Medical knowledge is limited to our own personal experiences, the perspectives of others who have told us what they think reality is, as well as hard data that has been recorded over lengths of time. Consider this unsettling hypothetical: What if all forms of medical knowledge suddenly disappeared? What would we do to rebuild our knowledge banks?

We would probably do what medicine has always done. Break our understanding of the world into pieces, form conclusions, and test them. We would, in essence, make models of the world; small insights of predictability that represent a working knowledge. And this is exactly what we do today. We work with medical models – not reality.

Some of today’s models seem to sensibly represent the world. They appear efficacious for the most part. Other models, however, make little sense. They survive because the political clout which birthed them continues to fight for their existence today.

We must be careful about what we believe. The history of science is filled with preposterous “truths” that stood lifetimes – even centuries – to be finally discarded as rubbish. Certainly, some of today’s most cherished medical beliefs will meet a similar fate. “Why?” you might ask. For the same reason those others were discarded: they are not tenable. Once the political and financial matrix that holds them in place disintegrates, they will lose support. Other models with more efficacy will nibble at their edges, then devour them. Old models will be replaced by new models; which will, hopefully, be more workable mechanisms of thought. However, if stronger political or financial incentives arise that support less workable models, they may replace their predecessors instead. When this happens, medicine, in a sense, steps backward.

Medicine is constantly marching. It may take two steps forward, one step back, then a step to the side. This is not a march to reality, but rather from one vague point in the past to another vague point in the future. Surely, some aspects of medicine will improve, while others will actually become more harmful. Many models and treatments will change neither for better nor for worse. Technology continues to improve, yet breast cancer is increasing. Bubonic plague may no longer be a threat, but AIDS is a pandemic. Tuberculosis was well-controlled twenty years ago, but more and more resistant strains are developing around the world. Although immunizations have saved millions of lives, only one disease has been completely eradicated.

Many of our twentieth century victories may be hollow. They may not even be victories at all. Instead, they may be no more than a natural or technological reprieve from the onslaught of future ills.

. . . .

Stephen Typaldos, D.O.
July 1994

Our representatives are facing a lot of pressure from interest groups and need to know they at least have the support of their people at home. Here is the letter I sent to my congressman:

Dear Fred Upton:

Alexander Typaldos

Videos of the event are surreal because you can see thousands of pedestrians walking in step as they cross the bridge – rocking left and right in unison to keep their balance. The reason for this synchronization is that each individual pedestrian, when he walks, contributes a little force that causes a slight oscillation. Because each pedestrian’s steps are random at the beginning, more pedestrians will inevitably step in one direction than another at various times. When this happens it causes the bridge to sway slightly in the direction of greater force.

A few more people will recognize, perhaps subconsciously, that the bridge is rocking and they themselves will rock back and forth to keep their balance. It so happens that the same motion that keeps an individual balanced also powers the oscillations, increasing their amplitude. This process accelerates until all individuals are synchronized, therefore maximizing amplitude.

In the case of the Millennium Bridge, oscillations were so forceful that pedestrians might have fallen down had they not walked in step.

Individual Rationale

The most crucial point to learn from the example is this: The decision that is in the best interest of each individual opposes the good of the aggregate; and that, in turn, harms each individual.

This is exactly the situation we have in healthcare at present. Physicians, insurers, employers, hospitals, and patients all want changes. They are swaying back and forth in a shaky system, perpetuating its inadequacies just to keep their balance. Yet they are powerless to change the system as individuals or even as entire interest groups.

A Coordinated Response

If the pedestrians on the bridge had formulated a system of two groups – each walking in sync and opposing the other group’s side to side steps – oscillations could have been reduced. This would never have really worked, though, because Londoners enjoyed shaking the bridge! (And that is perhaps another lesson in itself.)

Instead, the builders installed dampers to absorb shock. And they succeeded at eliminating all noticeable oscillations.

Alexander Typaldos

Some Americans on the conservative end of the political spectrum think that anyone who has food, a place to live, and modern appliances is in no position to complain about their lot in life. After all, many in this world go without those basic necessities. But the argument is flawed for assuming the only things people need are basic necessities, as if our purpose is merely to self-perpetuate. By this assumption, conservatives of this type reveal their gross misunderstanding of human nature.

When someone’s boss chews them out at work, how much solace will they find in their washer and dryer? When a person is struggling with weight issues, try telling them they have no cause to complain because they have enough food to eat. Do walls and a roof overhead shelter from an abusive spouse or parent within? Can a television set become someone’s friend?

An all-pervasive problem in America

Right-wing conservatives who have worked their way to success, as they define it, may be the most blatant promoters of this fallacy. But they are not the only ones. On the other political end are the liberal unions, who grasp as much pay and benefits as they can, even manipulating the hand of government to fill their pockets. All the while, they justify their own abuses with tales of corporate greed and management excesses.

Unions’ true motives are revealed when they compete with non-union workers for limited benefits. Pilot unions have shown they are willing to use aggressive negotiation tactics to get as much pay as possible, without remorse for other airline workers who have taken corresponding pay cuts.

Lawyers have pushed to make it illegal for anyone without a license to practice law. The goal is for the profession to maintain a monopoly on legal services, although most educated people could practice law competently with a bit of experience. For the same reason, doctors use Latin and Greek words to obscure the otherwise familiar. Musculus quadriceps femoris, for example, literally means “four-headed muscle of the thigh” in Latin. The idea is to place a gap in between “professionals” and “laypersons” that perpetuates a doctor’s role in society.

Bulwarks of the Ivory Tower

When it comes to self-perpetuity, America’s higher education community is our worst offender. At least doctors, lawyers, and workers unions provide valuable services. Academic researchers often concoct studies solely to receive government grants and recognition within their academic community. This life is great fun for the right person. They can engage with intelligent scholars who share similar interests. And they are immune from the economic pressures of the business world, or the workload of primary and secondary school teachers.

It is so much fun that students themselves endeavor to stay in school – lengthening programs, doubling majors, turning masters into doctorates.

But is this community good for society? It might be if the focus of academia were on real-world issues. It would help if doctors and other professionals could dictate what they study. We live in a relatively wealthy society, so we are able to set people aside to explore their interests without a need for immediate productivity. And there is nothing wrong with that concept per se.

Problems arise, however, when these people, whom society has blessed with perpetual capital and no immediate demands, forget their duty to society, however informally it was stated. Then academics become takers, not producers, who stretch the truth to keep funding. As often as we hear claims of potential cures for paralysis and degenerative diseases – and even aging – how many cures do we actually see?

As a society, we have been led on by academics. It is too risky to grant capital without effective oversight. Reputable as an individual or organization may be, they are still capable of betraying our trust when no one is watching.

Acute form of self-perpetuity

The above examples are the chronic form of self-perpetuity. They are systems people create or modify to preserve and perpetuate their own viability, livelihood, and reputation. However, there is also an acute form of self-perpetuity.

Bargain-basement shopping, one-sided contracts, medications that only treat symptoms – these are ways that supposedly enhance and perpetuate one’s existence incrementally. Far too many people willingly enter into deals they know are unfair to the other party, reasoning it is that other party’s responsibility to look out for himself. People who habitually use symptom-reducing meds and max out credit cards go so far as to cheat their future selves, as they would another person.

Basis of Many Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theorists, bless their hearts, are oftentimes simply trying to make sense of systems that appear so diabolical that they must be the result of high-level conspiracies designed to kill, brainwash, and exploit the masses. In fact, theorists are attempting to project blame onto a few individuals for a problem closer to home.

Daily, Americans are faced with a choice: Am I going to do what helps me or what benefits the society I live in? When citizens of this individualistic nation, on all levels, systematically choose the former option, the results are indeed diabolical. But we cannot place all the blame on a few people in positions of great responsibility.

The prevalence of AIDS is largely the result of personal choices. Our economic crisis is not the fault of the Rothschilds any more than reckless investors, predatory lenders, and overreaching consumers. Conspiracy theorists will understand these references.

Checks and Balances

It might make for a touching conclusion to appeal to the good in people’s hearts. Unfortunately, that is just not practical. Instead, we need effective systems of checks and balances. Everyone must report to some authority, whether a parent, teacher, employer, law enforcement officer, or congressional committee. In our nation we have rejected the very concept of authority, probably because of rampant abuse of this power in past generations.

People should be viewed as self-interested and self-perpetuating individuals whose selfishness must be continually held in check.

In conjunction with these systems of checks and balances, we as individuals need to learn how to view our lives differently. We are interconnected with those in our society through frameworks of community. A framework can be regional, professional, religious, political. And within each of those frameworks we have a responsibility to use our influence in ways that benefit the group as a whole, not our own personal interest or our family’s alone.

Thus, effective systems punish takers and reward givers; oppose self-perpetuators and support community-minded individuals. The most effective force of all to influence behavior of citizens in a free society is the values that society holds. If wealth is valued over honesty and a good job is valued over politeness, people will lie to make a sale and shaft their way into a promotion. If war is unpopular in this country, America’s youth will shun military service.

Fascial Distortion Medicine’s American Dilemma

Self-perpetuating mindsets are the single greatest hindrance to the spread of FDM in the United States. It offers so much to patients yet so little to physicians. Here is what we tell doctors, MDs and DOs: “If you use FDM you can’t see as many patients or make as much money. You will tire yourself out doing the treatments. And you’ll look silly to your colleagues. But your patients, they will love you! You can be a miracle worker, a life saver in their eyes.”

Physicians respond, more by deed than by word: “What’s in it for me? If I can help patients by making little or no sacrifice, I’ll do it. But when it comes down to helping patients or taking care of me and my family, I’ll choose me. Every time.”

Well, patients are choosing “me” too, and a new healthcare system is coming. Indeed, America has systems of checks and balances. What we need now is the right values.

Alexander Typaldos

Auto Warranty

Health insurance is more like a car’s warranty than auto insurance. Third party liability, as exists in auto insurance, is not envisioned in health insurance. It offers only the equivalent of “collision” coverage, which covers damage to your own vehicle in an accident without regard to fault; plus a warranty covering damage to parts and systems during normal use.

There are two types of car warranties: powertrain and bumper-to-bumper. Powertrain warranties cover the engine, transmission, and drivetrain – the components necessary to “power” your car. Bumper-to-bumper warranties cover almost everything, including the powertrain.

Powertrain Health Insurance

When discussing health insurance, it would be useful to differentiate between “powertrain”-type health insurance and full “bumper-to-bumper” health coverage. Here are definitions of the terms:

Definition of Powertrain healthcare: insurance covering treatment to a person’s vital organs and systems if it is necessary to maintain the person’s life and basic functions.

Definition of Bumper-to-bumper healthcare: insurance covering the full spectrum of non-elective treatments that are reasonably expected to improve a person’s quality of life.

Details can be worked out. We may want to include treatments for Type I diabetes but not Type II, for example, in powertrain coverage. For the broader purposes of this article, the category of treatments now considered “medically necessary” is being split into two categories, vital and non-vital. These definitions disregard whether a condition is an emergency. This means regular ECGs are more likely to be covered than a fractured ankle under a powertrain plan.

Role of the Federal Government

Powertrain issues – heart problems, cancer, stroke, Alzheimer’s – destroy lives, put people out of work, and bankrupt families. This area is where Americans need help from their government. Limitations on treatments for life-threatening and disabling conditions are more often a product of availability than price. Therefore, the quality of care has little to do with who pays.

The U.S. government should provide powertrain coverage for all Americans. However, it should leave additional bumper-to-bumper coverage to businesses and individuals if they so choose. It should also make self-insurance for bumper-to-bumper conditions a viable alternative.

Big Government versus Small Government

Here is an enduring debate between fiscal liberals and conservatives. Each side would love to savor the taste of victory. Unfortunately for both sides – and perhaps fortunately for our nation – this debate is unwinnable.

Usually, when two sides are deadlocked or engaged in a back-and-forth over long time periods, it is because neither side is addressing the real issue. The question to ask in this debate is how big does government need to be to fulfill its role effectively? The size our government needs to be is the inverse of the private sector’s effectiveness plus the square of its corruption, written in the formula: Size of Government = (Size of Overall Economy – Private Sector Effectiveness) + (Private Sector Corruption)².

Corruption is squared because as it increases, it is seen as more acceptable; and there is less will within the private sector itself to discourage and expose corruption. Of course, this formula applies to government involvement in the economy only, not in social or foreign policy matters.

Problems with National Health Coverage

What turn off many Americans are anecdotal complaints from citizens of nations having a form of national healthcare. Most of these complaints center on two problems, rationing and lack of choice. The problem of rationing is really a blessing in disguise. When people think that if they become ill they can have access to quality healthcare, they are not as inclined to care for their bodies. This concept is no doubt unpopular, but it is established truth in the insurance industry. Rationing is therefore desirable in a national health plan.

Lest anyone think rationing healthcare is totally unacceptable in a modern society, understand that if we do not control rationing, the system will ration itself – and it may not be in a way that we would prefer. Healthcare’s growth as a percentage of GDP is unsustainable. Soon society, including the federal government, will no longer be able to pay, and services will diminish. And even now, the idea that Americans with health insurance have ready access to quality care is a myth. Many Americans hold onto this myth until they or a family member becomes ill. It is then that the reality of healthcare’s limitations becomes apparent; and oftentimes, prevention offers no second chance.

A Pro-Choice Policy

Perhaps the most important healthcare choices are vital in nature. However, on a practical level, the choices Americans really care about are in non-vital matters, such as who their family doctor is and whether they get access to new medications. Life and death matters requiring procedures such as kidney dialysis, appendix removal, and insulin injections are not what they think of when asking for more healthcare choices.

This proposal preserves these choices by limiting government-sponsored healthcare to matters of vital importance, where there is general agreement about proper methods. This broad outline leaves room, as well, for building choices into a government insurance plan.

Perfection is out of reach

While it is utterly impossible to develop a system that satisfies the desires of all Americans and interest groups – so long as corporations profit from bad care, and Americans live dangerously unhealthy lifestyles – it is still quite easy to create a system better than the one we have now. Therefore, you should view this proposal as a new perspective; a different, and perhaps better, way of seeing the issues. This is not a quick fix. Anyone who tells you they have found a quick fix to healthcare is lying. There are just too many factors to consider.

The foremost factor in healthcare reform is the false, illogical theories upon which the medical profession is based. Until medical theory and practice are reformed, tinkering with the financial and business aspects of healthcare will accomplish little. This does not mean we should replace “conventional” medicine with “alternative” medicine. Nor does this mean we should take the best of both schools and form hybrid practices. Rare is the person who does not subscribe to one of those two camps. Alternative or “complementary” medicine is no longer a catch-all category for rejected methods. Instead, it has become a defined, competing branch of medicine; sadly, with illogicality similar in degree to that of conventional medicine.

Instead, what this means is that we should set aside ambiguous studies and marketing claims, and go through the evidence – studies, patient testimonies, physicians’ observations – with an eye for correlations among facts. Patterns of correlations can be used to theorize. Then we test those theories, not only with double-blinded placebo-controlled studies, but by logical, rational, and reasonable analysis. Are patients responding the way we would expect them to? Are there any symptoms that cannot be explained by our theories?

Tested theories are truth. They do not become truth because truth was present already; it was found, if you will. Various truths can be placed within a framework and cohered. When there are enough truths known in a particular branch of medicine for them to present as a mental image, they can be intellectualized into working models. Such are a physician’s most valuable assets. Technology, formal education, facilities, and skill are dwarfed in significance when compared to reliable medical models that explain why patients get sick and suggest what needs to be done to help. Penicillin would have been useless without the germ theory; or never discovered in the first place.

Many of the treatments in both conventional and alternative medicine are working for reasons other than the ones physicians think. Conversely, treatments physicians claim will work do not for reasons they cannot explain. This indicates, to those who are analyzing evidence logically, rationally, and reasonably, that their models are incorrect. All this talk about truths and models might appear abstract and even irrelevant. However, the Fascial Distortion Model reveals that once physicians correctly understand disease and injury processes, successful treatments will naturally follow. Models, theories, and philosophies ought to be discussed and debated openly, for they are the gems of healthcare reform. Financing is the gold in which they are set.

Automotive Safeguards

Here in Michigan and in other states too, auto repair shops are required to present a written estimate of repair costs. This law prevents an awkward scenario where a car owner discovers, to his dismay, that charges are far higher than he expected. A similar law would be nice in the healthcare industry. Granted states do have laws requiring doctors to post their office visit fee schedules, but this applies primarily to out-patient care.

When it comes to emergency and in-patient care – and prescription medications – patients can do little more than cross their fingers, hoping the hospital bill is not as bad as their reason for the visit. The argument for “surprise billing,” presumably, is that the patient’s health is more urgent and important than financial matters in a crisis. This may be true, but anyone who has gone to the Emergency Room with anything less than an immediate, life-threatening condition will tell you they always find time beforehand to check your insurance.

It is a principle that systems operating behind closed doors are easily subject to corruption. In the healthcare industry, openness is compromised not only by entrenched interest groups, but by the system’s sheer complexity. It is well nigh impossible for any single entity other than the federal government to oversee it. This is not to say the government is unsusceptible to similar corrupting forces. Therefore, a form of national healthcare such as powertrain coverage should be seen as merely the beginning of reform; logical, rational, and reasonable medical models as the end.

Alexander Typaldos

The easiest way for the federal government to raise money is to print more cash. The Federal Reserve Bank does the printing, and Congress oversees its operations. There is only one limit to the amount of money the Federal Reserve can print, and that is the value of the dollar. But even inflation can work in the government’s favor when it is seeking to reduce debt, because inflation effectively lowers the cost of repayment.

If taxpayer money was the only way the federal government could raise revenues, it would be impossible to finance a perennial deficit.

Taxing the Rich

Politicians can earn consistent political capital gains by “taxing the rich.” But there are several problems with this strategy. First is their definition of “rich.” The working definition deals solely with income rather than net assets. I consider someone rich if they have a lot of money, not if they earn a high salary.

Who is wealthier? It is the physician who recently finished his residency and began earning a salary of $250,000 but has student loans totaling $200,000? Is he wealthier than a retiree who has a pension of only $60,000 annually but saved and invested $2 million? According to most politicians, “taxing the rich” means soaking the doctor while leaving the retiree untouched.

That Won’t Work

Taxing the rich, either kind, will not work. By “work” I mean the government generates more tax revenues and reduces the financial burden on “middle” and “working” class families – two more terms with political definitions worth disputing, but not here.

Taxing high income earners will not work because most of them are valuable professionals like doctors and dentists. When taxes go up, they will demand and receive higher salaries. This will increase the cost of some basic services, even while the government uses increased revenues to subsidize other services. The result is zero change to cost of living.

Taxing those who are truly wealthy is still more problematic, for three reasons:

1. Rich people decide what their taxable income is. The majority of their assets are investments in businesses, where the primary return is appreciation as opposed to earnings distributions. So the rich, in normal times, pay most of their taxes on capital gains from liquidated investments of their choice. If taxes get too high, the rich may simply hold their investments and pay nothing on the gains, if there are any.

2. Rich people are mobile. Tax them too much and they will move their assets overseas. With a good strategy, it is amazing how much they can save.

3. Rich people oftentimes own businesses that sell goods and services to the government. Tax dollars do not enter a black hole from which they never return to the private sector. The federal government spends its tax dollars. And many wealthy people own businesses that are recipients of this cash. The businesses earn a higher income and repay a higher portion of their income in taxes. So raising taxes merely shifts positioning in a cycle, but it does not reduce the flow.

If politicians are trying to hurt wealthy people with higher taxes, they succeed at this goal. It is more than a little inconvenient for them to apply some of the above tactics. However, the only way to achieve widespread, lasting prosperity in any society is by true fairness. A “flat” income tax – much like employment taxes, but applied to all income – may be politically impossible at the federal level. Nonetheless, it is the right thing to do.

Alexander Typaldos

If drugs, radiation, and surgery are the weapons, cancer is the enemy, and physicians are the generals, then what is the patient in this war? The patient’s body is the battlefield! What does a battlefield look like after the fighting is over? Not so good.

Yet again, medical philosophy bottlenecks medical science. As long as physicians possess a war mentality, they will continue blasting cancer with steadily increasing firepower and success. Eventually, they will discover that the easiest way to kill cancer is to kill the patient. It will cease growing immediately!

Cure for Cancer

Is this possible? The answer is no. Cancer doesn’t work that way. It is not a foreign invader we need to fight; it is our own cells gone bad. Genetic material in numerous types of cells becomes corrupted through various means – chemicals, pathogens, radiation – and these cells grow out-of-control, damaging healthy tissues.

Medicine can cure tuberculosis; it can cure smallpox. Medicine cannot cure different cell types in different parts of the body from failing to replicate properly in different ways and for different reasons. Physicians should recognize that diseases like cancer require a different approach.

The important thing to remember is that while certain causes of cancer come from outside our bodies, the cancer itself is a part of us. Because of this fact, the only safe, sustainable solution is to make sure the cellular reproduction mechanism continues to function as it should. And to do this, we need to understand what causes it to malfunction.

Practical, Workable Solutions

I hate this awe, reverence, and almost magical hope that many Americans hold, believing that scientists and doctors will some-day find a cure for cancer. This mystical hope wreaks havoc on logical, rational, and reasonable thought that is directed toward practical, workable solutions to clearly-defined problems.

What I love is good common sense and a balanced, realistic outlook. It is not glamorous, but it is very powerful. This is one thing I loved about my father. Unlike his peers, who were obsessed with their status of being able to prescribe medications, my father approached injuries more like an engineer approaches his projects. He knew what the problem was and what he needed to do to fix it, and he did not think twice about shopping at Home Depot to find the right equipment.

No hype, no self-promotion; just concrete, measurable, reproducible results.

Balanced Hope

Americans are starting to get what needs to be done to fix the cancer problem. Live a healthy lifestyle, avoid carcinogens like the ones in cigarette smoke, and keep your immune system in good shape. The public may be catching onto this idea faster than physicians, who apparently prefer their reactive, combative approach, whether or not it works.

The medical profession’s idea of cancer prevention is regular screenings. What to screen for depends on statistical risk factors, such as age and sex. In this case, statistics are misleading. One man’s risk of prostate cancer may be 100 percent; another man in his same demographic may have a risk factor of 0. It is incompetent and lazy for doctors to tell them they both have a risk factor of, say, 2 percent, as if cancer is random.

Do you think that if only the American Cancer Society had more money it would have found a cure by now?

Alexander Typaldos

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

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

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