy another person, group or idea.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the opinions of others are irrelevant in terms of how we wish to live our lives, and how we wish to interpret reality.

That is, we are under no obligation to listen to others or respond to them in any way.
Our lives are our own to create, and no one else's!

If we share a physical space with others, or trade goods and services with them, we will need to come to agreements, but otherwise our life is our own to create, in any way we see fit.

If others don't share our views or support our choices there is no need to fight them on it.
Instead, we must discover what works best for us and practice it, while allowing others the same freedom.

What is behind the international push to remove vaccine choice from parents?

What is going on behind the scenes that is causing politicians in countries around the world to fall in line with the agenda to remove vaccine choice from the parents?

Are politicians being threatened for non-compliance or are they being rewarded for going along with this program?
And who is behind this program, exactly?
And why are childhood vaccines so crucial to the elitists plan for humanity?
Is this part of a "soft-kill" program for humanity, as many suggest, or is it just an attempt to weaken and dumb down the working classes through pumping neurotoxins into young bodies, to keep humanity from developing physically and spiritually, and overthrowing the shackles of their masters?
One thing we know it isn't: to improve the health of the population.
It is well established that childhood vaccines are destructive to the child's long-term health, and anyway, why the need to increase already high (95%) vaccine rates for children in countries like Australia? Certainly no…