By Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker
Let’s start with something basic: The premise of laws.
People love to wax poetic about this and that when it comes to “justice” and “law.” In truth it’s much simpler than most put forward, and has nothing to do with poetry at all.
The person who contemplates breaking a law is only deterred from doing so IF the penalty, if caught, times the probability of being caught is much greater than whatever is to be gained. Why “much greater”? Because everyone thinks they are smarter than they are they always think their odds of evading capture are greater than reality. If you intend to rob a bank then you will not do so if you believe you’re likely to get caught and, if you are caught the penalty will be so outsized from what could gain that the robbery is not worth it.
In addition there are crimes that are one way doors. Once you go through them no other crime matters. Murder is one of those; I’ve repeatedly pointed out that all murders after the first one are free since it’s not possible to give someone more than one life term or one execution. You can’t bring a dead person back and then execute them again and, typically, murder has no statute of limitations so now we’re simply down to probability of capture. This, by the way, is why people shoot each other all the time in Chicago; the murder clearance rate, that is, the number of murders that get solved, was right around 50%. Since everyone always overestimates their level of intelligence and cleverness this in turn means the average person probably thinks the odds are about 1 in 4 they’ll get caught.
That’s not much of a deterrent, is it?
Now look at both financial and medical system crimes. What are the odds of even a criminal felony being prosecuted against a person? Statistically zero. The exception is the doctor who personally rips off Medicare; he might get busted and go to prison, but the hospital that engages in wildly-illegal price-fixing or the pharmaceutical company that lies, cheats and even falsifies data may well get fined but the people involved never go to prison or have their personal wealth confiscated. Therefore the deterrent value is “Penalty X 0.00 = 0.”
Note that years ago I wrote an article that expanded on my treatise in Leverage on the health care system. It centered on several points, with the most-important being simple: This entire industry commits felonies by the thousands every day and stopping that will drop the cost of care by 80% or more in an afternoon, and, at least as importantly, will align the interests of customers and providers.
What would Covid-19 have looked like under that system?
Well, there would have been zero incentive payments to hospitals, for one.
Everyone would have had a posted and identical price for the procedures if they wound up in the hospital. The hospitals would have to compete not only for customers but on the basis of how many people lived since dead people can only pay if they have an estate to attach and many do not. The tax clawbacks for those who are indigent aligns this interest of keeping people alive. Cheap and readily-available drugs mean 95% of those who went to the hospital would not have, and none of that 95% would have died.
Now some of them would have died of other things, of course — people die every day. Roughly 9,000 people a day, to be exact. As we get older death eventually is inevitable.
But let’s cut the crap — the single-minded focus on vaccines was driven by one and only one thing: Money.
The companies developing them know that a full 5 or 10 year cycle makes them a waste of time; by the time that’s done an emergent strain will be endemic and very few customers will be interested. The big fear porn game and spike is long over before approval can be had. The game here was simple: If we do it fast enough the fear will still be there and thus we can sell it.
Well, they failed; by the time the first stab went in the first arm even with the accelerated schedule the peak was past. We know this because the curve had rolled over in the United States. Not true in some other places, but absolutely true here. As to whether it actually helped we don’t know — it’s reasonable to assume it did in very old and morbid people, but probably not elsewhere.
Further, as I’ve pointed out this is dangerous because we have zero longitudinal data and many pieces of information we did have were intentionally glossed over because getting answers simply takes too long. For instance the propensity of the shots to produce both neutralizing and binding antibodies, when one is good and the other could be ruinously bad was not run down and eliminated. There are more than a half-dozen concerns of this sort that I’ve outlined in the last few months — none of which we knew in June of last year but all of which were at least suspected by December of 2020. Zero resulted in a halt of their plans and zero of these potentially catastrophic long-term outcomes have been eliminated. The risk from all of them is unquantified but anyone who took shots is going to find out over the next year, two, five or ten and if any of them turn out badly those people are screwed. Informed consent in the face of a lot of unknowns is fine but exactly zero people have truly given informed consent; it’s not possible to do so without spending a lot of time in personal research never mind direct consultation with a personal physician on your exact circumstances. So-called “drive through” and “pop-up” vaccination by definition violates informed consent.
What if money wasn’t a factor? What if hospitals and doctors had to charge everyone the same price with no exceptions? What if there was no “bonus”? What if the only way to keep the hospitals from overflowing was to keep people out of them with early treatments? How many would have been tried aggressively within a month of this outbreak under that paradigm?
Many would have failed, but not all and those that appeared to work would have been aggressively used and adapted over time. Literal tens of thousands of doses of known-safe potential candidate drugs would have been used within weeks and those that appeared to work would have been kept while the others were rapidly replaced with something else. The doctor in NY who had a protocol including HCQ had zero deaths and nearly-zero hospital admissions. He won but rather than adopt what he was doing he was pilloried and buried in the media and by the medical people. Why? Because they could. What if they couldn’t? What if the only way to avoid being buried was to copy him? What if there was no $30,000 bonus for ventilator use?
Nobody would have ever said “there’s nothing you can or should do; go home until you’re choking then come back” because there would have been no liability shield for doing that and you’d have been given a selection of options, some of which might not have worked but others would have and within weeks or a couple of months we’d have working protocols that would be refined and improved over time.
Instead today many doctors and medical centers still tell you to go home until you’re choking to death on your own spit.
Why? Because they can, if they do they’re exempt from being sued for malpractice, and if you wind up in the hospital the hospital still gets a bonus for you being there, that’s why.
How did we get here folks?
We got her by ignoring the rule of the law.
Trump is just as guilty as Biden on this. He did exactly nothing to stop it, and had an entire DOJ that could have been throwing people in prison by the hundreds a month after his inauguration. Pick a big hospital chain and lock up their CEO. In one day the monopolist bull**** would have ended and come February of 2020 the competitive heat would have been on to keep people out of the hospital.
But he didn’t do it.
In fact he did the opposite; when Covid-19 hit he had his HHS secretary pay bonuses for acts that were likely to lead to toe tags and at the same time basically killed all the hospital elective procedures which are highly profitable. Not only did Trump pay the medical system to kill people he damn near forced them to do it in order for them to stay in business!
Let’s talk about one other point, because CNN brought it up: Hospitals suing patients over unpaid bills.
Again the answer to this problem is in my proposed legislation. It stops this practice immediately and permanently.
But it also stops a notorious fraud for which every single hospital that claims it should have their executives immediately throw in prison — the premise of “charity care.”
There is no such thing.
Nobody works for free and these hospitals are not paying for that care out of voluntary donations. The Catholic Church can legitimately claim that Catholic Charities actually provides charity to people because every dollar you put into the plate is voluntary. Likewise if a food bank solicits money and canned goods, buys food with the money and then hands it out that’s charity because every single can of food or dollar of money was voluntarily donated.
No hospital does this, not even Shriners which sort of claims to. Yes, Shriners has a huge endowment and if you have no money or insurance they’ll treat your kid. But — they will bill your insurance. It’s not free and if you have copayments on your insurance you will pay them. That’s not charity.
For other ordinary hospitals it’s not charity care at all; it is in fact billed to the paying customers.
That’s right — the cost of your appendectomy includes some or all of the cost for the dude on the gurney next to you who has no insurance, money or assets.
They call this charity but that claim is a fraud since the money to fund the care was not freely given; it was paid by other customers. Fraud is a crime. Deliberately misleading the public and others as to what you’re doing is against the law. Robbing one person to give it to someone else is also illegal in virtually every case and yet it goes on every single day in the so-called American “health care” system.
And no, the socialist model is not better. They killed a crap-ton of people with Covid-19 too, didn’t they?
I wrote the article on how to fix this, permanently, in 2017. The precursor was in Leverage, which goes back to 2011 and included a long section on the medical monster and how, if not stopped, it was going to eat the Federal Budget and ultimately the economy.
That was 10 years ago and it actually turned out worse than I expected — that is, simply eating the economy: It killed your grandmother.
Are you ready to stop it yet or must you die first?