Politics and Control in medical push are revealed

[Pericles(MBA)]

I recently had a peek into the fresh new world of American BioScience. I took an advanced class on bioinformatics programming taught in Maryland where the biosci community has a large population. I learned that there are many more such biosci communities in New York, Chicago, Denver, Phoenix, and of course southern California. BioSci is on the verge of a boom, much like the tech boom of the 1980's-90's. The BioSci boom is poised to change medical care in ways that many people cannot conceive in terms of new treatments for disease, and new ways of thinking about healing, quality of life, and life-span. This boom is in part to a growing market for medical services by a population that wants to live longer and better.

Compared to our current medical technology (almost dark ages stuff by comparison), these new advances promise things only dreamed in sci-fi fiction. Consider that many of our medical treatments have roots in 50 to 60 year-old practices, and treat symptoms more than provide cures. Imagine treatments that look at preventing diseases that would later cause cancer or heart problems, or dna level treatments that would fix problems for those who already suffer such ailments. Not possible? Consider that AmGen has already developed a drug that grows new lung tissue, new treatments for some serious heart problems promise to lengthen lifespan by double compared to just 10 years ago. Genome mapping has now been reduced in cost so that an average consumer can now afford to have their individual mapping done - which will aid in personally tailored biosci treatments. These are just some of the amazing new things being developed, and new recruits for the biosci schools are at an all time high.

But the political class has plans to jump into this boom, attempt to feed off it financially, and take credit for the successes. Years ago when I was an undergrad journalism student a government academic came to speak to our college about journalism ethics and the Internet. She complained that one big regret of academics was that the government was not more involved in the tech boom, having more 'input' on home computers, internet providers, and internet content. Those of us who understand the free market know that government involvement would have prevented the tech boom, but these government academics don't know or care. This time the liberals don't want the boom to happen without their consent, and the 'healthcare reform' being debated in Congress is aimed at gaining that control.

So the focus of the debate is on sharing the measly current state of medical care. Do we have enough flu clinics in poor neighborhoods? What about free drugs for the old people? Do immigrant women have the same level of care as rich suburban women? We will be reduced to spending money on the lowest level of healthcare, and markets for new biosci-based treatments will be left to falter. If national 'health reform' succeeds, then the BioSci boom will never happen.

Imagine if the government academics had such control over the tech boom. We would be fighting over free public time using old mainframe computers. While we would envy the rich with their Commodore PET and Acorn computers running with DOS 1.1 and 4 meg of ram. The internet would consist of command line text on ill lit green screens that only the wealthy could access for short periods of time. John McCain would refuse to sign the new tech reform bill unless the elderly got new vacuum tubes paid for by their government mandated tech insurance.

The govt academics must first convince people that the BioSci world is not real, but only the 'here and now' of technology exists. This is the dark end of their philosophy. Ivy Starnes, one of the villans of the novel Atlas Shrugged who turned a free market business into a socialist tool, spent great effort to convince people that advances in technology were not positive. She and her government ilk friends supported the propaganda machine that tried to turn the population into sheep. We see a similar type of mentality now in the popular media where stories on how failing to enact government healthcare will mean poor healthcare for many people, while government control will ensure improvements.

However if we had an honest news media, we would have more stories that would share some of the new medical advances being considered - because once the public knows what is possible they can embrace it and see it through to reality. People would reject the failed redistribution model in favor of a market model that offers more. Market demand is created by public discussion, so if the only discussion is for government healthcare then that is all that we are going to get.

See also-

http://cardiology.jwatch.org/cgi/content/c...ion/2009/1117/3

http://www.amgen.com">http://www.amgen.com

http://www.pacificbiosciences.com/video_lg...m/video_lg.html

http://www.newscientist.com">http:...ewscientist.com