But it can. You see, once your life isn’t yours, then it remains to be decided exactly whose it is. And on that point, there can be quite a spectrum. So meet the new “Dr. Death.” His name is Dr. Donald Berwick, and he was just named as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), overseeing (at least) an $850 billion budget.

Named? Not nominated? Why no, of course he was just named. It was a recess appointment, you see, while Congress was on a break over the recent holiday. Shockingly (not), the New York Times backed both the appointment and making the appointment during a recess. The paper also advises us that Berwick’s “appointment is backed by the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and scores of other health organizations and patient advocacy groups. He has been endorsed by three predecessors who held the same job in Republican administrations.” Hopefully the Tea-Partiers notice that last and will remember this when their gang goes to Washington. It turns out that Americans don’t like socialism, not one little bit, but it remains to be seen how well they’ll cotton to fascism.

So what of Dr. Berwick? What does he believe? Well, for starters you have to know what the “Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care” is. This was a two-bit research report invoked by President Obama in his drive to pass so-called “Health Care” legislation earlier this year. And according to the Times, Dr. Berwick “called it the most important research of its kind in the last quarter-century.” But what is it and what does it say?

What is says, is that health care can be improved by cutting expenditures. What it is, is faulty research using uncorrected data to imply a conclusion that isn’t there. Even the Times, on its non-editorial pages, divulged this as recently as June 2. Here is the full article, as well as a subsequent response to challenges brought by the researchers. This should be sufficient to explain the issue, though many more detailed articles are readily available via search engine.

But never mind implication and inference. Let’s take a look at a series of quotes, all of which were attributed to Dr. Berwick by the Wall Street Journal, in a piece by Daniel Henninger just last week. If you can’t figure out what Dr. Berwick believes, and what he plans to do, by these quotes, then you yourself ought to seek some “health care,” and quickly. Meet Donald Berwick, the new “Dr. Death”…

———————

“I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.”

“You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach.”

“Please don’t put your faith in market forces. It’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can.”

“Indeed, the Holy Grail of universal coverage in the United States may remain out of reach unless, through rational collective action overriding some individual self-interest, we can reduce per capita costs.”

“It may therefore be necessary to set a legislative target for the growth of spending at 1.5 percentage points below currently projected increases and to grant the federal government the authority to reduce updates in Medicare fees if the target is exceeded.”

“About 8% of GDP is plenty for ‘best known’ care.”

“A progressive policy regime will control and rationalize financing—control supply.”

“The unaided human mind, and the acts of the individual, cannot assure excellence. Health care is a system, and its performance is a systemic property.”

“Health care is a common good—single payer, speaking and buying for the common good.”

“And it’s important also to make health a human right because the main health determinants are not health care but sanitation, nutrition, housing, social justice, employment, and the like.”

“Hence, those working in health care delivery may be faced with situations in which it seems that the best course is to manipulate the flawed system for the benefit of a specific patient or segment of the population, rather than to work to improve the delivery of care for all. Such manipulation produces more flaws, and the downward spiral continues.”

“For-profit, entrepreneurial providers of medical imaging, renal dialysis, and outpatient surgery, for example, may find their business opportunities constrained.”

“One over-demanded service is prevention: annual physicals, screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch diseases early.”

“I would place a commitment to excellence—standardization to the best-known method—above clinician autonomy as a rule for care.”

“Health care has taken a century to learn how badly we need the best of Frederick Taylor [the father of scientific management]. If we can’t standardize appropriate parts of our processes to absolute reliability, we cannot approach perfection.”

“Young doctors and nurses should emerge from training understanding the values of standardization and the risks of too great an emphasis on individual autonomy.”

———————

You’ve heard the saying, “The writing is on the wall.”

News flash—you’re the wall and Dr. Berwick aims to be the author.

“You asked for it, brother.”

The next one appeared just recently in The American Spectator. I’m not big on really long essays, but sometimes length is necessary to get the point across. If you haven’t read this and seek to understand the historical context in which we find ourselves, then I recommend it highly. Thanks to WRSA for the link…

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

Sometimes it seems that we’re doomed. The insanity in the political realm combined with pervasive ignorance, seem like the classic “immovable object.” The justification for despair is obvious and it can be overwhelming. But we are dealing in the human realm, where all things imaginable are possible. I offer these links not for the purpose of, “Read ‘em and weep,” but rather for the purpose of understanding the nature of the reality in which we find ourselves. It is only with such understanding that we may rationally move forward, and discover the false premises that led us down this tragic road. Tempus fugit. Prepare yourself.

This is a fact.  Is it clear enough?  This is altruism in practice.

We saw all this and we saw even worse. We knew all along that production wasn’t a series of numbers to be tracked. We knew–from principle as well as experience–that statism simply can’t last. We know the nature of the entities involved, and we know that something can’t come from nothing…no matter how deep your wish nor how long your whip. We understood the whole time, the last few decades and the next few years, what simply must happen if collectivism and statism rule the day.

And that’s the part we got wrong. Thank goodness. We see things how they are and we conclude to where they must lead. Hence, the picture in our minds is usually one of collapse. We see fools thinking they may sit at home and somehow live a long, happy life. We see fools thinking that if they tweak the whip just right, then they may be happy too. We see thugs all around us, honestly believing that they are doing the moral good, because they’ve been taught nothing else, not ever. We understand the errors, and we know that logic simply commands–that is, reality simply commands–that somehow all of this must collapse and somehow a new world must be built on the ashes and bodies so wastefully piled.

That was our error, for a human life is not a structure. There are no bricks to tear down, nor foundations to be dismantled. Human life is built on time, and the time is always what it is…now. There is no time in which action can be done, nor is there any time for which we may willfully choose, except the present.

It’s not that the foundation mustn’t be properly built; of course it must. Luckily that’s a piece of cake, so easy that it doesn’t even take any physical building. The foundation is what’s already there, and in fact was the only thing there all along. The foundation is what decent people choose, and decent people are chomping at the bit to choose what’s right. They just never heard it, that’s all. And from what I can tell, they’re about to hear it, in spades.

I guess the message here is simple. We’ve known this all along too, but these are the times when it must become clear as a bell, and not a single mistake can be made when imparting it. Human life is about creation and building, and we must remain ever-conscious in remembering that the only thing a human life can directly create and build, is the single life itself.

The correct message is not, “Tear it down.” The correct message is, “Build it up.”

Americans were great…lots and lots of them, for a very long time.

What would it even mean, for a country to be great?  When pushed, most will say, “Well, obviously that means that the people who lived there were successful, however that’s measured.”

And when you use any sensible measures, the people who lived in America were more successful than any humans at any time.  So doesn’t this mean that America was a great country?

Maybe it would, if that were really what you’re saying.  But it’s not.  You’re saying as the words literally read—that America, as an existent called a country, was itself great.  That’s wrong, and that’s why you’re so afraid of losing it.  You think it was the country that made the people great, when of course it was the other way around.  The good news is that it was never there in the first place.  Only people were there, and you get to be one of those.

Countries can’t be great.  They can be borders, they can be institutions, they can be dictates, laws, decrees, treaties, constitutions, agreements, all these things and more…but they can’t be great.  Sorry, but that’s a simple fact.  You can tell me what you meant to mean–that it’s the people who live there that are great–but it’s not what you mean.

On top of about 20 billion other actions that you’ll take–and words you’ll use, and arguments you’ll offer–to prove what you really mean, you’ll go so far as to pretend how good it is when a 20-year-old loses his life to make the country that much better.  This tells me, in no uncertain terms, that you find something “great” about the country.

Here’s some good news…the country isn’t bad either.  Nor are any other countries, or states or localities or school boards or commissions or anything else that is an object other than a single human individual.  Good, great, bad and rotten all describe a single sort of existent, and the super-neat thing is that the existent itself gets to control whether it’s good or bad.  Had we designed this all ourselves, we couldn’t have made it any easier than that.

Sorry I can’t make it sound grander, but it really is that simple.  You want America back?  Then do what Americans did.  Americans worked, and Americans worked in one single pursuit…that’s why they were great.

We hold what truths to be self-evident?

Darn, I guess it’s “Goodbye, New York” too. Terrible shame that, but we’ve been going through this in Michigan for quite a while now…half a decade recently, but really 3 full decades if you’re an industrial sort of guy.

The tough part for me is figuring out whether the gutting of Wall Street is the fault of folks never understanding what went on there in the first place, or Wall Street itself.

I understand what Wall Street was about, in theory and in practice for the men and women who honestly worked there. It was about the flow of capital–which here means store of wealth–being directed in the best manner. Of course, “best” can mean a lot of different things to a lot of people, but I mean “in whatever manner the individuals involved would willingly choose.” Naturally in business, this is really easy…more money is better. This doesn’t mean “no matter how gotten,” but it does mean “being gotten in whatever voluntary ways the participants choose.” Derivatives, hedging and trading in billions of units for a profit slice of .00whatever percent, when done freely, serve to direct capital to its best, most efficient, most productive uses.

It becomes a place where folks can store their wealth, so that it may constantly be directed to attaining profit for them—and as a great side-benefit, directs that capital to its most productive uses. Win-win all around, eh? No wonder California looks so much different today than it did a century ago.

But eventually, that’s not what happened, is it? Main Street’s “investments” turned to muck. First it was their largest store of wealth, their homes, and then it was whatever paper Wall Street chose to print up with their wealth…calling government notes “mortgage-backed securities” and calling equity stock “bets.” [Well okay, the former were only government notes for the banks!]

I think I gotta blame Wall Streeters more for their own demise, if only on the principle that we create our own lives. Well-intentioned or not, Wall Street fell for what has brought down so many other Americans these days—looking for the easy way out, having money without production, figuring out ever more complex ways to screw your neighbor out of something, so that you may have it yourself without earning it. It was mighty impressive while it lasted, but of course an approach like that can’t last forever. Eventually we have produce at least as much as we eat.

This isn’t about blame anyway. It’s really just a good-bye, a fond farewell. You see, there’s not much of a market any more for funding capital to the most productive minds and businesses out there. People that have any serious money are taking their 3% and thanking their lucky stars that they can get at least that. People on the wild side are buying gold, knowing that its firmness in a deflationary moment bodes awfully well for its extreme appreciation during the inevitable devaluation. Inevitable, that is, unless you honestly believe that default is a serious possibility. Because let’s face it—one or the other is going to happen, as surely as the next solar eclipse.

I see what’s going on, because I still stare at those tickers. I understand that the brightest of you are still able to run trades, and the very very brightest must be making some pretty quick bucks these days! But overall, there simply is no market for the direction of funds to innovative, productive and efficient enterprises.

Maybe that bodes well for so-called vulture capitalists who, in an environment like this, nearly rate the status of Angels anyway. But that’s not Wall Street. Wall Street was a huge enterprise directing huge amounts of wealth to a huge country just chock full of minds wanting to direct it, and being able to do just that. They did it profitably, for their own values and goals, so that they in turn could reap the huge production of so many others. And so the spiral went, more production chasing more efficient means of production. That’s why it’s Main Street’s fault too—they were sneering at all of this, thinking it was all just a heady intellectual vacuum. “No sweat, no work.” That’s close, huh?

Hey, who wants to argue about whether higher capital gains taxes will help or hurt capital investment? That’s why there are no comments here.

Anyway, as we are all learning now, the free flow of capital is not what communism is about. Centralized economies aggregate the wealth to the very largest, or most politically supportive, or supposedly necessary Companies. You don’t really need the world’s greatest city to pull that off. A few administrators in a few buildings can handle the whole task.

And so it is, and so you aren’t. I hope y’all find solid work, but I doubt it’ll be as easy as it was.

I dislike talking about the negative, so I’m trying to find a good note. Maybe try this. Americans generally should be proud that at least they don’t like communism at all, even as they unwittingly rose up and called for it. Okay, so this is a tough phase and the guilt can be disconcerting. But remember this—fascism is just communism with a bunch of sadism thrown in, and we still have the opportunity to stop that. That ain’t much, but it’s something. This country will be going free or it will be going the way of every other statist nightmare in history.

I say, be like the businessman and make lemonade out of lemons.

This is a convenient fact, for some purposes. Among other things, it renders each of us below the ideal of “non-criminal.” This in turn is nice if you’re trying to make the argument that there are better things out there, than you. This is fatally false, but will be addressed later at rationalegoism.com.

Basically, it renders “non-criminal” as existing only outside of the set of extant humans. It gets us in the habit of thinking, “Well, I’m not a criminal but there is a higher standard of non-criminality than me.”

Speak for yourself. I tell you outright and unequivocally…there is no higher standard of non-criminality than me. And in all liklihood, than you.

Then what are we then, if we’re violating all these statutes? What could it mean for me to declare that I am the ultimate non-criminal when just the other day, I drove with a taillight out?

A crime is this. A crime is an action taken against another person, which degrades or inhibits his ability to act as he is, which is as a volitional creature. And yes, the only way to do this is with physical force; otherwise the person still has the ability to do as he wishes.

The simplest way to put this is, “There can be no crime absent a complainant.” Naturally, this includes a proxy and such. But the relevant point is that if we’re going to consider each other as criminals, then let’s at least get it right. The zoned-out heroin addict is not a criminal and couldn’t be. The heroin addict who steals someone’s stuff, is. But so is the non-heroin addict who does that, even if he’s wearing a uniform.

This is a very simple idea and was basically codified in the founding of this country with the idea that each person has an inalienable right to pursue his own happiness, which implies unencumbered by anyone else. Indeed, at one time the only sort of crime there was, was precisely the sort of crime I describe. But none of us remember that, of course.

Don’t sweat it, because in addition to a widespread misunderstanding of crime, there’s an even wider misunderstanding of what ought to be done about crime. The unanimous answer for a few thousand years has been, “Do something criminal too,” and down the road we’ll discover what an absurd fallacy this is.

From a political perspective, there is one and only one problem, and that is that the property of some of our neighbors is being trespassed and some of those property owners are being assaulted and murdered.

That’s it. There’s no other problem, at least right now. It’s irrelevant how badly the federal government is failing to secure the borders. Governments always fail at their ostensive purposes, so border protection should be no exception. I mean, sheesh…our government can’t even keep it straight who is and who aren’t its own citizens! That’s supposedly the other “problem” on top of the failed border security.

Indarchy has only one level of organization…the individual. Millions of people will take action, and billions of dollars will be spent, but nobody’s going to bother protecting the single individuals with the single properties. It’ll be “policy” and “qualification” and departments and organizations, but it’ll never be just the individuals.

And yet there’s nothing else there, but the individuals. When you come to understand that, you will begin to understand Indarchy.

“This is why I need to know, if we are going to continue further, whether or not you seek to be a thug or a thief against me.”

If your fully-developed, finally-decided answer to that is “yes,” then you can take a hike now. This blog was not meant for you, and you won’t understand a bit of it anyway. For that matter, as I asked then, what are you doing reading a blog in the first place? How, or why, are you even on a computer? Thugs and thiefs are preoccupied with thuggery and theft, so what do you hope to get here? Why would you even be on the Internet? You can’t steal anything here, and everything’s for free anyway…/why/ would you steal information? The only kind of information of value to a thief is personal stuff like credit card numbers, or maybe people’s travel plans. Is that why you’re here? If so, then like I say, take a hike.

That should leave only people who, for whatever reason, seek to think and understand. Most of you won’t like this place either! You see, you say you want to think and understand, but you don’t mean it at all. Many of you, maybe even most these days, are even worse than the thugs and thieves who took a hike. You won’t even do that much—you’re so overwhelmed with fear that you can’t even do what you (falsely) believe will allay your fear. At least the thief has nerve!

You, you have agents do it for you–the thuggery and the theft, I mean–and pretend that therefore it’s not you doing it. You pretend this while you figure out which agents are going to get which money from whom, and what manner of theft would feel best to you…which ultimately translates to, “what will allay my fear the most.”

So I have no time for you, either. Your errors are so basic and all-encompassing that they simply can’t be dealt with at the political level. To you it’s a vote and if you can pragmatically round up the largest mob to steal and pillage, while somehow allowing you to feel that it’s not you doing it, then that’s just the cat’s meow for you. And then you look around puzzled, trying to figure out why there are mobs all around you, stealing and pillaging.

You’re welcome to try and learn, but for that you should go to rationalegoism.com, where both the epistemic and ethical foundations of indarchy are to be discovered. You can rest assured, your problems are likely epistemological. You have no business here, since here it’s all about the facts, and honesty about the facts. You won’t be able to stomach reading about what you’ve done, so strengthen your mind up, over at the other site.

That leaves the rest of you…those who don’t want to steal from me or try to overpower me. You folks, you are welcome here, but you’d better be prepared to understand the mistakes you’ve made. See, you’re (mostly) not all that different from the commie-libs that I just sent out to learn. You too believe that what I have can be taken, as long as it’s taken for “good” purposes.

How do I know this? Because it’s ubiquitous, that’s how. The odds are so overwhelming in our current society, that I can take it to the bank that nearly every reader believes in the sanctity of the Rule of Law, the equity of a progressive tax system, and that ultimate wonder of all…Democracy. Maybe not all three, though even that would be exceptional.

Your problem, too, is epistemological. But at least you want to understand, and at least you know the evils of collectivism and statism. And most importantly, you’re not seeking to steal from me or trying to overpower me! For that, you are welcome here and I hope I can do plenty to assist you in finding the actual path to righteousness.

This place is not for rookies, and it’s focussed on Americans. While young and old are welcome to read, the content will be very mature and there may be an occasional epithet. And non-Americans are especially welcome, because sanity in other lands is even rarer than it is here. Hey, you might even be a collectible in your own land!

Please do not misunderstand the inability to comment here. I am genuinely interested in your opinions and what you think, and I especially want to hear your stories and viewpoints. But as I already explained, that is not the province of politics and when it comes to politics, you don’t have a say in my life.

The great news is—neither do I have one in yours!