Free market or socialized medicine for the future of US health care?

Surgical Neurology International
Article Type: 
Published Date: 
Thursday, June 23, 2016

This is a commentary written in response to an article published in Surgical Neurology International and penned by the retiring neurosurgeon Dr. Clinton Frederick Miller that was highly critical of American medicine. He opines that a major overhaul, or rather overturn, of the American health care is necessary to correct the myriad of alleged abuses he perceives in the system. In his quest for reform, Dr. Miller also made a pitch toward supporting ObamaCare as a stepping stone in the implementation of socialized medicine in the US.[17]

My friend and colleague Dr. Russell L. Blaylock has already written an excellent rebuttal as far as moral and political implications in Dr. Miller’s treatise to the effect “While some of the observations in the article may be correct, the type of liberal/left proposals to solve the problems are harmful.”[17] Dr. Miller argues several points that are misleading and tendentious. Thus, I agree with Dr. Blaylock’s statement. Moreover, when Dr. Miller blames the free market for the problems in the US medical care system, I would argue that the reality is quite the opposite.[11] A two‑level cervical fusion may cost $11000, but if the free market was fully allowed to work, the price would be far less because of unfettered competition, as occurs with the services in other professions and trades. The same would happen with the stereotactic biopsies at $4000–8000.[17] Price would come down if the free market was allowed to work. For this to happen, though, patients and their families would need to be educated to become prudent consumers of medical care and shop around for quality as well as the most affordable medical care—same as they do with other services and purchases of household items as well as homes and automobiles.[7,8] Dr. Miller himself has pointed out that 96% of illnesses are not serious. I agree; this means that in most situations patients could act as prudent consumers and with freedom of choice in seeking medical care. This is what should be happening, but as we all know, it is not. If we truly had an unfettered free‑market in medical care, medical care would be competitive, more efficient, cheaper, and still humanitarian, as has been the case from time immemorial for the medical profession.[7,8,16] This is no longer happening to a significant degree because of the strain of modern living, the high cost of and depersonalizing influence of advanced technology, and more apropos in our discussion because of the distortions in the medical marketplace—namely the third‑party payer system and the antipathy of the government and insurance companies to allow for patient empowerment via medical savings accounts (MSAs) or health savings accounts (HSAs).[7,8] One only has to compare the price of dental care where the free market is less restricted to medical care (where third party payers and the government are involved) to immediately recognize the distortion of the fee‑for‑service US medical care system. Despite the misconception of the US having an unrestrained, laissez faire free market in medical care, the reality is quite the opposite—i.e., already more than halfof the system is socialized and the rest is under managed care, a highly regulated system in which cost‑containment is the raison d’être and the managed care entities and insurance companies work hand in glove with the government, which is a collectivist and corporativist partnership.[12,13]

Third party payers (insurance companies as well as the government) are problems because the system is perceived and, in fact, mishandled as if somebody else other than the patient is paying the medical bills. In other words, patients act as if they are spending somebody else’s money when they seek medical care. This also makes the system terribly expensive. In the present milieu in the US health care system, the invisible hand of the free market is hampered. I need not mention the cost of defensive medicine because of the adversarial litigious climate in which physicians practice.[10] The system is abused on all sides and these abuses escalate unchecked. Insurance companies are stuck with huge medical and hospital bills, and they are able to pass the costs to the enrolees, ultimately the patients. This is a problem that, like the other shortcomings mentioned above, needs addressing. Reform is needed, but with ObamaCare, US medical care will be further disrupted and what is left of the free market will be further distorted. Dr. Miller warns us about the healthcare‑industrial complex and likens it unfavorably to General Dwight Eisenhower’s military–industrial complex,[17] but the fact is we should be much more concerned when government enters the equation in these corporativist partnerships, as in ObamaCare, which is a more advanced level of corporate socialized medicine, a higher degree of collusion of government, managed care networks, and big businesses—threatening more regimentation, more socialization, and less freedom.[2,3,11]

As to the specifics, Dr. Miller alludes to over‑diagnosis and over‑treatment of breast and prostate cancer, and goes to mention that 85% of men over the age of 60 at autopsy harbored microscopic evidence of in situ prostate cancer, suggesting that this is a benign condition requiring no treatment.[17] Let me just state that a dead octogenarian at autopsy is one thing; it is another for a symptomatic but very active octogenarian to be refused treatment simply because of his age with the medical pretext that his prostate cancer or her breast cancer is deemed probably not serious, probably not invasive, and ignored because of age discrimination, a tenet of population‑based utilitarian bioethics and not the individual‑based, traditional medical ethics.[6,9,15,16]

Dr. Miller then goes on to lambast over‑treatment in neurosurgery, and opines, based on a 2007 New England Journal of Medicine study, that conservative treatment of lumbar radiculopathy is as good as surgical treatment with microdiscectomy.[17] That may be true in the long run in some patients but not in others, and he glosses over the fact that patients experience less pain and recover faster with microdiscectomy. He then impugns venal motives to his colleagues for advising surgery when medical treatment is supposedly just as good, claiming, “experienced spine surgeons have known this all along” but because of “selfish motives” fail to disclose this to the patients. Not necessarily so because the art and science of medicine and neurosurgery is imprecise and different surgeons have better or worse results with one method or the other. Patients (and surgeons) are unique individuals, not statistics. Despite the efforts of socialists to collectivize, one size does not fit all! Then, Dr. Miller accuses others colleagues equally of mercenary motives for criticizing the design and results of the study. He writes, “certain vocal elements within the spine surgery community” contended the results of the study because “obvious selfish intent to protect a ‘bread and butter’ source of income.”[17] That may be so for some, but not for other honest critics, and as Dr. Miller himself had to admit, there were shortcomings in the study, as well as qualitative differences in the results.

Returning to more general concerns, Dr. Miller mentions Hippocrates and the Oath, and I am happy that he does.[17] But it is not socialized medicine, not even managed care, that upholds the tenets of the Hippocratic Oath, but the individual‑based (not government‑based), patient‑oriented, free market medical care.[14‑16] It is of interest that Dr. Miller is supposedly concerned with the trend that physicians are “not fulfilling a physician’s sacred first duty to engage in responsible and humanistic collaboration with the patients we are privileged to serve.”[17] Here, I tend to agree to some extent, but then I wonder if the word “humanistic” was chosen with an oblique purpose in mind, or whether he meant “humanitarian” or “compassionate.” The term “humanistic” has today, even as Wikipedia notes, so many meanings from “man‑centered” to “humanitarian,” that it is difficult to discern which one is meant within the context of his narrative. I suppose Dr. Miller meant “humanitarian.” If he meant “humanistic” with alternative meanings, the term is incorrect at best or disingenuous at worse.[14‑16]

Over‑treatment and alleged unnecessary medical care, too much surgery, heroic care, all of this happens—but they do not all mean greed and the implied (immoral) profit motive, as ascribed by Dr. Miller, but also the penchant of Americans to live longer sometimes without considering quality of life—after all, somebody else (government or insurance companies) is paying the medical bills! It is not always the doctors’ fault, but the imprecisions of the art and science of medicine and our way of life and our way of thinking. And the American way is not always wrong.[1,6,9,16,18] We need education and information, and how to take care of ourselves, but we in the US do not need further regimentation and collectivization.[2,3,7,8,16] Some of the problems enumerated by Dr. Miller do exist as noted, but some of the proposed solutions, such as full implementation of socialized medicine, are far worse.[1,7,18] Moreover, some of the accusations heaped on the American medical care system is based on alleged inequalities in access for the poor, the elderly, and the indigent or disabled. These are outright false accusations perpetuated by the misinformed, and the drama of Hollywood movies and the popular culture. The poor, indigent, and disabled are covered by Medicaid, a nationwide State program; the elderly by Medicare, funded by the Federal government. In some cases, individuals and families are covered by both. Furthermore, it is illegal by Federal law to turn away anyone in the emergency room under any circumstances. Everyone gets medical care in the US in one form or another, or eventually in the emergency room. The shortfall in funding is paid by the working middle and upper classes in Federal and state taxes. Paradoxically, it is these same entrepreneurial groups, including individuals, small and family businesses and the self‑employed, in the middle class that face problems with access to medical care because insurance premiums are so high, and now with ObamaCare must pay fines if they chose to remain uninsured and self‑pay. It is the American middle class that carries the burden, pulling the wagon in which everyone else rides! And, for the record, despite the demagogic allegations of some American politicians (Democrats), no one falls through the cracks in America. The poor in the US are on welfare and served by an alphabet soup variety of government programs, entitlements, and benefits (e.g., WIC [Women, Infants, and Children], EBT card for SNAP [food stamps], Medicaid, free cell phones, free or subsidized housing, etc.) tending to their every need and that of their families—subsidized again by the American middle class. Americans, as you can see, are very compassionate and generous people.

Modern liberals, who frequently prefer to call themselves progressives (and in the US usually resent the term socialists with the notable exception of Democrat Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders), have also a predilection to compare the US with other industrialized nations when it is deemed politically convenient. Immediately, two items come to mind: The purported statistics of health care and gun violence. Let me state from the outset that selection bias has no place in scientific methodology, and the usage of numbers that usually accompany these discussions brings in a method of science, statistics, that abhors biases. Second, why should the rest of the world be ignored as if they were no part of the community of nations, nations made up of human beings with aspirations, yearning to live in peace, and with the same natural rights as anybody else? I have already discussed the issue of guns and freedom in terms of the history and culture of America and the rest of the world.[4,5] I will thus continue with a similar comparison of the US and the Europe in terms of health care.

I do not wish to offend our European friends and colleagues. After all, the US is only the culmination of European (Western) civilization. But Western Europe has a largely stagnant, and in some countries, an aging population that has difficulty sustaining itself. Until recently, Europeans have been able to ration health care very efficiently with socialized medicine because of the much more homogenous population and culture it serves. This situation would be very difficult to accomplish in America without establishing an authoritarian government, curtailing freedom, regimenting, and changing the American way of life—very likely for the worse. Scandinavia has had a long tradition of socialistic Nordic tribal welfare that is time‑honored, and thus, frequently not abused, serving its temporary purposes (e.g., socioeconomic and moral support) until the afflicted persons get back on their feet. In the US, welfare services are abused as they are largely politically motivated, rather than time‑honored social and traditional mores.

In Spain, Greece, France, and the rest, the economies are sinking because of their uncontrolled spending in social (including medical) services they can no longer afford.[1,7,18] I recommend the papers by Drs. James I. Ausman and David C. Stolinsky comparing health statistics between the US and the rest of the world.[1,18] Collectivism has been a failure wherever it has been established, and socialized medicine, in particular, has been the key arch of that socialization, an essential component of collectivism used by demagoguing politicians to seduce the people, making it easier for them to accept tyranny. Europe has been free to pursue their pacifism and social safety net, including socialized medicine, in large part from the goodwill of the US with liberation in World War II, the enactment of the generous post‑war Marshall Plan, and the protection that America (and her gun culture) provided during the cold war. But what worked for Europe may not work for the US. Collectivism, in any of its  incarnations, socialism, fascism (National Socialism), communism, and even corporativism (the unholy partnership of big business and government as in corporate socialized medicine) is supported by a faulty, if not an unnatural and evil ideology. Humanity has paid the price in lives (i.e., 100 million lives in the 20th century alone) for the evils of collectivism! For all the criticism, capitalism, even “crony capitalism,” at its worst, may deal with greed and profits, but not with the taking of lives and the support of tyranny.[13,14]

It is worth reiterating that despite the shortcomings, drawbacks, and alleged abuses of the American medical care system, that fee‑for‑service American medicine is still the best in the world. This is particularly true given our uniquecultural situation, the growing and heterogenous population that it serves, rampant immigration, popular expectations, and other political and cultural considerations.

The pharmaceutical industry has also been attacked elsewhere and not always unjustifiably so. The abusive high‑price of US drugs has also been cited as a shortcoming of the American “free‑market” medical care. But pharmaceutical companies will gradually be paying the price in lost market share, as many Americans who pay for their own medications will buy them abroad via the internet at a fraction of the cost. Further competition from abroad with the development and mass production of high quality, generic drugs will become a pharmaceutical bonanza for patients. People paying for medical care (fee‑for‑service) and medications from their own pockets will shop for the best prices, which is the free market at work, but education and freedom of choice are essential for the free market to function.[8,11]

Third party payers, as mentioned, are a major problem and my concerns are worth repeating: The system is perceived as if somebody else other than the patient is paying the medical bills; thus the free market is hampered. It is abused on all sides and these abuses escalate. Even insurance companies are getting ripped off, but they easily pass the costs to the enrollees, ultimately the patients. This is a problem that, like the other shortcomings mentioned, needs addressing. But ObamaCare is not the answer.[11‑13] With the implementation of ObamaCare, the US health care medical system will be further distorted placing an undue burden on the American middle class and small businesses. And unlike any other health care proposal implemented in the U.S., ObamaCare is compulsory and those who choose not to participate are fined by the government. So, when ObamaCare fails to deliver all that it promises, it will be the same progressive politicians who will clamor for more socialization and more compulsion.

Socialized medicine in other countries is frequently lauded even by citizens, as in Canada and Great Britain. Why? Because it has become, for many, a national symbol of pride as well as a false measure of security. Only 4% of people are sick enough to need the system at any one time, and when they do they find queues to see specialists, waiting lists for radiographic studies, and surgery, restrictions of services, and various forms of rationing.[1,6,7,18] In some cases, pets can obtain tests faster than human patients because veterinary care is fee‑for‑service, whereas medical care is socialized! ObamaCare in the US will be a more advanced level of medical corporativism, another step toward fully socialized medicine with further regimentation and less freedom. I have provided supportive articles (which themselves contain useful references from various sources including other countries) that I hope are helpful to the uninitiated and to those who are researching the subject, and simply those who may want to learn a bit more about the U.S. medical care system—the good, and the supposed bad and the ugly.


1.  Ausman JI. Perinatal mortality, free care, and other misconceptions — Socialized medicine vis-à-vis American medicine.,  November 27, 2012. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].  

2.  Blaylock RL. Regimentation in medicine and the death of creativity (Part 1)., March 14, 2015. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

3. Blaylock RL. Regimentation in medicine and its human price (Part 2)., March 20, 2015. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

4. Faria MA: America, guns and freedom: Part I — A recapitulation of liberty. Surg Neurol Int 2012;3:133. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

5. Faria MA: America, guns and freedom: Part II — An international perspective. Surg Neurol Int 2012;3:135. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

6. Faria MA. Bioethics and why I hope to live beyond age 75 attaining wisdom!: A rebuttal to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's 75 age limit. Surg Neurol Int 05-Mar-2015;6:35. Available from:  [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

7. Faria MA. Enhancing access via medical freedom — Call it MSA empowerment. Medical Sentinel 2000;5(4):123-127. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

8. Faria MA. Enhancing medical care in the U.S. via health savings accounts (HSAs). Surgical Neurol, 2005 Sep;64(3):276-7. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

9. Faria MA. Longevity and compression of morbidity from a neuroscience perspective: Do we have a duty to die by a certain age? Surg Neurol Int 2015;6:49. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

10. Faria MA. Medical liability tort reform: a neurosurgeon's perspective. Surgical Neurology 2004;61(3):304-307. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

11. Faria MA. ObamaCare — Toward free market or socialized medicine?, September 26, 2011. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].  

12. Faria MA. ObamaCare — Another step toward corporate socialized medicine in the U.S. Surgical Neurology International 2012;3:71. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

13. Faria MA. Rationing irrationality in anticipation of ObamaCare., October 4, 2013. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

14. Faria MA. Religious morality (and secular humanism) in Western civilization as precursors to medical ethics: A historic perspective. Surg Neurol Int 16-Jun-2015;6:105. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

15.  Faria MA. The road being paved to neuroethics: A path leading to bioethics or to neuroscience medical ethics? Surg Neurol Int 2014;5(1):146. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

16. Faria MA. Vandals at the Gates of Medicine — Historic Perspectives on the Battle Over Health Care Reform. 1995. Macon, GA: Hacienda Publishing, Inc. Review available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].  

17. Miller CF.  Why I am concerned about the future of medicine. Surgical Neurol Int 2014. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

18. Stolinsky, David C. Is our health-care system "broken"?, November 1, 2015. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29].

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. is an Associate Editor in Chief and World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). He is Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.), Mercer University School of Medicine. Dr. Faria was a member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2002-05). He is the author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995); Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997); and Cuba in Revolution — Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is or

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. Free market or socialized medicine for the future of US health care? Surg Neurol Int 23-Jun-2016;7:68. Available from:

Copyright ©2016 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (4 votes)
Comments on this post

Canada’s Health-Care Queues

American Democrats are following Bernie Sanders in embracing single-payer health care on the Canadian model. But when they get sick, our neighbors to the north increasingly find that the only way to get “free” medical care is to wait for weeks or months.

The Fraser Institute’s new report, “Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada” in 2017, documents the problem. The Vancouver-based think tank surveyed physicians in 12 specialties across 10 provinces and found “a median waiting time of 21.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment.” This is worse than 2016’s wait of 20 weeks, making it the longest in the history of Fraser’s annual survey and 128% longer than the first survey in 1993.

The wait to see a specialist for a consultation is now 177% longer than in 1993, while the wait from consultation to treatment is 95% longer than in 1993. At 10.9 weeks it is more than three weeks longer than the 7.2-week wait considered clinically reasonable. The shortest waits are in radiation and oncology. But long waits for orthopaedic surgery, neurosurgery and ophthalmology, among others, far exceed what’s recommended and aren’t benign.

Author Bacchus Barua says the negative consequences can include “increased pain, suffering, and mental anguish” and sometimes “poorer medical outcomes — transforming potentially reversible illnesses or injuries into chronic, irreversible conditions, or even permanent disabilities.” He adds that “in many instances, patients may also have to forgo” wages while they await treatment.

Demand for diagnostic technology also outstrips supply, creating shortages in the form of lines: “This year, Canadians could expect to wait 4.1 weeks for a computed tomography (CT) scan, 10.8 weeks for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound.” CT scan waits have increased while the nationwide average for MRI and ultrasound waits decreased this year.

Some provinces perform better than others. “The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits are found in Ontario (8.6 weeks)”—still longer than reasonable—“while the longest are in Manitoba (16.3 weeks),” says the report. Waits between general-practitioner referral to treatment in Ontario and Newfoundland & Labrador shortened this year but the nationwide wait went up as access in the other eight provinces worsened. In New Brunswick the median wait from general practitioner to treatment is an appalling 41.7 weeks. The lesson is that Canada hasn’t repealed the basic law of economics that scarce resources must be rationed by price or by time. Ottawa’s decision to mandate a single-payer system in 1984 has consigned ailing Canadians to queues. Some 1,041,000 patients are in line waiting for treatment, a 6.9% increase in 2017. Free treatment isn’t much good if it’s not available and nearly 63,500 Canadians
proved that when they went abroad for care in 2016, according to a separate Fraser report. The Canadian model is no cure for U.S. health care. Bernie Sanders’s model system makes patients wait and wait and . . .

Copyright (c)2017 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 12/13/2017

More Socialized Medicine for the U.S.?

Dr. Miguel Faria, SNI Associate Editor-in-Chief for Socio-Economic and Political issues described his viewpoint on "Free market or socialized medicine for the future of US health care?" Although Democratic Socialism is prevalent throughout Europe and many other countries, it is a new phenomenon in the USA. Starting in the early 1900s, socialism has been progressively creeping into the free market economic system in the USA. Miguel provides evidence on how Democratic Socialism can result in less quality care for our patients and the distortions that come with a lack of knowledge of the free market health care system. Who controls your health care? Is it the government, or is it you? In collectivist or socialistic systems, the key goal of the socialists is to gain control of the healthcare of the population. If the government controls the healthcare of the people, it controls the people. Remember that ultimately, Democratic Socialism, which exists in many countries in Europe, proposes that the government control all of the lives of the people, which provides the leaders with power over the people and their lives and the money that the people are allowed to make. That was clearly President Obama's goal in the USA, a goal that would have been continued by Hillary Clinton. The populace is not allowed to have guns as that would be a threat to the collectivist leaders. Religion is eventually disregarded as it competes with the leaders of the Collectivist movement who cannot tolerate a higher authority than they want to be. It is the reality in Communist societies. Democratic Socialism is already far along the road to a complete socialistic system of governance. No Socialistic system of governance has ever survived for a long period of time in history, as it falls to corruption and the greed of the leaders, who further oppress the population they control. That scenario was reveled in the WikiLeaks e-mails of the Democratic National Committee before the elections in the USA in early November. The "People" chose not to go down the road to Socialism.

1. Faria MA. Free market or socialized medicine for the future of US health care? Surg Neurol Int 23-Jun-2016;7:68. Available from:
2. Ausman JI. Perinatal Mortality, Free Care, and other Misconceptions — Socialized medicine vis-à-vis American Medicine. Hacienda Publishing. November 27, 2012. Available from:
SNI is now read in 227 countries in the world by nearly 20,000 unique readers a month. All of the journal's content is free to the reader.

SNI appreciates the continued support of its major sponsor, Elekta, which has supported the journal since its founding. SNI welcomes Leica as an advertiser. These companies help us bring SNI to everyone, free-of-charge. If you click on the popup ads or the banner ads, you will be be taken to that company's Web site for detailed information on their products. You can see videos of their products in our 'new products' section under the new menu.

Happy holidays to all of our readers, reviewers, and editors, and our very best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2017.

James I. Ausman, MD, PhD.
Editor-in-Chief, Surgical Neurology International (SNI)
Note: Excerpted from the SNI Newsletter, December, 2016
Dear Miguel,
I just read your wonderful; article in SNI —it was excellent! Thank you for referring to my article. You made some very powerful points in your article, something no rational minded person could ignore. You point out correctly that the greatest impediment to the free market of health care is third-party payers. As you also point out, there are numerous impediments to the operation of the market-all imposed by the rhetoric of people like Miller-- who used distortions and outright lies to promote collectivism. Ironically, he wants more government intervention and then dares to compare American medicine with the "military-industrial complex" as you stated. I really appreciated your clarity on the claim by these elitists that they should determine who should receive medical care and who should die. Dr. Miller believe in death by medical neglect-- a culling of the herd. Wonderful job!!

I am reading some material on William Casey to better clarify my position-- I have to agree, he was the best director of the CIA we have had--but in some areas he went too far. And there is no question, no one could have cause the economic demise of the communist party of Russia better than Casey. I hope to write some additional comment later. Your friend, Russell

Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
Theoretical Neuroscience Research, LLC
Associate Editor-in-Chief
Surgical Neurology International

Conversing with friends!

Hello Jose and Miguel,
Jose, I’m Glad you are moving closer to home and moving away from the academentia crowd. The more I examine modern American medicine the more I see it is collapsing. The Rockefeller control of medical education over the years has destroyed truly innovative medicine and especially has harmed compassionate medicine. Each year it becomes more regimented and centrally controlled. The doctors are mostly clueless and are willing to just follow the leader -- the power elite. 

As for politics, a large segment of our population is so distracted by entertainment and engaging in idiotic endeavors that they haven't a clue as to what has and is going on. The Business investors daily piece was partially correct. I certainly hope they were not promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The economists are mostly mathematical economists and not true economists, such as described by Mises/Hayek. It has become obvious that we are moving into a full blown fascist society with the giant multinational corporations and international banking houses controlling the government at all levels.

No one seems to notice that all of the most powerful voices calling for bigger more intrusive government are also the CEOs of these corporations and banking houses. Just examine the makeup of the tax exempt foundations, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberger organization. The book Superclass tells this story very well. These organizations make up the shadow government not only of the USA but also most countries of the world. Trump will never be allowed to interfere with this powerful network. 

... Reagan was forced to accept George Bush as his running mate and two months after he entered his first term he was shot. The Hinckley family were close friends with Bush. After he was shot much of the program Reagan had conceptualized to fix the country fell by the wayside. He was also forced to accept Trilateral and Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) members for his cabinet even though he warned of their power before he was elected. Unless we understand this power arrangement our efforts will be lost.
Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
Theoretical Neuroscience Research, LLC
Associate Editor-in-Chief, Surgical Neurology International (SNI)

Jose replies: Dear Miguel,
... I have read the entries in your publication. I read Rolando’s as well. I have seen and experienced, as have you, what he says. I encounter it every day in Southern California, which is a hot bed of leftism including the university.

I agree with you that eventually things do rebound, but they must go to an extreme before that happens. Look at Venezuela now and if Obama had not entered Cuba it would have become worse for the people. Eventually they have no choice but to revolt as the abuse by those in power eventually becomes intolerable. So we will see more revolutions even in the USA.

We are going thru a revolution as I wrote in one of my first editorials. The revolution in the Middle East was hijacked by radical groups or those looking for power. The paper I sent you from a Syrian doctor stated that. That revolution has spread to Europe, the USA and S. America and is obviously in China and in some forms in Korea and Japan.  But the revolutions we see are different depending upon the country and its background. So, in the USA  and Europe it is more peaceful than in the Middle East.

How will it come out? I can see no way to stop it. Trump cannot do it alone and he has almost 1/2 of the country favoring Clinton, who is corruption personified. To me the answer is badly. But what will happen first is the Economic Catastrophe I have been predicting for some time. That will affect  all countries and people. The IMF already has a substitute currency in place. We have heard that the Obama administration lies to the American people and does not disclose the full truth. We saw that this week with the Orlando shooter and his redacted or modified transcripts of his 911 calls.

I can see this every day when I propose a different solution to a clinical problem that is out of the ordinary and does not conform with what is dictated. So, the same problem of Socialism is in Medicine probably more than any other profession. It is happening right in front of us, and I do now see much that can be done about it except to write and influence as many as I can.

Read the article I sent you from today’s Financial Times. It is from an educated person who cannot see that the reason her son was not treated properly in the first place was because of Socialized Medicine. Leaving Europe would be good but the fear mongers are at work to score people from breaking away from the Socialist Experiment that is failing.-- Jose

Dr Faria replies: Dear Jose,
I agree with much of what you said, but it all depends on which side decides to rebel. Most of these revolutions end up been hijacked by thugs, as predicated by Hayek who wrote the the scum rises to the top!. Thus most revolutions end up as the French, Cuban, Cambodian, or Russian revolutions, not like the unique American Revolution with ordered liberty. Although no one will admit it, it sometimes takes men of the Right like Suharto, Franco, or Pinochet (not men of the Left such as Lenin, Hitler, or Mussolini) to end the chaos and mayhem. That is because most nations do not have the Anglo-American edifice of individual liberty balanced by tradition, as nurtured by John Locke, David Hume, Dr. Samuel Johnson, Edmund Burke, etc., truly intellectual men immersed in natural law and the real meaning of freedom.--Miguel

Dr. Blaylock replies: Jose and Miguel,
While I would agree that we see a rebound effect when things get too radical, to the planning elite this has a purpose. It is reminiscent of Lenin's two steps forward one step back--the end result is that things are inexorably moving toward collectivism. Rebellion requires at least three things--a will by the majority, methods of rebellion and an understanding of the proper solution. Today's society has undergone almost 100 years of philosophical readjustment that induces apathy and moves people to accept a philosophy that embraces collectivism. It has been taught in all our schools, by the media, by the publishing industry and by popular movies. It is one's worldview that makes the difference. If one accepts the concept of macroevolution and that man's existence has no real meaning and no purpose except his personal happiness on this earth, then it is easy to manipulate him into following a collectivist plan--even one that appears to be a relief from the radicalism that surrounds him. It is an old ploy of the leftist to create anarchy and social collapse so that people will call for a leader to bring order out of chaos. The leader that most often steps forward is invariably one of their own. He/she offers relief from the craziness of the extremist radicals. This is exactly what brought Hitler to power as well as Lenin. People saw these men as their saviors--ones who could bring back order and tranquility and for a while it seemed to be true--until these men were given absolute power. This is why they want the guns--because eventually the socialist savior will show his or her true colors and the oppression and abuse will become so obvious that people will once again rebel--if allowed to.

One of the major problems as I see it -- and I have learned from the great minds of prior history -- is that people do not understand words. To the leftist words are weapons. Orwell described that very well in his 1984 novel in the use of doublespeak and newspeak. When people hear a collectivist use the term "freedom" in their mind they envision individual freedom -- they do not appreciate that to the collectivist it means “collective freedom” and they, the collectivists, are the ones who will decide the definition of freedom for the collective. When people hear that the government will provide free health care, in their minds the government will simply pick up the tab, when in fact the collectivist means that the care provided will be regimented, rationed and controlled at all levels and that the cost will come from a different angle than personal payment. (that is, by a higher cost of living and taxation). When people hear a politician say "land reform" they envision that all land will be equally distributed and they will be better off. The collectivist means that all land will belong to the government and the collective will do the work on the land, but reap little in way of rewards. When people hear the word peace they envision no wars--a tranquil state. The collectivist means that they will launch a long-range plan to remake the world by destroying all the dictatorships and authoritarian governments of the world in a series of unending wars so that in some undefined future there will be no more war. In essence, if they rule the world who shall launch a war? To the collectivist, once a world government is in place there will be “peace”. When the public hears the words "equality" and "nondiscrimination," they envision justice and no one being harmed because of their skin color or beliefs, when in fact the collectivist means that certain groups will be anointed and chosen for protection and enhancement and others will be the focus of the full force of state discrimination and punishment. What we see is that words can be used in a way to deceive -- it all depends on what is being perceived by the listener and what is meant by the politician or promoter of an idea. In any discussion with a leftist the first thing should be to force the person to define their terms in clear language as to exactly what they mean. Gustov LeBon's writings explain this very well – emotional words are a method to be used to move crowds -- to trigger responses that one wants or needs to promote a revolution.

To be successful, the word master must make sure people do not do deep thinking, or as the Bible tell us repeatedly -- use the powers of understanding and wisdom. In a collectivized world the greatest security risk is the deep thinker, the man of wisdom. In today's world we are taught to repeat what we are told and that we should be dictated to by the wise ones. Our youth are taught that they are not bright enough to understand the issues and that this must be left up to the experts -- the chosen wise ones -- the illuminated. If one examines the history of revolutionary thought one will see that collectivism is based on the idea that some few have evolved to such a high degree that they should rule all societies and eventually the world. Reading the works on industrial planning and collectivism teaches one this lesson. These wise planners see the rest of us as mere cattle to be culled and herded. This is the arrogance many of us have experienced in everyday life and all of us have, in the medical field -- when we speak of things not orthodox we are, in their minds, refuting the wise ones -- the elite men of higher intelligence. Our duty is to be obedient and repeat endlessly what we have been told and taught -- this is the essence of collectivism (socialism). Political correctness is a powerful form of thought control that necessarily implies that the average person should be carefully controlled by the elite wise ones.

In essence, what I am saying is that until we are successful in destroying the macroevolution myth and that man is a evolved animal and that the wise ones, that is, the evolved experts, should rule the world and further, we must teach people that they are individuals created by God and that therefore their lives as individuals are valuable and answerable not to the state but to God -- until we succeed in that quest -- we shall not win. Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.