2005-04-19 02:52:08 UTC
combination of three widely available common ingredients that provides the
absolute cure-all for every disease and degenerative condition. What if the
victims of these diseases and conditions were to simply maintain a wholesome
diet combined with three daily doses of the "cure-all" mixture and within a
short period of time are guaranteed perfect health!
Releasing this cure-all to the general public might cut ninety or more
percent from healthcare revenues and decimate the pharmaceutical industry.
Add in the revenue lost by medical equipment manufacturers, suppliers, etc.
and the reduction to the healthcare segment of the economy is astronomical.
Now imagine being in the group that stumbled onto this cure-all. On one hand
they have a simple tool to virtually wipe out disease in a short span of
time and on the other hand they have a tool that will wipe out a huge
segment of the economy, also in a short span of time. What to do?
Suppose our group of researchers chooses to disclose this cure-all to the
world through a democratic vote by the personnel of the entire healthcare
and pharmaceutical industries and their ancillary suppliers. A vote to
release the cure-all would cast tens of millions of people out of work.
Highly educated people devoted to their former careers would now have
useless skills. Financial obligations like mortgages, kids in college,
lifestyle and a myriad of other obligations could require their continued
participation in the status quo healthcare industry.
Imagine the vote is "Yes", release the cure-all to the public. It's as if a
death sentence is lifted on tens of millions of ill people. But now the
economic shift starts. Downsizing like never seen before, foreclosures,
bankruptcies, highly trained personnel with no outlet for their skills.
Imagine the vote is "No", do not release the cure-all. It's life as usual,
rising cancer rates, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, etc. Also consider
that the rising tide of personal bankruptcies is stemming from major medical
debts to care for people who frequently die in spite of the vast sums of
money spent on their healthcare. So not only is the physical toll high but
the medical consumer now bears a growing economic burden. In addition, new
bankruptcy laws will make it even more difficult for many of these people to
get a fresh start.
A "No" vote places economic gain before life. Thomas Jefferson's words seem
to apply here, "Material abundance without character is the path to
destruction." Are we too addicted to conspicuous consumption to realize that
conspicuous consumption is consuming us physically, financially and morally?
We file into our places of worship to pay homage to a higher source of
wisdom and attempt to glean some of it for our own use. In a "No", vote
scenario what happened to that wisdom imbedded in the "Golden Rule" which
states "Do to others as we would have them do to us"? This pearl of wisdom
now gets flushed down the toilet to herald in the opposite of the "Golden
Rule", which is to, "Take from others before they can take from ourselves."
All of this is not to imply that millions of health care workers are born
takers. This is just to say that when cornered these by and large good and
decent people will likely put self-preservation first.
Of course this "cure-all" is hypothetical but then again truth can be
stranger than fiction. At every juncture of advance and discovery there have
been esteemed and learned critics as the most vociferous voices against what
we now know to be truths. When microbial life was theorized, it met with
opposition. Along came the microscope and those critics hopefully were
If the simple "cure-all" were a reality, would humanity band together to
adjust to the economic shift of a "Yes" vote? That depends on our desire to
create an entirely new and efficient paradigm instead of just modifying what
we have currently.
Which way do you feel the vote would go?