On The Commodity Known as Healthcare

“We want you to engage honestly on the issues in this debate on healthcare” … “but if you oppose the healthcare bill, you are a racist.”

“This healthcare bill will not raise taxes or deficits at all” … but Mr Wilson is “officially” reprimanded for accusing the “One” of lying and an apology is demanded (although it was already tendered within hours of the speech) … this in a bill the CBO flat out says will raise spending and for a bill which specifically includes new taxes.

We’re not going to have any death-panels … We want this instead. It’s not a panel, it’s a formula.

So, let’s attempt some more rational discussions on healthcare. Hopefully, some progressives will be able, unlike the President, to engage in actual debate that isn’t accompanied by poisoning the well.

An eminent not-so-directly politically connected (Nobel winning) economist has an interesting offering here. He concludes:

Why is it that although the average age of onset of disabilities has been delayed by ten years, and that these disabilities have become milder than they used to be, the share of GDP spent on health is rising? One factor is the increase in the proportion of the population that is elderly. However, such changes in age structure account for a minor part of rising expenditures, on the order of 10 percent.

The main factor is that the long-term income elasticity of the demand for healthcare is 1.6—for every 1 percent increase in a family’s income, the family wants to increase its expenditures on healthcare by 1.6 percent. This is not a new trend. Between 1875 and 1995, the share of family income spent on food, clothing, and shelter declined from 87 percent to just 30 percent, despite the fact that we eat more food, own more clothes, and have better and larger homes today than we had in 1875. All of this has been made possible by the growth in the productivity of traditional commodities. In the last quarter of the 19th century, it took 1,700 hours of labor to purchase the annual food supply for a family. Today it requires just 260 hours, and it is likely that by 2040, a family’s food supply will be purchased with about 160 hours of labor.12

Consequently, there is no need to suppress the demand for healthcare. Expenditures on healthcare are driven by demand, which is spurred by income and by advances in biotechnology that make health interventions increasingly effective. Just as electricity and manufacturing were the industries that stimulated the growth of the rest of the economy at the beginning of the 20th century, healthcare is the growth industry of the 21st century. It is a leading sector, which means that expenditures on healthcare will pull forward a wide array of other industries including manufacturing, education, financial services, communications, and construction. [Ed: Emphasis mine]

So, my argument all along has been that if you want to increase the availability of healthcare and to increase the quality you need to encourage and advance ways of making the healthcare product we consume today an easier and more available commodity. That will take a radical restructuring and a heavy reliance on automation which is not available today. Entrenching the current system in heavier and ever more layers of bureaucratic burdens is exactly the wrong way to go about reshaping healthcare for the future. Regulation is not the means by which innovation is found. The only innovation heavy regulation and control achieves are innovative ways to get around said innovations.

All of the industrial commodities and consumable items today which have been reduced in price over the past decades have achieved their price reduction via automation. From the humble tractor to automated robotic lines and CAD/CAM processes. Computer automation and information technology are going to be a big part of the innovations that we will need in order for the price to drop by an order of magnitude or more. We are famously told that since the mid-80s the capabilities of biotechnology have been increasing exponentially faster than our computing power (Moore’s Law). Much of the computer industry derived its innovations from very small scale startups and single individuals. Yet it is impossible to imagine a single individual or small group in today’s regulatory environment getting a new drug, therapy, or diagnostic device to market. If it is impossible to imagine … it won’t happen. If Congress gets its hands on managing (and likely micro-managing) healthcare for the nation, innovation will require an act of Congress.

Congress can fix healthcare. By taking its hands off, letting go. By simply burning the as many regulations as it can and lighting the a fire of innovation into the field. Put cost and accountability and choice in the hands of the consumer. Release restrictions and let the market reward successful innovation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

25 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    1. Did anyone actually say the quote you opened this with or are you spending yet more time listening to the straw men lobby again?

    2. Mr. Wilson is being asked to apologize for heckling the President in the middle of an address. Even in the UK House of Commons, during the intense ‘Prime Minister’s Questions’, such behavior would merit him being removed from the chamber.

    3. “We’re not going to have any death-panels …”

    Actually we aren’t and no a declining probability of ‘intervention’ in old age is not the same thing as a death panel.

    4. Didn’t you say before any healthcare reform had to cut the cost of healthcare? Now you’re adopting my position, it seems, where increased health expenses should not be seen as a de facto failure of reform.

  2. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    #2. He did apologize. Directly to the President. Very shortly after. Publicly.

    #3. I said it wasn’t a panel. It’s a formula. Ms McArdle had a post on that.

    #4. No I’m saying the reform package in question will make decreased costs less likely.

  3. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    To elaborate on the last. The goal is to bring real health care costs down by an order of magnitude. That will take innovations. There is no addressing increased innovation in the current package, instead there is more regulation and oversight (which I think restricts innovation).

  4. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    #1 is a paraphrase of Mr Obama.

  5. Boonton says:

    Mr Obama has asserted it is racist to oppose his bill? Can you go into that with a bit more detail please.

  6. It’s bad enough when you completely distort your opponents’ words without putting them into quotation marks, Mark. Quotation marks mean that the words between them are from a direct quote.

  7. Mark says:

    JA,
    If you didn’t notice, I didn’t offer any attribution for the quotation marks. Quotation marks, grammatically speaking, you might be aware that quotation marks also are used to indicate spoken words even if the speaker fictional.

    The point is these are paraphrases of things that very many healthcare supporters have said. For example, the first two phrases, “We want you to engage honestly on the issues in this debate on healthcare” … “but if you oppose the healthcare bill, you are a racist.” are both things which have indeed been said. In fact, I’m guessing that the first is something explicitly that you have argued yourself. The second as well is commonly said, although nobody on this site has accused me of being racist for opposing healthcare.

    I should clarify, however, the first part of #1 is a paraphrase of Obama, in fact he said something much like that in his Congressional address. The second is not.

  8. If you didn’t notice, I didn’t offer any attribution for the quotation marks.

    Irrelevant. Quotation marks indicate a quote. You’re right when you say that quotes may be attributed to fictional characters, but even in that case they are (fictional) exact quotes, not paraphrases.

    But the biggest problem is not that you’re paraphrasing instead of quoting, but that you’re distorting. People (including myself) will argue that much of the passion and tone of the debate might be due to racism, but I find it hard to believe that anybody says anything like “if you oppose the healthcare bill, you are a racist.” That’s a total straw man. Even if you can track down one guy who said it, pretty much 99.99% of progressives would disagree with it. So why are we even talking about it?

    I’m not disagreeing with your claim that Obama has called for honest engagement in the debate.

  9. Mark says:

    JA,

    Quotation marks indicate a quote. You’re right when you say that quotes may be attributed to fictional characters, but even in that case they are (fictional) exact quotes, not paraphrases.

    So. Do I really need to add, quote the liberal to calm your inner grammar demons?

    On racism, Hmm, it sure gets a lot of discussion for it to be a 99% complete strawman.

  10. So. Do I really need to add, quote the liberal to calm your inner grammar demons?

    Nothing to do with grammar. I’m a descriptivist! It just has to do with not misrepresenting your opponents’ positions.

    On racism, Hmm, it sure gets a lot of discussion for it to be a 99% complete strawman.

    I don’t see any statements in the results to that search which approach the absolutism of “if you oppose the healthcare bill, you are a racist.”

  11. Mark says:

    JA,
    How about Mr Carter?

  12. Carter:

    “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man,” Carter said. “I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that share the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans.”

    Carter continued, “And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”

    So he’s talking specifically about the animosity towards the president. He did not say anything like, “if you oppose the healthcare bill, you are a racist.”

  13. Boonton says:

    On racism, Hmm, it sure gets a lot of discussion for it to be a 99% complete strawman.

    You did not attribute your ‘quote’ to ‘the discussion’ or the healthcare debate in general but to Obama specifically arguing that you were paraphrashing him.

    It’s bad enough that you fail to educate yourself on the actual healthcare debate, is it really a good use of time to conduct a debate not about the statements and policies of the Obama that exists in the real world but the imaginary Obama that exists in your head?

    Now let’s move on:

    1. Death Panels – I’m still not seeing anything that demonstrates they are a lie.

    2. I think you cite an interesting idea about healthcare innovation being so positive, unfortunately it argues for reform. If healthcare spending has gone up because innovations have made healthcare so much more valuable, then you’ve just countered the arguments against reform based on cost. Spending $1T on healthcare makes a lot of sense if we are getting something very valuable for our money.

    In regards to innovation and reform, though, you don’t really offer anything useful. You make a generic argument for ‘burning regulation’ which demonstrates that you are just offering us ideological stand-ins for real arguments. Which regulations? And how does that have any relevance to the current debate over coverage? The status quo has become almost completely absurd. If you’re over 65 you’re covered, if you have a good job you’re (hopefully covered), if you get hit with unemployment you’re covered for a brief while (due to a reform by Obama) but then have to pay for COBRA, whose cost is unlikely to be sustainable for any unemployed person who isn’t either a rich person who had a job ‘for fun’ or has cashed in all their savings to keep coverage going. If you want to start your own business, work at a small company or a start up or even take a year off to contemplate life or study something you’re essentially asked to take a gamble that you won’t need anything more than a single regular check up.

    If you gave me a list of a thousand regulations that you think would spur innovation in medicine I’d say go ahead, burn ’em (after a review of course). That still doesn’t alter the argument that we should be moving towards a system of some type of universal coverage.

  14. Mark says:

    JA,
    So, overwhelming opposition to Obama (and healthcare is is big push now) is based on racism but racism however not thought to be a relevant factor in the healthcare debate. Whatever.

    Boonton,

    You did not attribute your ‘quote’ to ‘the discussion’ or the healthcare debate in general but to Obama specifically arguing that you were paraphrashing him.

    No. You misunderstood. You asked who said these things. I offered Mr Obama has said the first (and myself mispoke meaning just the first part on that one). That is to say, while Obama has said the first, so have many many others.

    Death Panels – I’m still not seeing anything that demonstrates they are a lie.

    Who said anything about lies?

    That still doesn’t alter the argument that we should be moving towards a system of some type of universal coverage.

    Yes it does. In a previous post, I noted that there is limited bandwith on the public stage. Healthcare responses and changes focusing on distribution and equity miss the point when the problem is one of supply. Right now the Administration has, for better or worse (I’ll take the latter) concentrated the public attention on healthcare and specifically focusing on the distribution and payment mechanisms related to healthcare, who gets it, who pays, and how much. But, alas, that isn’t the problem. At the turn of the last century food/shelter cost so much because obtaining the desired quantity of those commodities took so many people and their efforts. The supply was hard to come by. The medical “problem” is one of supply and specifically one of the cost per person to create the product in question.

    If you want to reform healthcare, fine. Just give some indication that your reforms are aimed at the real problem and not just an expensive stupid exercise in futility, i.e. re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

  15. Mark,

    How is it possible that you are an engineer? Shouldn’t you have learned precision in one of your classes? 😉

    Let’s compare your paraphrase to Carter’s quote:

    You: “overwhelming opposition to Obama”

    Carter: “overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama”

    Carter is EXPLICITLY AND CLEARLY talking about the “intensely demonstrated animosity toward Barack Obama.” NOT “opposition” to Obama. Opposition can be and sometimes is civil, rational, and principled. Animosity is none of the above. Big, big difference.

    And then for good measure, you distort what we were talking about:

    You write:”racism however not thought to be a relevant factor in the healthcare debate.”

    The claim we were talking about “if you oppose the healthcare bill, you are a racist.”

    Holy canoli, how far those goalposts moved! It’s like the claim was “I can run 99 yards for a touchdown on this play” and you interpreted that as “I can gain forward yardage on this play.”

    If 10% of opposition to health care reform was somewhat related to racism, the claim “racism is a relevant factor” could be true, but “if you oppose the healthcare bill, you are a racist” would be very, very false.

    Why can’t you stick to arguments as they exist instead of distorting at every step? You must be capable of precision as an engineer, right? Do you think words are just for waving in the general direction of an idea?

  16. Boonton says:

    Who said anything about lies?

    People who care about the truth. The Death Panels are lies and your unsourced graph does nothing to argue otherwise.

    Yes it does. In a previous post, I noted that there is limited bandwith on the public stage. Healthcare responses and changes focusing on distribution and equity miss the point when the problem is one of supply.

    Hmmmmm so the problem is a lack of innovation due to poor regulation. Yet you approvingly quote:

    Consequently, there is no need to suppress the demand for healthcare. Expenditures on healthcare are driven by demand, which is spurred by income and by advances in biotechnology that make health interventions increasingly effective. Just as electricity and manufacturing were the industries that stimulated the growth of the rest of the economy at the beginning of the 20th century, healthcare is the growth industry of the 21st century.

    So there’s been a lot of innovation in health after all. So your argument doesn’t really work unless there’s some magic combination of regulations that if only we could burn them innovation would be so fast that all our healthcare would be able to be satisified by a $20 pill taken once a year.

    Of course you don’t exactly bother to say which regulations these are or how you know that innovation would be unlocked at such a fast pace that shrinking costs will solve all problems.

    At the turn of the last century food/shelter cost so much because obtaining the desired quantity of those commodities took so many people and their efforts.

    curiously despite the ‘green revolution’ which dramatically increased our food supplies we still have ‘universal coverage’ in the sense that food stamps is available for anyone who is in danger of starving due to economic hardship. Even if a wave of innovation makes healthcare as cheap as food is right now we still should have a universal coverage policy.

    If you take Mark’s argument seriously, then adopt Obama’s reform and then demand ‘innovation reform’. The trillion dollar price tag will then drop to a few billion and everyone wins.

  17. Boonton says:

    I notice that Mark, like many of his fellow conservatives, seems to consider ‘animosity towards Obama’ the same as ‘opposition to Obama’s healthcare proposal (or any other policy in particular)’.

    It seems quite fair to point out that a distinct minority of the population displays an exceptional amount of animosity towards Obama and I think it’s fair for Carter to argue that a portion of that is racially motivated. As Brad de Long pointed out, if McCain had won there probably would have been a stimulus package around $700B but made up more of tax cuts…TARP would have went down too and yet somehow I suspect the Tea Parties would have been quite fewer in number. So yes the intensity of the animosity cannot all be simply attributed to policy differences. On the other hand, though, Republicans are quite happy to demonstrate animosity when they don’t get their way. They worked very hard at spending the Clinton years stoking animosity so it not exactly clear cut that all the animosity can be attributed to race. I think a John Edwards or Hillary Clinton as President would have elicited a serious but not quite equal amount of animosity. So I wouldn’t agree with Carter that we can divide the anti-Obama animosity easily into the portion that is racially motivated versus the portion that is motivated by the right’s childish immaturity.

    But that has nothing to do with healthcare policy. One can be in very deep opposition to a policy proposal without showing animosity. Hence there’s no justification for equating criticism of animosity with simple opposition to a policy. Likewise Mark should know better than to play games with quote marks as if he was quoting anything anyone of importance said. The ‘quote’ stunt, then, is yet another in a long series of examples of the right trying to play the ‘reverse victimization’ card.

  18. Boonton says:

    Let’s play a game. Suppose medicine is so keen for innovation that it can grow so fast that it’s value will double every 18 months (roughly Moore’s Law as applied to computers). Using the rule of 72 I get a growth rate of roughly 48% from that. Also I believe health care is about 20% of GDP at the moment so let’s assume it grows at 48% while the rest of the economy grows at the more common 3%.

    If we start at 100 to represent the base year, in 10 years I have an economy at 785. Basically almost 8 times bigger than when it began. If the whole economy grew at only 3% in ten years its at 134.

    What does this tell us? If Mark’s theory is correct then simply eliminating the unneeded regulations would take the economy from 14.265T in 2008 to $111.98T in 2018. If the growth is 3% then the economy will only be at 19.115T in 2018.

    So for all the social energy spent on the Tea Parties and deficits, Mark would have us believe that a few simple reforms in regulation would make a difference of over $90T! Obama could run $1.5T deficits every year for ten years plus add in all the Wall Street and auto bailouts and that that’s barely a fraction of the massive income growth Mark thinks is just behind the door if only we’d open it.

    If this was true the Republicans should immediately cut a deal letting Obama have his healthcare system, let him have anything he wants as long as he allows the mysterious regulations to be rescinded.

  19. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Medicine is not growing exponentially, biology/bio-tech I was told is, i.e., specifically the abilities and technologies associated with microbiology. That hasn’t had such a big impact on medicine so that it in turn is also exponentially increasing. And one reason why is the extreme conservatism of the medical legal structures and business praxis.

    Let me tell you a story. I in the mid 90s my company was contracted to do some conveyor and auditing machinery for a pharmaceutical company. Changes to design were impossible, when suggested we were told that that might require changes to their FDA approval which would virtually (perhaps literally) take an act “of Congress” to alter. It turns out they had problems with moving their process from the lab to the this particular new way of thawing out donated plasma. Yet, they also had very little wiggle room to experiment with what it would take to get it to work … all because of the regulatory overhead.

    Almost all the high tech gadgets you play with came originally from small start-ups. The not-quite-so mythical garage start-ups. Venture capital has a rich playing field in high tech electronics. It doesn’t take as much money to get started there. But it takes a whole lot more to get started in medicine. Why? I would suggest that a big factor is the regulatory burdens, which you seem to think are mythical.

    What I’m saying is that Mr Obama and all those really actually interested in doing real good in the healthcare field should concentrate their efforts on getting innovation and improvements in method and capability not in futzing with payment plans and trying to shovel money into the system as fast as possible because some big brained knuckleheads think they know what’s best for everyone better than each person.

  20. Boonton says:

    Mark,

    I don’t know enough about your ancedote to really comment. I do know that pharmaceutical manufacturing is a major challenge. Unlike, say, cookies, every pill has to be exactly the same. That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if you saw things that could have been done easier but weren’t because of regulatory overhead. If that overhead can be eliminated without opening up quality control problems on the other side I’m all for it.

    However pharmaceutical manufacturing is not a major cost driver in healthcare. The actual manufacture of pills typically cost pennies which is why many on the left are driven mad by the prospect of life saving drug that costs pennies to manufacture being sold for hundreds of dollars.

    But look how cheap generic drugs are. I’m sure there’s opportunities to squeeze some pennies out of their manufacturing costs by correcting regulatory problems but I’m not seeing your argument for fantastic overall returns to growth that you need to make your argument work.

    Almost all the high tech gadgets you play with came originally from small start-ups. The not-quite-so mythical garage start-ups. Venture capital has a rich playing field in high tech electronics. It doesn’t take as much money to get started there. But it takes a whole lot more to get started in medicine. Why? I would suggest that a big factor is the regulatory burdens, which you seem to think are mythical.

    A biological system is much finer, much more complex than, say, a device to play music or a cell phone. Also the implications of tinkering with your ipod entail, as a worse case, losing your songs and maybe destroying a device you spent a few hundred to aquire. The implications of biological tinkering are death and in the case of biological agents like viruses and bacteria possibly even worse.

    I think the real big factor is that you are talking about two different types of industries. There are plenty of biological start ups but doing one in your garage simply does not seem realistic to me.

  21. UUMMMMM
    What if ?

    Dear sir or Mrs.,
    I wish to share a new concept,the writing is by my hand but the design is by another . No matter of faith within each church,we wish to bring forward a new concept to build on.
    A new concept that is offered, how it opens you thoughts and how you wish to share it will be of your design.
    The health care issue is stuck in a sandbox, you have Obama s plan and the Republican plan and as it would seem if the people do not support the plans the door is not open. Everybody is fighting over the sandbox.
    Through a ten dollar factor of,{ $10.00 x 250 million people} we came up with a concept of the average cost for a health plan built by the people and for the people to vote for. With the effort to build a more perfect Union, a rough view of payments is around is around $20 to $40.00 a month and this covers the whole family. CONCEPT to build a INURANCE PLAN in and for the people and by the people.
    NO! The numbers are right…$1 TRILLION DOLLARS A MONTH. Now unless Government employees think that people are stupid, we invite you to see our thoughts and build on them.

    Within the Constitution it is our right by law, that if a person or people see into a issue or issues that is so wrong ,not only is our right to bring it forward it is our duty.

    A American Dream,a concept that will touch your mind and its truth for the building block for a HEALTHCARE RFEORM STIMULUS PACKAGE, that has never been conceived within the 21st century of man s thoughts. It will put a smile on your face. The people do not want the system to take care of them, Im sorry but this is true.
    Please visit us on google.com and search for http://www.fascmovement.mysite.com

    All we ask is that you PAY IT FORWARD
    Henry Massingale
    561 734 1376

  22. […] A smart blogger placed an observative post today on Pseudo-Polymath Blog Archive On The Commodity Known as HealthcareHere’s a quick excerptI can’t believe Rhonda has checked out this blog and hasn’t even dropped one comment. My only concern is that Mountain Dew has a lot of caffeine in it, and I keep them off caffeine. ( Now what is scarier than a socialist, baby-killing takeover of our public schools? What did the republicans do, dig up Falwell and have him. (Im sure she did other marketing stuff but dont mess with my little blog rags to riches fantasy. But now I am BITING MY TYPING someone need to give that old as baby a bottle because he keep cry. (Disclaimer: Im not a counselor or Still, this is suppose to be the time of miracles and I sure could use one now. I asked her what gadgets she uses every day. Archive for the Laptops’ Category So now we get to dig into the box of technology. Now Im a […] […]

  23. November 6, 2009
    Dear Sir and Mrs.,

    F.A.S.C. Concepts in and for Pay It Forward is a 2 part petition. In support of the Pay It Forward is to do something good within a action or a idea and then have another pay it forward the same good intention. Within or web site it is clear of all our goals. Private Schools for children lost to the streets, Asking H.U.D. To help put families back into homes, build a forum through a health care issue that needs to be for the people according to their needs.

    I have allowed a issue to get in my way and our goals. I am truly sorry but our web site is being worked on as you read this. Not never one time have we ever asked for you to put your faith into what we write, but we do ask if you see into this, to put your faith into yourself of how to build on this to make it work and to keep it safe from scams.

    Within the Federal Act Security Card link you will see two more concepts, one is called ,silly me concept, and the other is the, caveman concept. I would love to share the cave man concept with you. You see the cave man was out and about one day and he saw gold he looked at it and then he looked at the cave woman, so he tossed aside the gold. It is the same with the health care issue that the people fight over, in the cave man days it held no value over his woman but now in this 21st century of mankind it is no more than a way to get rich off of the old, the sick and the dieing.

    To understand me and how my mind sees into issues, it is because I am dyslectic, I will never have a G.E.D. ,I will never be able to go to College, but through my disability i have a gift, and that is to be able to see into issues, people, and the earth. I remember one day in Tennessee i was walking out of the forest from a days hunt and I stood before the biggest Oak Tree I have ever seen, the sun was setting over the ridge and the fall leaves and sun light set this tree into a flam of colors. I found myself staring at this tree and for reasons unknown to me , I said ,” God who am I and what was I created to do ?” I know it sounds silly for a man to talk to a tree in order to reach God.

    There will come a time in a persons life that they will look into their self and look for things that is good. It may be for a woman for a child or for God and Country.

    I know without a doubt because of law created to remove prayer from schools that our children are murdered in schools. And because of laws created against the Flag Of America that people lost respect for our own laws. This is to stay as it is, we must remove God from the Court Houses {to swear by.}

    What I do ask of people if you see into my mind of what is written and you believe in part or in full, do I as have and email President Obama and ask him to look into his hand and see where he came from and what it took for him to get where he is today. To never forget this because people elected you into office to be the Commander And Chief of the Military, to help fix this failed system, but not to be the leader of the people, but instead we ask for you Sir, “To step away from the Democrats and the Republicans and stand with the people of the United States Of America and God. Then say to the two different parties stand with us and lets rebuild America.”
    All we ask is for you to Pay It Forward.
    Henry Massingale

  24. My,my,my, I see that we still have a long way to go. if a people wish to focus their minds of the the truth of why we as a nation of people have become weaker because of a dollar and the enemy, The Arabic Drug Empire grows stronger, first you must free your self of the race of a people, to hate all because of the actions of few is not a moral concept. Why, “to condem a child because of race is sad.”
    We are at war and have been for 9 years so if you wish to open your minds to the what when and where, it started September 11, 2001.
    Henry Massingale
    FASC CONCEPTS
    for main page click on this link below
    http://www.fascmovement.mysite.com or look for page1 american dream on google.com and see the thousands of stories all over the net
     

  25. FASC
    Please allow us to share with you what we wish to use this health care forum for, only in part because it is very big and these issues may not be made clear at this moment.
    What is important to remember, these insurance companies need to merge as one and take control of this issue of cost that starts from the builders of of medications, and items used in treatment of the sick and injured. If there is a kind of sir. charge that puts the cost of a,lets say a needle from whole sale of a $ 1.00 to a cost of $2.00, this is a double of the price for profit against the health care troubles we face.
    Health Care Companies can help build this United Health Care Forum or sit back and let Government Officials build laws to govern them.
    What we wish to show the people is that through this United States effort of this Health Care Reform Stimulus Package we offer is a building block to show why this country is in trouble.
    1st. The laws against God by United States Laws…
    2nd. The Laws against Country through our United States Flag.
    3rd. The Boycott of The Arabic Drug Empire.
    4th. The Great China Wall.
    5th. The Mini warehouse factories, to strategically place jobs through out this country to cut gas over head and free our country from the Arabic oil companies.
    6th. To build the most powerful movement in a anti war / crime prevention of forum that will secure people and the National Security Of The United States, within this health care dollar.
    7th. This being built by people and not through new created Laws Of Control. Will force our Government Officials to work for the people and the secret is what we offer through the Federal Act Security Card, as it merges with this Health Care Forum. As this choice of freedom of a tax forum for health care cost and the freedom of choice of a payment forum through a Health Care Insurance Companies. The building block is so power full through this dollar that through this United Health Care Forum, this system that failed within Government Supervision will now be in control by a supervision of people who see issues that I am not allowed to see.
    What I wish to share is that all of the issues I do see and is listed on the net and at our website is the building block that will secure or country from our enemies and bring back the Made In The USA. These things I see is what I have seen for over 40 years of my life and as a child I was deeply touched by the first Laws against God and Country, and I say to you this was our first steps as a Country headed for failure.
    This little bit of input is apart of a SCHEMATIC  part 2, and it is by far a honest approach to our troubling issues of the 21 st. century within America.
    To put it simple on one issue, the Laws against God and Country, Officials of Government and the Courts did not have permission to do such a order.
    We are at war against a Drug Empire.
    Respect Of the Wall Of China to our west, the wisdom is a part of documented history.
    The FASC Card gives back a chance to so many people to build for the tomorrow for their children of poor families.
    FASC Concepts is a strategically building block to show the world that we as a people are
    { read-ing } ourself, so that all of which we stood for will once again be and as a people we will live on.
    Henry Massingale
    http://www.fascmovement.mysite.com look for page1 american dream official / google.com & yahoo