John...these are excellent recommendations. It might be worthwhile to add a summary recommendation from the doctor's video pointing out the non-sense of "chemical imbalance". Also, I suggest that the DHHS strongly advocate, and make their policies align, that a person's health is the responsibility to the person and that the government is NOT responsible for a person's health. Advocate getting educated on one's health.
For the sake of debate and critical thinking, I propose that health insurance should cover mandatory 6 month check-ups with full batteries of tests for all sorts of innate as well as involuntarily and voluntarily caused conditions and ills, including obesity in order to establish a base line for health. People who continue to smoke anything and to take recreational drugs and to drink to alcoholic excess ought to pay more into the system for their insurance. The risk of health problems should be spread among the risk takers, as in all insurance. To do otherwise encourages habits which raise the cost to all insureds. Insurance, at one time, rewarded the insured who lowered the risk of claims by their conduct. Risks arising from genetics should perhaps be shared by the insured pool as a whole, as voluntary conduct was not responsible for the increased risk. This whole stream of thought bears a thorough review and analysis.
The basic studies should be to raise the health and critical thinking ability of the people.. The Medical System is not the answer. it is flawed. It has been based on drugs, since John D Rockefeller promoted the AMA in the early 1900s. True health knowledge is simple.It starts with the food people eat. Our soil is depleted. It needs to be re-generated in order to have nutrients. Big AG like the rest of the American government - is more interested in using products that make money like pesticides and petroleum fertilizer. These products have destroyed the soil. Our basic need is is to grow healthy food, which would nourish the bodies and brains of the people. The fixation on making money first and foremost has lowered the mental acuity of almost everyone. Shakespeare said in the 1600s..."Man has lost his ability to reason." It was from the 'slops' that people were eating. No nourishment for the minds.
While I appreciate the intent here, this is the same rabbit hole different day/time. I fully acknowledge that doing what needs to be done is impossible short of some global catastrophic event, but reform is not an option — it will pass time & give us something to do, but is still won’t solve the problem. Not to get biblical here, but in the end it gets back to Genesis. What threw us out of Eden was eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil. You cannot have two diametrically opposed infinites.
Sheila: I agree with your premise, but do not think it applies here. The fight is between real Science and political science, which is not the same as good vs evil.
I have served at high levels in several agencies, including the Department of Energy, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and the Department of the Army. For the record, I contributed more value to the nation by serving in government at an executive level than in the private sector. My brief bio describing my accomplishments is here: https://johnparmentola.com/about-john-parmentola/biography/.
Improvements can be made in agency processes, but the key problem is Congress's dominance of politics over science in decision-making.
The federal budget is a law that itemizes the funding of programs and projects and, specifically, how that money is to be spent by agencies.
An agency cannot kill a program or project without the approval of Congress, and accomplishing that requires agency authority over policy and budget. It also requires someone with the courage and conviction to withstand both bureaucratic pressure and Congress.
I am the only person I know who killed a major program and, along with it, the organization that executed it. That program was Electromagnetic Gun, and the organization was the Institute for Advanced Technology at the University of Texas.
That program and organization existed for nearly 30 years, and many before me, even at higher levels, tried to terminate it and failed. The story of how I did it is very involved, but the point is that it can be done.
Making serious science more relevant to programs and projects depends on the passion, vision, and competence of those in charge of policy and budget and those serving at the execution level.
Those kinds of people are rare, and those with courage and conviction are even rarer. In the end, improving the use of taxpayer dollars for the benefit of the nation depends on the quality, character, and competence of the people serving.
Did you know saving taxpayer money in the federal budget is illegal? By law, agencies are required to spend it as the law states. I tried many times to save money, but government lawyers constantly reminded me that it was illegal.
John: That is the challange that Elon and Vivak will have to overcome. Here I am advocating to fix DHHS by guaranteeing better health outcomes. So far I do not believe that is illegal.
The statement does not imply that the goal is illegal, but its illegality depends on how it is achieved. For example, getting more and better healthcare by paying less at an agency level could be illegal unless Congress recognizes that it could be accomplished by passing a budget that does that.
Most of the inefficiency and poor quality of outcomes start at the Congressional level because of politics and buying votes. Agencies execute through processes that follow rules and regulations. Admittedly, poor choices are made during source selection because the selection criteria are poorly chosen, and contractor marketing is effective.
Fixing it always seems easy until you have experienced how the system does what it does.
Why are defense systems so expensive and time-consuming to produce? Part of it is new technology and the customer's uncertainty about what they want. Another part is contractors overpromising on performance while advocating an accelerated schedule, which increases technical risk. Still, another part involves system testing and safety. A system must not harm the user!
John: Please read the link above about the specific changes RFKjr needs to oversee regarding the FDA. I'm sure that the swamprats will object to everything, but none of them are economic in nature.
John: Thank you for sharing some of your interesting experiences. Yes, prioritizing real Science over political science "depends on the passion, vision, and competence of those in charge." That is exactly why I'm putting forward my first point, as it seems likely (not guaranteed) that such a change is now plausible. What do we have to lose by trying?
It depends! If you are a federal employee, the social system will marginalize you to the point of impotence. Remember, politics on issues changes as often as the wind changes direction!
There are two self-evident truths that dominate outcomes in the government. The first is that everything is easy when you don’t know anything, and the second is that when you don’t know anything, everything is a discovery.
Both these truths account for government outcome failures.
There is a third, which I rarely mention because, while true, it’s insulting to many. There are too many people in government with two-digit IQs that matter! Just one non-compliant person can put an end to a good idea. I have seen it too many times!
John...these are excellent recommendations. It might be worthwhile to add a summary recommendation from the doctor's video pointing out the non-sense of "chemical imbalance". Also, I suggest that the DHHS strongly advocate, and make their policies align, that a person's health is the responsibility to the person and that the government is NOT responsible for a person's health. Advocate getting educated on one's health.
Don: Agreed on all.
For the sake of debate and critical thinking, I propose that health insurance should cover mandatory 6 month check-ups with full batteries of tests for all sorts of innate as well as involuntarily and voluntarily caused conditions and ills, including obesity in order to establish a base line for health. People who continue to smoke anything and to take recreational drugs and to drink to alcoholic excess ought to pay more into the system for their insurance. The risk of health problems should be spread among the risk takers, as in all insurance. To do otherwise encourages habits which raise the cost to all insureds. Insurance, at one time, rewarded the insured who lowered the risk of claims by their conduct. Risks arising from genetics should perhaps be shared by the insured pool as a whole, as voluntary conduct was not responsible for the increased risk. This whole stream of thought bears a thorough review and analysis.
The basic studies should be to raise the health and critical thinking ability of the people.. The Medical System is not the answer. it is flawed. It has been based on drugs, since John D Rockefeller promoted the AMA in the early 1900s. True health knowledge is simple.It starts with the food people eat. Our soil is depleted. It needs to be re-generated in order to have nutrients. Big AG like the rest of the American government - is more interested in using products that make money like pesticides and petroleum fertilizer. These products have destroyed the soil. Our basic need is is to grow healthy food, which would nourish the bodies and brains of the people. The fixation on making money first and foremost has lowered the mental acuity of almost everyone. Shakespeare said in the 1600s..."Man has lost his ability to reason." It was from the 'slops' that people were eating. No nourishment for the minds.
While I appreciate the intent here, this is the same rabbit hole different day/time. I fully acknowledge that doing what needs to be done is impossible short of some global catastrophic event, but reform is not an option — it will pass time & give us something to do, but is still won’t solve the problem. Not to get biblical here, but in the end it gets back to Genesis. What threw us out of Eden was eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil. You cannot have two diametrically opposed infinites.
Sheila: I agree with your premise, but do not think it applies here. The fight is between real Science and political science, which is not the same as good vs evil.
I have served at high levels in several agencies, including the Department of Energy, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and the Department of the Army. For the record, I contributed more value to the nation by serving in government at an executive level than in the private sector. My brief bio describing my accomplishments is here: https://johnparmentola.com/about-john-parmentola/biography/.
Improvements can be made in agency processes, but the key problem is Congress's dominance of politics over science in decision-making.
The federal budget is a law that itemizes the funding of programs and projects and, specifically, how that money is to be spent by agencies.
An agency cannot kill a program or project without the approval of Congress, and accomplishing that requires agency authority over policy and budget. It also requires someone with the courage and conviction to withstand both bureaucratic pressure and Congress.
I am the only person I know who killed a major program and, along with it, the organization that executed it. That program was Electromagnetic Gun, and the organization was the Institute for Advanced Technology at the University of Texas.
That program and organization existed for nearly 30 years, and many before me, even at higher levels, tried to terminate it and failed. The story of how I did it is very involved, but the point is that it can be done.
Making serious science more relevant to programs and projects depends on the passion, vision, and competence of those in charge of policy and budget and those serving at the execution level.
Those kinds of people are rare, and those with courage and conviction are even rarer. In the end, improving the use of taxpayer dollars for the benefit of the nation depends on the quality, character, and competence of the people serving.
Process improvements are an illusion!
Which link specifically?
Under Recommendation #2: The two page summary.
Did you know saving taxpayer money in the federal budget is illegal? By law, agencies are required to spend it as the law states. I tried many times to save money, but government lawyers constantly reminded me that it was illegal.
John: That is the challange that Elon and Vivak will have to overcome. Here I am advocating to fix DHHS by guaranteeing better health outcomes. So far I do not believe that is illegal.
The statement does not imply that the goal is illegal, but its illegality depends on how it is achieved. For example, getting more and better healthcare by paying less at an agency level could be illegal unless Congress recognizes that it could be accomplished by passing a budget that does that.
Most of the inefficiency and poor quality of outcomes start at the Congressional level because of politics and buying votes. Agencies execute through processes that follow rules and regulations. Admittedly, poor choices are made during source selection because the selection criteria are poorly chosen, and contractor marketing is effective.
Fixing it always seems easy until you have experienced how the system does what it does.
Why are defense systems so expensive and time-consuming to produce? Part of it is new technology and the customer's uncertainty about what they want. Another part is contractors overpromising on performance while advocating an accelerated schedule, which increases technical risk. Still, another part involves system testing and safety. A system must not harm the user!
John: Please read the link above about the specific changes RFKjr needs to oversee regarding the FDA. I'm sure that the swamprats will object to everything, but none of them are economic in nature.
John: Thank you for sharing some of your interesting experiences. Yes, prioritizing real Science over political science "depends on the passion, vision, and competence of those in charge." That is exactly why I'm putting forward my first point, as it seems likely (not guaranteed) that such a change is now plausible. What do we have to lose by trying?
It depends! If you are a federal employee, the social system will marginalize you to the point of impotence. Remember, politics on issues changes as often as the wind changes direction!
There are two self-evident truths that dominate outcomes in the government. The first is that everything is easy when you don’t know anything, and the second is that when you don’t know anything, everything is a discovery.
Both these truths account for government outcome failures.
There is a third, which I rarely mention because, while true, it’s insulting to many. There are too many people in government with two-digit IQs that matter! Just one non-compliant person can put an end to a good idea. I have seen it too many times!