 The Evil That Is Stevie Nicks.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. There was always something wrong with Stevie Nicks. It wasn't just her raspy, sedated voice that made her sound like she was dangerously close to falling asleep during her songs. It also was not also her flirtations with witchcraft and paganism. And while I have been unable to exactly place what the problem is with Ms. Nicks, this month she shed a clarifying light to the question. In short, what's wrong with Stevie Nicks is simply that the woman is evil. The revelation comes from her interview with The Guardian published on October 14, 2020. In that interview, Ms. Nicks laments the future of access to abortion services in the face of a reelection win by President Donald J. Trump, a threat she believes has been accentuated by the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But although rooted in evil, her pro-abortive position fails to demonstrate the fullness of her vicious wickedness. Rather, it is her description of past decisions and the utter selfishness with which she continues to defend them. Bear in mind, Ms. Nicks is presently 72 years of age, certainly old enough to have gained wisdom and insightfulness. She is a woman of unparalleled accomplishment, a key member of Fleetwood Mac, and one with an estimated net worth of about $75 million. The case in point dates back to 1979 when she was dating Eagles singer Don Henley. It was then that Ms. Nicks got pregnant. But instead of celebrating the potential of a new life, Ms. Nicks chose to abort the baby. She was asked about that decision during The Guardian interview, and she explained that she was simply too busy to have a baby. After all this time, reflection, and retrospection, Ms. Nicks's explanation for her decision to kill an unborn child is not that she was young and confused. It was not a renunciation of her misguided priorities. It was not that she wished she had not done it. No. After all these decades, her answer is still as cold, calculating, and inhumane as ever. She was too busy. But that dark revelation still does not fully demonstrate the scope of her vileness. Her explanation continues. "If I had not had that abortion, I'm pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac." Here, she actually is offering the supposition that promoting the existence of Fleetwood Mac is a greater moral calling than bringing another person to life. The reality is, of course, that there is no comparison between the greatness of giving birth to her unborn child and then raising him or her to adulthood when compared to one's art or the pursuit of a business venture. Life and the wisdom that one has gained are the greatest gifts anyone can give not only to another (yes, the one who is born), but also to the rest of humanity. There simply is no work of art, invention, philosophical work, or scientific breakthrough that comes close to the greatness of giving life and passing on God's grace to another human being. Fleetwood Mac was never worth the life of that child. And while still on that point, Ms. Nicks has either fallen victim to her own rationalizations, or she is overtly lying about her decision. Remember, Fleetwood Mac originated in 1967. Moreover, Ms. Nicks didn't even join the band until 1975, four years prior to the abortion decision she erroneously made. Fleetwood Mac had already done very well without Ms. Nicks. But her musings reveal an even darker side, frighteningly so, as she continues with her interview. "There were a lot drugs. I was doing a lot of drugs. . . I would have had to walk away." To be clear, Stevie Nicks said in an interview with The Guardian that one of the valid reasons for a woman to obtain an abortion is the ability to continue engaging in her rampant drug abuse; the shallowest, most selfish, and yes, evil reason to end the life of another human being I have ever heard! So, in the end, I am baffled. The heartlessness coming out of an artist who is supposed to be intimately tied to feelings and love is stunning. The utter disregard for what she had, and lost is even more so. The lack of an ability to reflect back, after all these years, and admit that the activity in which she engaged was wrong defies credulity. So, Ms. Nicks, here is the question: Have you any dreams you'd like to sell? Dreams of loneliness Like a heartbeat, drives you mad In the stillness of remembering, what you had And what you lost And what you had Ooh, what you lost. I shudder at the thought of how she may answer. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
0 Comments
 THE MANY PATHS TO A TRUMP WIN.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Today, I am not going to predict a Trump win. Nor am I going to say that Trump is going to pull off this reelection effort. Neither will I say that Biden should get a longer lease on that basement where he is hiding. I am not going to say these things because I am very suspicious of declaring victory before it's time. Yes, as an orthopaedic surgeon, I am a great believer in jinxing oneself and in pulling defeat from the jaws of victory because of overconfidence and lack or preparation. So, I am not going to do any of those things. However, I could share with you my gut feeling that President Trump is in an excellent position to win because of the energy gap. I could talk about the impossibility of a candidate pulling off a successful presidential race when he hides in a basement all day. I could talk to you about the discordance between the leftist message from the Harris Administration along with Joe Biden and the nation's political outlook. But I won't, not because those issues don't matter, but because in the end, the only thing that matters is the electoral map. So, I will look at this race purely from the standpoint of state loyalties. And are there paths available through which the President can pull this off! Let's begin with the assumptions. Whether accurate or not, there are certain states about whose outcome we can be very confident, so let's call those out. This election, it is overwhelmingly likely that California, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and three fourths of Maine are going to go for former Vice President Joe Biden, giving him 198 of the required 270 electoral votes to win. Additionally, we will give him the close states of Oregon, Colorado, and Nevada for a total of 222 votes For his part, President Trump will win Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Louisiana, Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and one fourth of Maine, giving him 234 votes. With these assumptions laid out, and bearing in mind that President Trump needs 36 more electoral votes to take him across the finish line, then there are two general paths that materialize depending on whether or not he wins Pennsylvania. Let us first consider the President winning Pennsylvania. Doing so would earn him 20 electoral votes, which will place him sixteen electoral votes away from winning. From there, the President could win Ohio for 18 more votes, placing him over the top. Alternatively, he could win Michigan for 16 votes, and either Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Arizona to put him over the top. Even if he does not win Michigan, a win in of any two of Minnesota, Arizona or Wisconsin would still win it for him. The probabilities of one of these results occurring are actually very high. At this time, it appears that he is either ahead or dead even in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and even Minnesota where the word is that the predominantly-Democratic Iron Range is resoundingly behind President Trump. Michigan also appears to be behind Trump, and in Pennsylvania, the threat to fracking posed by the Harris administration in association with Joe Biden has likely sealed a state as red that came out in favor of Trump in 2016. But what if the President were to lose Pennsylvania? If that were to happen, then we would have to approach the race from a floor of 234 votes. Under these circumstances, then Ohio becomes critical because an Ohio win would place him at 252 electoral votes and eighteen short of a victory. Under those circumstances a Minnesota win along with any other state would put Trump over the top as would a combined win of Arizona and Michigan or Wisconsin. And these scenarios are considered without upset wins in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Wisconsin, Utah, New Jersey, or (dare I say it?) New York. If any of these were to happen, and each is possible at this point, the paths to victory for trump multiply. So, no, I am not going to say that the President will win this election. I will not predict that Harris will lose. Nope. All I'm gonna say is get ready for a massive stock market boom come January, for continued liberal nervous breakdowns, and for the appointment of at least one more conservative judge to the Supreme Court during the next four years. As to the rest, you do the math. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.  MY DEBATE PREP FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. It's difficult to say what makes a favorable debate performance. Undoubtedly, preparation is essential. The candidate has to have his facts ready to go. He needs to anticipate the arguments to be made against him, and more importantly, what his response to them should be. But there's more to winning a debate than a great fund of knowledge. Sometimes magnetism is of the essence, a quick tongue, and a sharp wit. But what makes a debate so difficult to undertake, and so entertaining to watch, is the uncertainty of it all; the possibility that at any moment, something totally unexpected happens that will define the whole event. Who can forget that magical moment during President Ronald Reagan's debate with Walter Mondale when the President was asked about his age? Without hesitation, the President answered, "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." Nothing else that happened that evening mattered. Or how about the time when the boyish Dan Quayle stepped in it by invoking the late John F. Kennedy's name? There, the elder Lloyd Bentsen retorted, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." A cheap shot to be sure, but it signaled the end of the young Senator Quayle's political career. In other debates, the issue is merely one of appearance. During the first ever, televised, presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy those watching it on television declared Kennedy the winner, while most Americans who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon had won. At times, it matters not whether you prevail, but rather the accomplishment of another, more pressing goal. The truth is that the greater goal is never to win the debate, but to win the race. The last debate between former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald J. Trump was undergirded by such a dynamic. The most important goal fell upon Biden, a candidate so befuddled in his demeanor and so disoriented in his dissertations that it mattered not whether he scored points against the incumbent. Indeed, the only thing that mattered to Biden was demonstrating that he was not demented. If only for one night, Biden accomplished that goal. Which brings us to this the third. . err. . . the second. . . and final debate between the President and the former Vice President. The rematch. The Thrilla in Nashvilla. The Tussle in Tennessee. What's the goal for the respective candidates there? Well, in reality, the candidates are contesting over virtually nothing. For those still intent on voting for Biden, there is nothing that Trump can say or do to change their minds. They will still vote for Biden. For those intent on voting for Trump, he is their champion. They will walk through broken glass to make sure that their votes are securely delivered to the voting booth, in person. Then there are the undecided. These are just fooling themselves. They have already decided for whom to vote, and most of these vacillators will vote for Biden. That leaves a small, but very significant group of people who want to vote for Trump, but are not quite convinced. They recognize the President's accomplishments and fear the actions to be undertaken by his opponent, should he be elected President. But they don't like Trump's style. For those people, the vote belongs to Trump unless he screws this up. For them, there are two things that will seal their vote in one direction or the other: Trump's misbehaviors and Biden's bewilderments. So my advice for President Trump for Thursday's debate is simple. Lay low. Don't fight back except when it is your turn to do so. Don't interrupt. Don't make any facial expressions in response to whatever Biden may say, no matter how absurd the comment may be. And don't worry. You got this. That the moderator is biased against Trump is a foregone conclusion. That Biden will lie is already well known. That the debate is rigged to make Trump look bad is recognized by everyone. There is no advantage for Trump to point that out, except by letting the events demonstrate these truths for him. Moreover, everyone, I mean everyone, knows where the President stands on everything. The country has access to him three or more times a day as compared to Biden who continues his hermitage. There is nothing to be gained by Trump laying out his arguments at the expense of appearing cordial. So, this Thursday, watch for a more subdued President Trump and a more confused and befuddled former Vice President Biden. And as Vice President Biden falls apart before our eyes because the President followed these very simple rules, just remember, I told him so. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.  THE GREATEST AUDACITY OF SOCIAL MEDIA.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. The major buzz last Wednesday was not the ever-important Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing. It was not the presidential race. It wasn't even the stalled negotiations on the latest incarnation of the COVID-19 relief bill. In fact, even the most shocking story of the day, one published by the New York Post that potentially tied presidential candidate Joe Biden directly to the international manipulations of his son Hunter was not the most prominent item in the national conversation. Instead, what captured the attention of most were the brazen attempts by Twitter and Facebook to inhibit the sharing of the Hunter Biden story in social media. The controversy began early Wednesday morning, when the New York Post published a story indicating that Hunter Biden had arranged for the introductions of a Burisma executive to his father while the latter was Vice President of the United States. If true, the story would directly contradict the former Vice President's claims that he had never spoken with his son about Ukraine or any matters dealing with Burisma. The story would also lend more credence to suspicions that the younger Biden's appointment to the Ukrainian energy company was solely the result of corrupt political connections. The reaction from the Left was predictable. A story with implications scores broader than Watergate was summarily ignored. More ominous was the conduct from the larger social media outlets. Twitter blocked feeds from the likes of Senator Josh Hawley and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany with the intent of keeping them from sharing the story. It even blocked the New York Post's feed. Meanwhile, Facebook openly said it was obstructing the sharing of the New York Post article. Facebook's and Twitter's oppressive actions sent shockwaves throughout the nation as elected officials and users alike expressed their opposition to the social media platforms' draconian measures. The Guardian called the move "unprecedented." For its part, Twitter initially defended its actions claiming that their policies prohibit the use of content that "contains private information." But the outrage grew very quickly, forcing Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to deliver a cryptic non-apology. "Our communication around our actions on the @nypost article was not great," Dorsey tweeted on Tuesday. "And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context as to why we're blocking: unacceptable." Of course, the pseudo-apology was not about regretting blocking content, but rather the manner in which it handled explaining why it did so, which misses the point entirely. The exchange resurfaced the never-buried debate about corporate censorship and the appropriateness of having a private organization decide what Americans get to see and not see. What Twitter and Facebook ignore is Americans' rich history of engaging a wide variety of speech, some of it offensive, and the Framers' zeal in defending the right to deliver it. Consider this. Thomas Paine referred to King George as a "worm." Benjamin Rush called Alexander Hamilton "a bastard brat of a Scotch peddler." Andrew Jackson famously expressed his regret at not having "shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun." Then-former Congressman Kenneth Raynor called Franklin Pierce "the pimp of the White House." Theodore Roosevelt said that William McKinley "had no more backbone than a chocolate éclair." Lyndon B. Johnson said of Gerald Ford that he was "so dumb he can't fart and chew gum at the same time." A list of insults and offensive comments uttered by famous individuals and news outlets throughout this nation's history would trail longer than a line for a Trump rally. And as to accuracy? Well, all we need to do is recall the sinking of the Maine. Then there was the slew of articles stemming from the McCarthy era. And of course, what about the fraud of Russian collusion perpetrated against President Trump by the press when the ones actually colluding with them were Hillary Clinton and her allies? The fact is that despite its offensiveness and our displeasure at witnessing such exchanges, the right to engage in all forms of speech, except that calling for violence, must be zealously guarded. The immortal Thomas Jefferson wrote about the importance of protecting a free exchange of information—and misinformation—in his Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. "[The] truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them." So, here is what we have. In Twitter and Facebook, as with all social media outlets engaged in interference, we see the "human interposition" against the truth of which Jefferson wrote, when in reality, "the truth will prevail if left to herself." If the New York Post is correct, then let the truth prevail. If it is wrong or misleading, then free argument and debate is the greatest weapon truth can deploy in prevailing, not the interference that Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey are throwing at it. Thus, we come to the greatest audacity displayed by Twitter, Facebook, and all social media outlets engaging in such activities. It is not that they have the nerve to block a bona fide news outlet, which also happens to be the oldest newspaper in the country. It is not that they are blocking the accounts of public officials. Nor is it that they are suppressing the speech of the President of the United States. No. The greatest audacity from Twitter, Facebook, and other media outlets is that they believe they can be the purveyors of truth and that they can facilitate our discovery of it. In point of fact, their actions are not helpful, but rather disruptive to our political discourse and to our social fabirc, while their elevated views of themselves along with their conduct are decidedly un-American. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.  NO HINTS, NO FORECASTS, NO PREVIEWS.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Do you think that the Constitution grants the President of the United States the authority to delay an election? This was the question posed to Judge Amy Coney Barrett by Senator Diane "the dogma lives loudly within you" Feinstein during the former's confirmation hearing on Tuesday. Now, if you're like me, when faced with such a question, you immediately grasp for an answer. You reference constitutional law, considerations regarding the separation of powers, the role of the President of the United States, the oppressive state of King George III, statutory law, and case precedent. Naturally, you try to convince your inquirer of the soundness of your argument and why he or she should be immediately subscribe to your viewpoint because of the correctness and wisdom of your opinion. But that's not what Judge Barrett did. Instead, Judge Barrett, much to Senator Feinstein's chagrin, did not answer the question, citing the rule pithily expressed by then Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her 1993 confirmation hearing: "no hints, no forecasts, no previews." In her defense, Judge Barrett cited Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, an oft-cited rule of comport during confirmation hearings. This rule has been interpreted to mean that a judge is not to give any indication on his or her position on an issue of policy, particularly one that could appear before her in a case. Elaborating on the importance of this rule, Judge Barrett spoke about maintaining the independence of the judiciary and how her legal decisions were not dictated by her own prefabricated opinions, but by the conclusions she would reach regarding the law after hearing arguments from both sides. At one point, Judge Barrett explained to Senator Feinstein that if she answered one way or the other, her answer could trigger litigants to engage in legal actions simply based on what they heard her say. It was a schooling on remedial law that left her shining as bright as a supernova and the bumbling Democrats scrambling for cover. Despite shellacking she handed the them, I predict we will witness more of the same tomorrow, which leaves me with only one request. Could you please pass me the popcorn? Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.  TRUMP HEALTHCARE V. BIDEN HEALTHCARE. WHICH IS BETTER AND WHY?
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. One of the central points of contention in the 2020 campaign for President of the United States is each camp's view on healthcare and which would be better for America and her posterity. Well, thefederalistpages.com has amassed a comprehensive review of both plans and offers a comparison of each with my vision for our nation's healthcare. Here's what we found. OVERARCHING PHILOSOPHY. The starting point for any discussion on healthcare is the overarching opinion on what healthcare should look like in America and how such a view would affect American society. If the starting points are starkly different, then practically everything else flows into diverging paths. In the cases of former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, the starting premises could scarcely be more dissimilar. Biden For Biden, the starting point is centralization. Biden believes that concentrating policymaking, control, and financing into one place (the federal government) is to be pursued. As such, for Biden and his followers, placing more power in the hands of the federal government is a plus. Strengthening Obamacare, expanding Medicaid, minimizing the influence of the private sector, and having Medicare play a larger scope in healthcare delivery are all priorities. As we shall see, all of Biden's proposals line up with that view. Trump The Trump viewpoint favors decentralization. The Trump vision for healthcare places a greater degree of control on free-market forces and the various states in the hopes of increasing the autonomy of the physician-patient relationship. However, the President's plan allows for some degree government interference with free-market forces. In his plan, for example, there is ample room for consumer protection and price controls. Gonzalez The Gonzalez plan, as elucidated in The Case for Free Market Healthcare, relies primarily on the free-market to maintain stability and predictability in delivery and cost. It aims not just to place the lion's share of healthcare delivery in the hands of the private sector, but it also maintains that only the free-market is capable of identifying the most streamlined and efficient manner through which such care can be delivered. Government's footprint must therefore be minimized and the patient should be placed at the helm of cost containment and optimal price determination. PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION. The public health insurance is a government run entity that delivers a lower-priced alternative to regular insurance policies. By providing a public health insurance option, Americans who cannot afford private healthcare insurance or desire to obtain a lower price will have access to purchase lower cost insurance plans through a government-administered alternative partially subsidized by tax dollars. Biden The Biden camp favors and actively proposes a public health insurance option. Trump President Trump opposes a public health insurance option. Gonzalez Like President Trump, I vehemently oppose a public health insurance option. In my view this is the quintessential Trojan horse for healthcare. By seeking the advantages of government to favorably compete against the private insurance sector, the public health insurance option will necessarily and overwhelmingly expand, not due to its superiority but because of greater survivability due to undue administrative and financial support from taxpayers. If America bites into this poison apple, it will definitely be placed on the road to universal healthcare and prodigious government control of our lives. Additionally, accepting the public health option will fundamentally transform the mechanics of the Constitution and the basic relationship between government and citizenry. Make no mistake; the implementation of a public health insurance option will place us on a very dangerous road indeed. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE. The concept here is that the government would provide subsidies to certain Americans who it believes should be assisted in paying for their health insurance. Biden Favors. The Biden plan would cap payments on healthcare insurance to 8.5% of one's income. It does not explain how such a cap will work. It also will increase tax credits for healthcare insurance and use gold healthcare insurance rates as the standards from which those tax credits will be calculated rather than the presently employed silver plan. Trump Opposes. These selective credits demonstrate undue interference of government on the market and would work as an extension of the disastrous Obamacare plan. The President would much rather do away with Obamacare and pursue healthcare delivery optimization in a totally different, market-based direction. Gonzalez The centerpiece of the Gonzalez plan is a transition of healthcare funding to a health savings account (HSA) based system. As such, our tax incentivization structure ought to be redesigned to encourage the formation of robust HSA accounts by each American. Doing so will unleash free market forces into the healthcare industry and rid us of those artificially contrived contaminants that presently keep the market from achieving its most efficient steady state. A successful transition will mean greater autonomy in selecting one's care and in ridding the individual of the dependence on corporate behemoths or government constraints when seeking healthcare. Removing the middlemen from funding and contracting considerations will necessarily result in greater provider accountability to the patient and improved quality of care. MEDICAID. Medicaid is a federally and state funded, state-administered program designed to provide assistance to the poor and disabled. Biden Favors expansion of Medicaid coverage to include those who are 138% of the federal poverty level and below. Trump The Trump Administration opposes this initiative. Instead, the President's goal is to improve the economy, have more Americans become self-sufficient through great job opportunities, and thus have more Americans contract with private insurers, ridding them of their dependence on government. Gonzalez Like in President Trump's plan, the Gonzalez plan also opposes Medicaid expansion as being counterintuitive to the goal of optimizing patient autonomy. Although I agree with the overall Trump plan of expanding America's economic standing and thereby decrease unemployment, the goal should not be to have more Americans contract with insurance companies for their care. The goal should rather be to have Americans transition to the independence of an HSA-based system of healthcare funding. I also agree with President Trump's plan regarding the fundamental importance of a maintaining a safety net for those who are unable to fend for themselves. STOP SURPRISE MEDICAL BILLING. Surprise medical billing is a situation that occurs when a patient seeks care in a hospital and is surprised by a bill from a physician who does not participate in his or her healthcare plan but who provided medical services in the care of the patient. Examples would be an anesthesiologist or radiologist who does not accept the patient's insurance plan, but who got involved in the patient's care because of his duties to the hospital where the care took place. Although the situation is not uncommon, it usually concludes with a payment resolution between the physician and the patient. Persistent disagreements are rare. However, the offensiveness of the experience and its potentially deleterious impacts on the patient's wallet makes this a very popular issue for politicians. The solution is actually difficult to achieve because most patient advocacy groups and insurance companies desire that the government, whether state or federal, mandate a low fee schedule that would apply in these situations. The goal, particularly for the insurer, is that the government come in and negotiate a price that is favorable to it. As a consequence, the physician would be forced to accept poorer reimbursements than they would be willing to accept, thus further pressuring private practices out of existence and resulting in the government working as an agent for the insurance companies. Biden Favors eliminating surprise medical billing and is comfortable with price setting in order to achieve it. Trump Favors eliminating surprise medical billing apparently through the development of an arbitration requirement between the insurer and the physician. Gonzalez Recognizes that if the nation's healthcare system were centered on HSAs, surprise medical billing would be a thing of the past as would pre-existing conditions. These would be obsolete terms because everything would be negotiated by the patient. The only exception would be in cases of emergency care for those who do not also have a high deductible insurance plan, in which case, a forced arbitration process would be preferred. CONTROLLING DRUG PRICES Biden Biden favors a centralized control of drug prices including the enactment of mandated prices and price caps. Trump Trump favors a centralized control of prices including the enactment of mandated prices and price caps. He also favors granting the United States favored nation status so that Americans may benefit from the deep discounts being offered by drug manufacturers to certain foreign nations. President Trump has also give some indications that he wishes to stem the power of group purchasing organizations (GPOS), which after price controls seem to be the biggest inhibitors against smaller competitors participating in a robust market. Gonzalez The Gonzalez plan eliminates the need for price controls. Today, there are over 240 medications that are not available or experiencing shortages in the United States. Amazingly, elemental medications such a penicillin, epinephrine, lidocaine, and bicarbonate are often missing and unavailable to our hospitals and patients. Indeed, the most frequently affected medications are non-patented, intravenous cancer medications. As explained in The Case for Free Market Healthcare, the primary reason for these shortages are price controls. In a truly transparent free market, the price of medications will naturally fluctuate to its most streamlined state minus shortages and minus a manufacturing exodus. This situation will naturally take place when HSAs form the staple of our healthcare system. The Gonzalez plan also closes the loophole on GPOs. IN SUMMARY Healthcare is a highly complex and multi-faceted silo in our society. The outcome of this election will play a monumental role in determining which of the two directions, either a free market based system or a government controlled one, our country will pursue during the first half of this decade. The conditions above are just a few of the major factors where the two parties differ. I can expand on many others. If you're interested in other subtopics related to healthcare, or if you have any questions, ask me by emailing me at aragonpublishers@gmail.com. I will be happy to answer your concerns in a public forum through this website. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.  THE REAL CAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES' HIGH COVID DEATH NUMBERS WILL SURPRISE YOU. by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. One of the many points of contention brought up during Tuesday's fiery presidential debate was the issue of the United States' high coronavirus case and death numbers. The allegation of America's high numbers relative to its population was espoused by former Vice President Biden when he lamented that the United States owned 20 percent of worldwide deaths while possessing only 4 percent of the world's population. Predictably, he then did his best to pin the responsibility for these stark statistics on President Trump. Indeed, as of this writing, the United States has approximately 21 percent of the world's coronavirus deaths and cases, but the reason for this is never reported by the press and has nothing to do with the President's conduct. In fact, the reason may surprise you. As part of my book Coronalessons, which Amazon did its best to ban and whose existence it is still trying to suppress, I assembled data regarding the number of per capita cases and deaths of COVID-19 throughout the world. My team performed univariate analyses comparing the effects of a country's per capita COVID-19 case and death rates with its national healthcare ranking, per capita GDP, physician density, population density, and life expectancy. We selected the countries with the one hundred highest per capita cases of COVID-19 as of May 2, 2020, according to Woldometer.com and employed the demographic data published by the World Bank in our analysis. The nation's healthcare ranking was obtained from the admittedly dated world rankings published by the United Nations in 2000, the last year it did so.  The results were startling. Surprisingly, as the number of physicians per capita improved, the number of cases and deaths from COVID-19 exponentially increased! Figure 1. Relatedly, the better the country's health care system, the worse it performed. And when we looked at the number of hospitals per capita, the greater the hospital density, the poorer the nation performed. In fact, the mildest correlation we found was a nation's per capita testing with the number of deaths and cases. These results were contrary to our preconceived expectations. But the findings were explainable. Amongst the strongest correlations were those between a country's life expectancy and its per capita cases and deaths. Figure 2. This correlation was completely  expected based the virus's heightened threat to the elderly. What's more, for a nation to amass a greater life expectancy and thus a higher elderly population, it requires a robust healthcare system with lots of doctors and a myriad of hospital beds. And what's required to amass these? Wealth. Indeed, there was a direct, linear relationship between a nation's per capita GDP and its per capita cases (Figure 3) and an exponential relationship to per capita deaths. Figure 4 In short, the richer the nation, the more likely its citizens were to contract the disease and to die from it. But still the question remains, how is it that the higher number of per capita cases could be explained by a nation's per capita GDP? Here again, then answer is simple. Travel!  COVID-19 is spread purely through the intermingling of contaminated people with others who would otherwise not have come across the virus. It is to the richer nations that people travel, either due to business or pleasure, particularly early in the pandemic before anyone could do anything about it and before many even knew they were infected. With these factors in mind, one can almost predict the global course of COVID-19. As we know, the pandemic began in Wuhan, China. From there, the principal locations of its initial spread were to Italy and Iran through contacts related to the Belt and Road Initiative into which each country had entered with China. Recall  that even after China knew of the virus's propensity for inter-human transmission it did nothing to stop international travel from within its country. True to our predictions, the spread from Iran, a relatively poor and isolated country, did not blossom, but for Italy, the experience was entirely different. In Italy, the government tried, unsuccessfully, to contain the spread in the northern third of the country where the virus had entered via Chinese interaction, but the virus quickly spread south as Italians easily moved throughout the peninsula. In the meantime, a colossal soccer match in the northern Italian city of Atalanta allowed for the intermingling of Italians and Spaniards where the virus spread next. Shortly thereafter, in Madrid, the international women's march allowed for further spread to take place. A related dynamic began occurring in Europe that was also predicted from our correlations: the deaths of massive numbers of elderly patients. In Italy, the dynamics revolved around the sharing of living quarters between the younger generations and the older ones. In Spain, like in France and England, the decimations largely took place in nursing homes.
Additionally, throughout this time, travel was robustly taking place between China, Europe, and the United States. Like a hidden landmine ready to go off, the virus took hold in our population before we even knew it. Ours is the richest country in the world, and perhaps the most heavily visited. It was, predictably, the ultimate destination for SARS-COV-2, and without any means of detecting it, there was nothing the President or any other authority could have done to prevent it. Needless to say, shutting down travel from China on January 31 was logical and helpful, but in the end it was insufficient to keep the virus from reaching our shores, and our nation's epidemiology behaved exactly as our model would have predicted. Before closing, one other point is in order. If Biden is going to spuriously accuse the President of doing a poor job merely based on the United States' relative contribution to the global prevalence and death rates of the virus, he should even more zealously criticize New York, which is singlehandedly responsible for 15% of the nation's COVID-19 deaths. Governor Andrew Cuomo recklessly ignored the already established pattern of nursing home vulnerabilities by irresponsibly and selfishly insisting that hospitalized elderly patients be transferred there. Under his watch and because of his actions, New York's nursing homes became a cesspool of death and infection when many of the fatalities could have been prevented. So what's the real cause of the SARS-CoV-2's attack on the United States following China's disregard for the wellbeing of its neighbors? The answer is the world's attraction to the United States because of its wealth coupled with the relative advanced age of its population due to its superior healthcare. But neither the mainstream press nor Mr. Biden will ever admit to this because it would decimate their false claims against President Trump. And thus the true cause of our plight with this pandemic remains hidden from the public. For more findings on the COVID-19 pandemic that are not reported by the press, such as information on hydroxychloroquine, the timeline of the pandemic, China's and the WHO's roles in propagating the disease, and the disruption of constitutional constraint by certain governors, please go to our store and get your copy of Coronalessons. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.  HOW I WOULD TREAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. By now, most of us have learned that President Donald J. Trump has tested positive for COVID-19. As was the case with the illness affecting Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a condition affecting the health of a world leader carries with it major ramifications to practically every aspect of life. As such, preserving the health and wellbeing of such a leader, irrespective of any campaign challenges, is of paramount importance. So the question now becomes, what's the best way to treat the President of the United States when he is suffering from COVID-19? The most important initial step is not to panic. Remember, the death rate associated with this illness is about 0.65 percent; that is, less than one in one hundred patients afflicted with this condition actually succumbs to its effects. Yes, the death rate is higher amongst elderly patients who contract the disease, and the President is 74 years old, but the President is a robust, highly active, and exceedingly strong individual. Physiologically, he is much younger than his chronological age would imply. Next, of course, I would examine the patient to ascertain the full extent of the virus's effects on his physiology at this time. Forget about telemedicine. There is no substitute for a careful and meticulous physical examination when planning out a patient's care. And yes, I would don full protective gear in so doing. Having established the President's state of health, what's next? First, it is imperative that the President be well hydrated, appropriately nutritioned, and rested. Next, if there are any organ systems that are affected, they need to be supported. For example, if he is suffering from nausea or vomiting, he would be placed on clear liquids or hydrated with intravenous fluids. If he has respiratory issues, then perhaps medications such as bronchodilators and antihistamines may be in order. If he is having a fever, then an antipyretic such as acetaminophen may be in order. And now to the controversial interventions. Yes, SARS-CoV-2 has been with us for nearly a year at this point, but we still do not have consensus on the best treatments for this condition. Although medications such as remdesevir, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin are supported to varying degrees in the literature, there is no consensus on how they are best deployed and under what circumstances. One thing is clear: thus far, there is no cure for COVID-19 other than the body's ability to eradicate the submicroscopic invader. So, with the available literature, and my personal experience with patients afflicted with this condition, here is what I would do. First, I would place the President on 200 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine daily, with a loading dose of 400 milligrams. I would continue the regimen for at least two weeks. Additionally, I would start the President on 500 milligrams of azithromycin daily for about ten days. I would also start the President on zinc and vitamin D, as it appears that deficiencies of these substances make a patient more vulnerable to the disease. I would then monitor carefully. If the President develops more severe respiratory symptoms, then a glucocorticoid such as dexamethasone may be indicated in order to prevent the cytokine storm. Remdesevir is a valuable weapon in the event the President's course should worsen, and of course, I would offer similar treatments for the First Lady and Hope Hicks, the President's Senior Counselor. Additionally, in an effort to protect those around him, I would isolate the President. Finally, I would pray for the President's recovery, as I would for the First Lady, Ms. Hicks, and all those afflicted with this potentially devastating disease. Most importantly, I would pray for this nation and for goodness, love, and light to overwhelm the evil, hatred, and darkness that is afflicting us. Of course, this latter intervention is one in which we can all fervently engage. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.  STATE OF THE ART TREATMENT DEPLOYED FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. President Trump was moved to Walter Reed Hospital Friday afternoon in what the White House called an abundance of caution. According to The New York Times, the President was exhibiting symptoms of low-grade fever and cough, while a video released by the White House showed a strong-appearing, impeccably-dressed President reassuring the public of his condition and thanking supporters for well wishes. Upon arriving at Walter Reed, the President was treated with an aggressive armamentarium of medications that included vitamin D, zinc, Pepcid, melatonin, low-dose aspirin, and an innovative new, combination medication created by Regeneron that has received compassionate use approval by the FDA for the treatment of COVID-19. According to the manufacturer, the medication consists of a mixture of multiple components, the principal of which is monoclonal antibodies. An in-depth explanation of the science behind the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the role antibodies play in our defense against it can be obtain from my book, Coronalessons. Suffice it to say, that monoclonal antibodies describe a series of proteins produced in our bodies designed to recognize one specific invader. Thus, if antibodies are those proteins we create that run around in our bodies recongnizing invading organisms so that we may attack them, monoclonal antibodies are a subgroup of those antibodies specifically structured to recognize one specific invader. In this case that contagion is SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Administering the Regeneron cocktail to the President implies a number of things regarding the approach being taken for the treatment of the President of the United States but says little about his condition. First, it signals that the President's team is very aggressively employing every available resource to support his abilities to defeat this virus. Second, it suggests that the team is trying to shorten the amount of time the President struggles with this virus. Later in the day, the President also received Remdesevir. Remdesevir is an inhibitor of RNA polymerase, also described in more detail in Coronalessons. Unlike the Regeneron formula, remdesevir has received an emergency use authorization from the FDA and is frequently used in the treatment for more seriously infected COVID-19 patients. The significance of the use of this medication upon the President later on in the day is undetermined as it may merely be another sign of the aggressive posture the President's team is taking on his treatment. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.  A WEEKEND THAT HARROWED.
by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Not since 1963 did America realistically face the possibility that its President could be dying. Of course, back then, President John F. Kennedy was truly killed, and the shockwaves of the news gripped the world, sending it into mourning and disbelief. This time, President Trump did not die, but his sudden illness and the uncertainty circling his condition and his future gripped us all. Once again, demonstrations of deep-rooted concern and love for the President shone as millions took to social media to send their well wishes to the President. Hundreds spontaneously assembled outside Walter Reed Hospital with signs and flags to express their support for him. Touchingly, at one point, the President returned his affection for the public when he sent Mark Meadows, his Chief of Staff, to distribute chocolate to those assembled there. And on Sunday, the President, clad with a mask, drove in a sealed automobile to express his thanks to his supporters. But it was not all love and concern that was expressed to the President. The animus and incivility that has gripped the country over the past decade also left its mark. Steven Cox, a candidate for Congress, publicly wished the President and Biden would both die, and not to be left behind, Zara Rahim, former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton, also disgustingly expressed her desire for the President's death. And then there was the parade of conspiracy theorists baselessly claiming that the whole thing was fabricated. Michael Moore and Joy Reid maliciously suggested, without any evidence, that the President was just creating the story. His allegations fell apart as the President was urgently transferred to the hospital, and one Republican after another fell ill. Abandoning their mantra of not blaming the victim, many like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer claimed the fate that had befallen the President resulted from his alleged failure to "follow science" and his alleged willingness to ignore mask mandates. But throughout the weekend, word came of the incredibly strict precautions observed by the President and his staff, never to be acknowledged by the left wing media. Perhaps the peak of the nation's anxieties materialized Saturday morning when the public, deprived of any direct communication from the President since having checked into the hospital, feared he had taken a turn for the worse. The situation was in no way relieved by a press conference held by his medical team that at times appeared cryptic. But nothing did more to reassure the public than the President's appearance on video, later that afternoon and again on Sunday, to thank the public for its concerns and express his confidence in his abilities to defeat this illness and return to the business of leading our nation. But what prevailed this weekend, as it always does, was the heroism of the nation's unsung heroes along with America's ingenuity and boldness. Once again, those men and women who rush to the emergency and intervene with full confidence in their ultimate success, showed their metal and the reasons why we, as Americans, have such great confidence in them. Additionally it was private sector that was ready with a medication it had been preparing for public consumption. A monoclonal antibody cocktail from Regeneron and approved for compassionate use by the FDA was administered to the President, along with remdesevir, an RNA transcriptase inhibitor. On Sunday, we learned he was also treated with Depo-Medrol, a steroid whose use in the treatment of COVID-19 is designed to stop the cytokine storm. The success of the treatment regimen on a 74 year-old, somewhat overweight male who didn't appear to skip a beat against an illness that had previously killed millions demonstrated the progress made in the combat against this disease. The first weekend in October was truly one that harrowed. It played upon our common fears and promoted the display of negativity and derision throughout the nation. Ultimately though, it turned into one that united Americans, that allowed us to see the promise of our future, to view the best of our fellow Americans, and to experience the results of the progress we as a nation have made in our quest to defeat a pandemic that has paralyzed the world. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com. |
AuthorDr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon living in Florida. He is a lawyer, author, and former member of the Florida House of Representatives. He is available for speaking engagements at thefederalistpages@gmail.com ArchivesCategories |
RSS Feed