User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive

Health Care Policies


These so-called "Schools" typically "encourage" students to "think critically". At first glance this seems good, but in order to fully understand what this means, we need to dig deeper. Typically what you will find in the courses provided by these so-called "Schools" are "integrative assignments" which require people to "think critically"… about a certain topic… which was previously presented. In other words, students are told in hushed tones to "tow the official line" of the course and are marked on how well they do so. This is, of course, done on purpose. If students would begin to think by themselves it would be catastrophic for the so-called "School" because it would be discredited and it would eventually loose funding. This must never be allowed to happen.

Thus, the very concept of "critical thinking" has been re-defined to mean: find minor modifications to our way of thinking that do not deviate too much and can be easily dismissed or accepted without major issues. Got that? Good!


Most of these so-called "Schools" also have one issue in common; they don't deal in scientific models when it comes to the actual design or logistics of implementing public health. Typically in a scientific environment you would expect to find statistical models describing how things work. If statistical modelling is not possible, then a set of rules (backed-up by experimental data) is to be expected. Albeit not when it comes to "Public Health Care". In this critical area of human interest, we don't need no stinking statistical models!

These so-called "Schools" who purportedly use scientific methods, experimental methods, quantifiable variables and logical thinking are famous (or infamous, up to you) for doing very little of the above when it comes to policy design and implementation. This is quite simple to prove. Just do a literary search of the "scientific papers" that these so-called "Schools" published and you will be surprised at how un-scientific they are in this area and how few "papers" are there.

Now, let's be clear. We are not saying that they don't do statistical modeling when it comes to Epidemiology or Genetics or other "hard" subjects; they do. The problem is that in a School of Public Health care you would expect their primary concern to be… well… Public Health Care; not Epidemiology or Genetics or something else. For that, we already have Epidemiologists and Geneticists and other dedicated scientists that are much, much better suited to study their area of expertise.

These "Schools" typically spend very little time studying the effect that policies had in the past or modelling how these policies behaved or may behave; they simply offer opinions about policies based on some data. This is, of course, a big problem as researching policies is researching not only scientific truths but the implementation of such truths in real life in the real world. Big difference!

If you are reading this and have a military background, you will know it to be true. In the military everybody wants to be a tactician (which is glorious and fun) but nobody wants to be a logistician (i.e. the people who actually make sure you have food and bullets where and when you need them). Yet, a tactician is nothing without the logistician. Logistics comes first! Same here.

Why are these so-called "Schools" not scientifically researching the different implementations of public health care within the different possible political systems? Why is that their "studies" of implementations are actually quite sparse and when they exist they are typically limited to effects of certain policies within a "democratic" (i.e. socialist) government in certain environments and in certain conditions for certain "topics of interest"? Why is that there is almost no information nor studies about the other possibilities? Why is that such models do not exist for the most part? Why is that they never undertake a comprehensive and systematic study of all implementation options?

Just imagine if a Biologist would state that Biology is the science of studying living things, except for cats. We shall never, ever research cats. Does this make any sense? At all? Of course not. Then why? Why the bias?


Why indeed? Because if these so-called "Schools" would actually be concerning themselves with Public Health, most of their students would be unemployable; thus, they "broaden" their scope. Let's take a look at the following handy list of job opportunities provided by one such school:


Intended Job

Optimum Qualification

Clinical trials analysis


Health promotion


Environmental health

Environmentalist / Biologist / MD

Research data coordinator

Biostatistician / Statistician

Community development

Social worker

Health policy analyst


Health care manager

Health administrator






You may have noticed that for almost any Intended Job there is already a better professional with better qualifications in place. Basically, what this is telling us is that a degree in Public Health Care is, for the most part, redundant and arguably of lesser value than other qualifications.


This is important because this is an example of how "policy" happens. Politicians are clueless demagogues who are always looking for excuses to spend. As spending without an excuse would probably mean losing political face, they are always looking for "scientific recommendations" under which they can hide and shelter. At this point it is where we find these so-called "Schools" who are "deeply thankful" to "governments" for their "continued support". Presto! A match made in heaven.

And then you ask how is it possible that so many politicians come up with presumably scientific reasons for their so-called "solutions" which inevitably fail miserably in real life? Do you see now where it all originates? Good!


This article is a simplistic and simplified (thus necessarily flawed and incomplete) overview of what so-called Schools of Public Health Care offer to "society" and why is it that they are dangerous to your health and pocket. It is not that they don't teach their students, they do, but their teachings are typically second-rate to other specializations. It is not that they don't generate some data, they do, but that their data is, in many cases, of lesser value than the data collated by other professionals. It is not that they don’t provide suggestions and recommendations for government policies; they do, it is that very seldom they do so based on scientific truths when it comes to policy designs and implementations. It is not that they do not work with governments and other NGO's; they do, the problem is that they are always stuck in the socialist model and they stubbornly refuse to get out from their cozy environment. The bottom line is that the recommendations which get implemented are not based on proper scientific scrutiny but are simply best guesses within a socialist system. And we already know how well a socialized health care works within a socialist system. Prices constantly go up and services constantly go down. What we need here is a fresh way of thinking, but as long as Schools of Public Health (and other such organizations) continue their unscientific practices and continue to influence governments, there will be no change.

Of course, we can't change anything. We can only try to open your eyes. It is you who has to reach the obvious conclusions and accept them. You know your choices. You do. If you decide to act, then do nothing; this is, don't vote.

On the other hand, if you prefer to be stuck in this perennial spiral down into oblivion, then feel free to keep voting. After all, the Schools of Public Health have the correct policy for you.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

Comments | Add yours
  • No comments found
English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It