The Podcast “Why Should I Trust You?” has found common ground between activist leaders in the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement and leading public health experts.
The alleged good stuff is entirely pre-existing, has nothing to do with MAHA (they attached themselves onto it after the fact) basic obvious evidenced based progressive stuff... pharma and insurance and big Ag as is corrupt. healthy diet and exercise (and education, housing, clean air, clean water, good work conditions, etc etc)... and we affirm all of that (because we came up with it before they attached themselves to it) without giving any credence and support for the homicidal RFK Jr (my wife and I trained some of the doctors & public health officials in American Samoa when RFJ Jr pushed anti-vax during a measles outbreak there) and his circle of wellness industry woo including the Surgeon General nominee.
But MAHA is complete b.s. and this the specific report itself is garbage AI generated filled with fictional references and numerous falsehoods.
The "full of woo wellness industry" is more fraudulent then pharma... same payola profit goals but with no oversight, regulatory protection, and twice the lying. That the same folks are cutting research funding, stopping vaccine development, making it harder to get existing vaccines, and threatening to bock publishing in legitimate journals.
None of the good stuff is going to actually get done given actual conservative movement corporatism, and the whole thing is to sucker folks in via the snake-oil hucksterism... and keep the fascism part. the only sciency part is that it b.s. m.s. phd... bullshit, more shit, piled higher and deept.
It’s fine to say that MAHA has attached itself to all the good stuff that is already there. That’s the beginning of change. Change the narrative to something cheaper and with better results. Yes, it’s true that some of the alternative solutions are pushed by people who are profiting from their advocacy of certain alternatives, but their self aggrandizement in no way compares to Big Pharma and its minions in government which exceeds by multiples the implied conflicts of interest in virtually everything they do. I have a question that no one seems to want to answer: I and many of my schoolmates had measles at the ages of 6 or 7 in 1947. Out of school for a week or so, quarantine was a joke & we moved on. Question: what was the death rate of measles in 1947? & if no measles vaccine were developed for current use what would be the death rate today, given, I assume , more powerful antibiotics and better treatments. Should we with this one disease have declared victory & gone home?
Yes. There is common ground among the grassroots on all political sides when it comes to the huge problems with our profit-based sickcare system. But how to counter the endless funds of Big Pharma that both political parties rely on for their campaigns? Until we crack that nut, nothing's going to change.
The only way to fix healthcare is to burn it to the ground and start over. The only things we keep are the practitioners and the real estate. We at Sentia have automated the entire health insurance process. We provide the EMR to practices, price the procedures 50% ABOVE Medicare, and pay for work performed in real time. This eliminates medical coding. It eliminates everything the health insurance companies do that isn't 'write a check for the patient's health care.' For this service we charge $10 per month plus the actual cost of the risk. That alone should cut over 50% of the cost. Further, we offer patient education based on the results of their lab tests. This happens automatically. When they read it, they get a small discount. When they follow it and get healthier, they get a large discount. This is science based measurement and based on bloodwork. This gives the system 'teeth' by incentivizing healthy living. Then we start getting back some of the 84% of monies spent on behavior based chronic disease. Getting us down to the OECD average will save $1.34 trillion, or an additional 25%. In total that would save us 75+%.
How does your solution meaningfully change the system? It seems like an attempt to simplify health insurance, but still leaving it as a for profit system.
The ad for your company doesn't seem to align with your opening statement.
My solution completely replaces for-profit health insurance and all it's weaknesses and costs with a quietly whirring box in a cold room. It also ties health insurance with health itself. The healthier you live, the less you pay. This incentives healthy living. We provide education based on your lab results. Follow it, get better, and get discounts. According to The Commonwealth Fund, there are two problems with healthcare in America: cost and patient education. This solution addresses them both. With the health insurance company alone, we cut the cost down to South Korea levels, AND keep American style care.
Maybe I'm just confused about what the whirring box does and who would control it.
From what I understand, it doesn't seem to meaningfully differentiate itself from the current private insurers. Primarily because pricing based on health and lifestyle already exists in the current system. I also still see an algorithm susceptible to the profit motive and thus not materialy different from existing insurance algorithms.
I am sure I am missing something in your explanation.
I'm sure you are. We automate the entire process and charge a $10/month data management fee. That's it. The patient pays for their own incurred risk of course and but the whole thing should be less than half what traditional insurance pays. Does that make it more clear? What specific questions do you have? What don't you understand?
Ok, that makes some sense. I still don't really see how that is burning the system down. At best it seems to be an improvement, but it still leaves the control with the same people who got us into this mess.
The corporatization of healthcare predates any political involvement. It all began with the insurance companies requiring so much documentation from PCP's and specialists that they ended up banding together in larger and larger health groups so they could share back room resources devoted to dealing with insurance approvals. The tipping point was when leadership of these partner structures switched to the pencil pushers, and not medical professionals, in an effort to improve income and profitability. It led to an attitude of profits over patients. And the ultimate conclusion were hedge funds taking over rural or community hospitals and closing pediatrics and maternal health because they were the least profitable. There are more Americans than ever in healthcare deserts who can drive for six hours and not find a pediatrician or obstetrician or mental health professional. Now there are many other issues driving the statistic that only 1/3 of Americans have a primary care doctor, but politics isn't one of them. Profit is. And I agree, this has nothing to do with the salaries of anyone who is a medical professional. Their salaries are too low especially for internists, pediatricians, geriatricians, and family doctors.
No! No!
The alleged good stuff is entirely pre-existing, has nothing to do with MAHA (they attached themselves onto it after the fact) basic obvious evidenced based progressive stuff... pharma and insurance and big Ag as is corrupt. healthy diet and exercise (and education, housing, clean air, clean water, good work conditions, etc etc)... and we affirm all of that (because we came up with it before they attached themselves to it) without giving any credence and support for the homicidal RFK Jr (my wife and I trained some of the doctors & public health officials in American Samoa when RFJ Jr pushed anti-vax during a measles outbreak there) and his circle of wellness industry woo including the Surgeon General nominee.
But MAHA is complete b.s. and this the specific report itself is garbage AI generated filled with fictional references and numerous falsehoods.
The "full of woo wellness industry" is more fraudulent then pharma... same payola profit goals but with no oversight, regulatory protection, and twice the lying. That the same folks are cutting research funding, stopping vaccine development, making it harder to get existing vaccines, and threatening to bock publishing in legitimate journals.
None of the good stuff is going to actually get done given actual conservative movement corporatism, and the whole thing is to sucker folks in via the snake-oil hucksterism... and keep the fascism part. the only sciency part is that it b.s. m.s. phd... bullshit, more shit, piled higher and deept.
See:
https://wapo.st/45wdA6A
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/well/maha-report-citations.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LE8.hJmQ.G94r4UxcH6yS&smid=url-share
https://www.notus.org/health-science/make-america-healthy-again-report-citation-errors
https://digbysblog.net/2025/05/29/a-milestone-in-snake-oil/
https://digbysblog.net/2025/05/28/making-us-unhealthy-again/
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/05/scientific-rigor-mortis
And clean air is on the way out.
It’s fine to say that MAHA has attached itself to all the good stuff that is already there. That’s the beginning of change. Change the narrative to something cheaper and with better results. Yes, it’s true that some of the alternative solutions are pushed by people who are profiting from their advocacy of certain alternatives, but their self aggrandizement in no way compares to Big Pharma and its minions in government which exceeds by multiples the implied conflicts of interest in virtually everything they do. I have a question that no one seems to want to answer: I and many of my schoolmates had measles at the ages of 6 or 7 in 1947. Out of school for a week or so, quarantine was a joke & we moved on. Question: what was the death rate of measles in 1947? & if no measles vaccine were developed for current use what would be the death rate today, given, I assume , more powerful antibiotics and better treatments. Should we with this one disease have declared victory & gone home?
Yes. There is common ground among the grassroots on all political sides when it comes to the huge problems with our profit-based sickcare system. But how to counter the endless funds of Big Pharma that both political parties rely on for their campaigns? Until we crack that nut, nothing's going to change.
The only way to fix healthcare is to burn it to the ground and start over. The only things we keep are the practitioners and the real estate. We at Sentia have automated the entire health insurance process. We provide the EMR to practices, price the procedures 50% ABOVE Medicare, and pay for work performed in real time. This eliminates medical coding. It eliminates everything the health insurance companies do that isn't 'write a check for the patient's health care.' For this service we charge $10 per month plus the actual cost of the risk. That alone should cut over 50% of the cost. Further, we offer patient education based on the results of their lab tests. This happens automatically. When they read it, they get a small discount. When they follow it and get healthier, they get a large discount. This is science based measurement and based on bloodwork. This gives the system 'teeth' by incentivizing healthy living. Then we start getting back some of the 84% of monies spent on behavior based chronic disease. Getting us down to the OECD average will save $1.34 trillion, or an additional 25%. In total that would save us 75+%.
We have this system in prototype.
Blow me twice and I'll take it for a spin.
How does your solution meaningfully change the system? It seems like an attempt to simplify health insurance, but still leaving it as a for profit system.
The ad for your company doesn't seem to align with your opening statement.
My solution completely replaces for-profit health insurance and all it's weaknesses and costs with a quietly whirring box in a cold room. It also ties health insurance with health itself. The healthier you live, the less you pay. This incentives healthy living. We provide education based on your lab results. Follow it, get better, and get discounts. According to The Commonwealth Fund, there are two problems with healthcare in America: cost and patient education. This solution addresses them both. With the health insurance company alone, we cut the cost down to South Korea levels, AND keep American style care.
Make sense?
Maybe I'm just confused about what the whirring box does and who would control it.
From what I understand, it doesn't seem to meaningfully differentiate itself from the current private insurers. Primarily because pricing based on health and lifestyle already exists in the current system. I also still see an algorithm susceptible to the profit motive and thus not materialy different from existing insurance algorithms.
I am sure I am missing something in your explanation.
I'm sure you are. We automate the entire process and charge a $10/month data management fee. That's it. The patient pays for their own incurred risk of course and but the whole thing should be less than half what traditional insurance pays. Does that make it more clear? What specific questions do you have? What don't you understand?
Ok, that makes some sense. I still don't really see how that is burning the system down. At best it seems to be an improvement, but it still leaves the control with the same people who got us into this mess.
And I save you half.
How so? I'm running this company not some idiotic bizdiot.
The corporatization of healthcare predates any political involvement. It all began with the insurance companies requiring so much documentation from PCP's and specialists that they ended up banding together in larger and larger health groups so they could share back room resources devoted to dealing with insurance approvals. The tipping point was when leadership of these partner structures switched to the pencil pushers, and not medical professionals, in an effort to improve income and profitability. It led to an attitude of profits over patients. And the ultimate conclusion were hedge funds taking over rural or community hospitals and closing pediatrics and maternal health because they were the least profitable. There are more Americans than ever in healthcare deserts who can drive for six hours and not find a pediatrician or obstetrician or mental health professional. Now there are many other issues driving the statistic that only 1/3 of Americans have a primary care doctor, but politics isn't one of them. Profit is. And I agree, this has nothing to do with the salaries of anyone who is a medical professional. Their salaries are too low especially for internists, pediatricians, geriatricians, and family doctors.