#272495 - 19/12/2005 21:25
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
there are certainly some drastic downsides that outweigh any such upside (such as death from mixing incompatible medicines)
But that role is more often played by your pharmacist than by your doctor anyway.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272496 - 19/12/2005 21:29
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Well, they're also licensed professionals - so I think my point applies to them as well.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272497 - 20/12/2005 00:23
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5546
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
In my view of a moral world, people would own the consequences of eating something (whether its flexoril, alcohol, opium or marijuana). There would be nobody to sue, because everyone would recognize that there is nobody else to blame.
Jimmy, I think I must respectfully disagree with you in your specific case.
You went to the doctor originally, sought his advice, and followed his advice. In giving you that advice, he did assume some responsibility for the outcome of that advice. To make a ridiculous example -- suppose he had prescribed for you something that helped your back pain, but destroyed your liver at the same time. Would you not hold him responsible for the damages?
That doctor is protecting not only his own interests, but your interests as well. I can understand a doctor's being reluctant to assume that a patient's condition is unchaged after a decade, and why he would be even more reluctant to assume that the paitent was able to objectively assess his condition better than he could -- unless, perhaps, that patient had years of medical school training and decades of experience in the field of medicine. I suspect that is not the case in your situation.
You are asking that doctor to put his livelihood on the line and provide you with potentially dangerous drugs, for which he is liable should there be any negative outcome. I don't feel that his wishing to see you and discuss the issue with you is a particularly onerous requirement.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272498 - 20/12/2005 00:44
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
In the UK you can only buy normal ibuprofen in packs of 16 over the counter. We are still working our way through a bottle of 500 that we bought in the US when we were there a couple of years ago...
Once I year i borrow my friend's Costco card and go buy 1-2 of the double-500 packs for around $11. I should go into business. I can see the news story now "Citizens of the UK buying their drugs by mail order from the US of A!"
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272499 - 20/12/2005 00:56
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
I respect your right to disagree, of course.
However, you guys are missing my point, and I think it is an important point.
I believe that the doctor should not be held accountable. I am willing to assume responsibility for all risks and consequences associated with what I eat. That means that I will relinquish my "right" to sue if the outcome is bad, because I don't believe that is what lawsuits are for.
If a doctor deliberately misleads me, or provides me with incorrect information through negligence, then I may have a case against him. That's not the situation here.
I would like to go ahead and do what I want, without anyone's "permission", and completely accept that this means that I have nobody to blame but myself if things go badly.
You see, I disagree with the entire system, including the part that makes the doctor liable. If I reject this idea as immoral (in this case, the public foisting responsibility for consequences on doctors), there isn't the issue you raise.
I am not saying that a doctor, or any professional, should not be held accountable for ineptitude, negligence, or abuse. Just like when a mechanic breaks something on my car, I expect him to fix it at no cost to me. He is liable. However, if I consult with a mechanic prior to buying a car and ask his professional advice as to whether its a good car, I don't believe I have the right to sue him for damages if the car turns out to be a lemon. Unless, of course, he was involved in fraud and an agent of a dishonest seller.
Does that clarify my point of view?
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272500 - 20/12/2005 01:18
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Jimmy, I think I must respectfully disagree with you in your specific case.
I've read down the thread and, while I would limit my disagreement with the original post -- I don't know all the details -- my sum feeling is much what you say here...
Quote:
You went to the doctor originally, sought his advice, and followed his advice. In giving you that advice, he did assume some responsibility for the outcome of that advice. To make a ridiculous example -- suppose he had prescribed for you something that helped your back pain, but destroyed your liver at the same time. Would you not hold him responsible for the damages?
Not such a ridiculous example. As an aside I think Bitt asked "Kill yourself with acetimenophen/paracetemol?" You bet! Nasty drug, liver-wise. And so many combination drugs, and other drugs with potential long-term effects.
Quote:
That doctor is protecting not only his own interests, but your interests as well.
I think sometimes it is just very handy for professions like medicine that interests converge in such a way that -- while "looking out for the patient's/client's interests" -- the doc gets to make more money. Some providers do a better job of monitoring this...."Cognitive dissonance?". Dentists often get knocked for this. I remember last year when I discovered that I could not get a new pair of eyeglasses because my presscription was two years and one month old -- a month over the iimit, a complete racket, the optometrist full employment act, yet a rule put in place ostensibly to protect my (health) interests.
Quote:
I can understand a doctor's being reluctant to assume that a patient's condition is unchaged after a decade, and why he would be even more reluctant to assume that the paitent was able to objectively assess his condition better than he could -- unless, perhaps, that patient had years of medical school training and decades of experience in the field of medicine. I suspect that is not the case in your situation.
My cynical aside aside, if I were in the provider's shoes, I could not help but be aware of the many docs who are sued for failure to take due care, failure to meet community standards of care, things like that. When I read the OP, while I was sympathetic -- especially with respect to the economics and health insurance situation -- I just couldn't find a way to villainize the doc. If you were speaking from Canada, I'd like to think that doc will still make you come visit. You just wouldn't be dealing with the economic impact.
Quote:
You are asking that doctor to put his livelihood on the line and provide you with potentially dangerous drugs, for which he is liable should there be any negative outcome. I don't feel that his wishing to see you and discuss the issue with you is a particularly onerous requirement.
I might be exaggerating, but I'm generally of the opinion that "adults" should be able to ingest whatever ridiculous thing they want. War on Drugs a complete failure and all that. I'm one of those people -- take non-prescription Ibuprofen in prescription doses! I figure I'm old enough to decide and if I die it's my fault. I just don't think it is a doctor's job to play along with whatever independent decisions I make.
Bit of a ramble, sorry.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272501 - 20/12/2005 01:31
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
We can make it more difficult for people to obtain substances that will cause them to act in irrational and dangerous ways.
You see, I just can't accept this argument because I hold people to a higher standard of behavior. I don't think that the substances "cause" them to act in dangerous ways. I think that people act in irrational and dangerous ways, and then blame the substances for their behavior.
This is akin to "blaming the gun". Well, to quote an old cliche, I think it is absolutely true that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Our society blames the gun, or the drug, or whatever. In doing so, we fail to hold people accountable as responsible moral agents. It isn't the person's fault, it's the drug's fault. I think this is hogwash, because the decison to use the drug is voluntary. Therefore people can be held accountable for their actions while under the influence of the drug. Can be and should be. The drug is not the point. Selfish, negligent and harmful (to others) behavior is the issue.
If we took your argument to its logical conclusion, we wouldn't allow people to buy gasoline, guns of any kind, and a whole host of other products that "might" be used to harm other people. The problem is, that's not the way a free society works. A free society works by entrusting the public with potentially dangerous objects, but requiring that they not be used to endanger or harm others. When people endanger or harm others, we must deal with that severely. Not only is that not how a free society functions, it is simply impossible to remove all the ways that people can hurt each other.
Your post has a built-in contradiction, you say:Quote:
it was the irresponsible use of mind altering drugs that caused the problem.
Well, if that's correct, then the issue is not the drugs, or the availability of drugs. I agree with you 100%, by the way. The issue is that people behaved irresponsibly and made negligent and harmful choices. This is the fundamental issue. That is also way you can't prevent it from happening, because people can make those decisions that are harmful to others in millions of ways: driving recklessly, locking fire escape doors, misusing constuction equipment, dumping chemicals, whatever. It is *impossible* to remove the *opportunity* to harm other people. We shouldn't try, because we are simply deluding ourselves and giving ourselves the illusion of security. Instead, we should accept that life is fundamentally insecure. There are dangerous things in the world and people MUST be entrusted with those dangerous things in order to have a functioning society. The way to do that is to hold people accountable for treating others negligently or harmfully.
Of course, getting high and stepping into a car is a BAD THING. Sitting at home alone and getting high is a GOOD THING, as far as many people are concerned (funny I have such strong opinions because I don't even do this personally). A free society is based on the notion that we do not have the right to interfere with the second activity, only the first.
Arguments based on the notion that the second activity (getting high alone at home) harms others because of the expense to the medical or welfare system are not well reasoned. In a true free society, one should be able to opt out of these programs. We are not given this option.
Quote:
Correct. I believe that man is inherintly flawed, meaning my view of man's nature is quite low.
This is the fundamental justification for tyranny.
You see, I think you believe more than that. I think that you believe that man's nature is quite low, and therefore they can not be entrusted to determine what is best for themselves. You seem to believe that you must do that, using the force of police and the mechanism of politics.
In a free society, people are left to determine for themselves what is a GOOD THING, and act on it however they choose -- with only a single limitation: they must not endager or harm others while doing so.
Even if you are right, and man is inherently immoral, in a free society that is nobody's business but his own. And if that is true, by the way, where do these laws come from? They are developed by men. How can an "inherintly flawed" man come up with these moral rules?
Well, he can't. So we need to leave that to the individual -- as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.
Quote:
There are plenty of things that I think should be legal even though I personally hold them to be wrong and immoral.
Can we agree, idealogically, that sitting at home alone and getting drunk is one of these things? If we can, how about getting high with other substances? How are these two things ANY different, from a moral and idealogical point of view?
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272502 - 20/12/2005 01:38
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: jimhogan]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
I just couldn't find a way to villainize the doc.
Good points. I didn't intend to villianize the doc. My point is that the doctor exists within a corrupt and immoral system which puts his interests at odds with mine.
Your point about the optometry is a great point. It is illegal for someone to sell me contact lenses after 1 year from my last optometry visit. This is just more insanity. Its also an obvious scam and used to line the pockets of the eyewear companies. It also creates an artifical market so people need to pay close to $100 for a stupid little 15 minute eye test. What choice do we have?
How is it that this doesn't seem to bother people?
Do you guys in this thread who are arguing in support of the system really believe that these laws were passed in our best interest?!?! The patient's interest is simply an excuse. The reality is that special interests lobby for these laws, and since we've already voluntarily given up so much of our freedoms, we accept this nonsense about it being for our own good.
Well, I say, "thank you, but I'll decide what is for my own good."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272503 - 20/12/2005 06:02
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Even if it were true, I believe it is nobody's business but my own if I choose to lead a self-destructive life.
Oooh, I don't know. On the whole, I tend to agree with your suggestions, particularly about people taking responsibility for their actions, but I do have a few insurance premiums that seem to prove otherwise, on this particular point. It's one of the arguments that I've heard from pro-smokers -- I have the right to kill myself if I want. Only problem is that your right to do this costs the nation (and thus, me, through my high taxes) millions of dollars a year in health (and other) costs. It's true that your individual efforts cause a negligible amount of problems/costs for others, but all the individuals, collectively, have a tendency to add up.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272504 - 20/12/2005 07:32
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
They only cost you millions of dollars because you choose to offer state funded medical benefits to smokers. Personal responsibility, in my book, means just that: nobody else is going to foot the bill.
Like I said, your argument might be more valid if I could opt out of all these programs and smoke myself to death. Then, people who chose to participate in all of those expensive programs you mention would need to comply with requirements of participation.
That's always the deal: you get someone else to take care of you, but then you need to do what they say.
Well, you don't need to provide those social programs to people who are unwilling to comply with your requirements. The only problem is that I'm unable to opt out. You (not you personally, but the society) object to spending millions on services that I don't want, and then use it as an excuse to control my behavior. That doesn't make any sense!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272505 - 20/12/2005 12:50
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I don't think that the substances "cause" them to act in dangerous ways. I think that people act in irrational and dangerous ways, and then blame the substances for their behavior.
Do you believe that all people who act irrational and dangerous on a bad trip are equally as irrational and dangerous when they are not tripping? I certainly don’t think so.
Quote:
This is akin to "blaming the gun". Well, to quote an old cliche, I think it is absolutely true that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Our society blames the gun, or the drug, or whatever. In doing so, we fail to hold people accountable as responsible moral agents. It isn't the person's fault, it's the drug's fault. I think this is hogwash, because the decison to use the drug is voluntary.
I think this is a good analogy- problem is my view is the same. I think that to own a gun, people should demonstrate they understand how to use one and can be responsible with it. Guns make people more dangerous to others, as do drugs. It makes sense to me in both cases that we put protections in place to ensure that they are both used properly by responsible people who can handle them without hurting others.
Quote:
Your post has a built-in contradiction
Sorry- I don’t see a contradiction. I said that taking the drug irresponisbly was the cause and I believe it is. Since this is an issue that affects other people, this is an area in which the government should do as much as possible to ensure responsible actions.
Quote:
That is also way you can't prevent it from happening, because people can make those decisions that are harmful to others in millions of ways: driving recklessly, locking fire escape doors, misusing constuction equipment, dumping chemicals, whatever. It is *impossible* to remove the *opportunity* to harm other people.
I think all of these, or most at least, are violations of the law- and for good reason.
Quote:
Sitting at home alone and getting high is a GOOD THING, as far as many people are concerned (funny I have such strong opinions because I don't even do this personally).
Unless your altered state then helps you decide to get in a car or do something else even worse. What do you think about people going on bad trips with infants in the house?
Quote:
Quote:
Correct. I believe that man is inherintly flawed, meaning my view of man's nature is quite low.
This is the fundamental justification for tyranny.
I think that’s quite a leap- some may use it that way. I don’t believe my views are tyrannical.
Quote:
You see, I think you believe more than that. I think that you believe that man's nature is quite low, and therefore they can not be entrusted to determine what is best for themselves. You seem to believe that you must do that, using the force of police and the mechanism of politics.
On what basis do you think this? It seems to me my opinions in this thread have been fairly moderate. I have stated that I think unregulated use of drugs creates a danger to other people and therefore it probably needs some regulation from the government. I am not advocating creating laws so that other people live by my moral viewpoint, but I do want a safer world for my family and myself.
Quote:
In a free society, people are left to determine for themselves what is a GOOD THING, and act on it however they choose -- with only a single limitation: they must not endager or harm others while doing so.
Do you miss the point that I agree with this completely, only that I think the unregulated use of drugs is endangering to other people whereas you do not? That is our real point of contention.
I think most of our actions affect other people- there is very little we can do in total isolation. Even at that, we have to tolerate a great deal of negative effects from others in order to have even a semi-free society. The question is where we draw the line and what constitutes something dangerous enough that the government needs to step in.
Quote:
Even if you are right, and man is inherently immoral, in a free society that is nobody's business but his own. And if that is true, by the way, where do these laws come from? They are developed by men. How can an "inherintly flawed" man come up with these moral rules?
Immoral, not amoral. Often we know what is right; we just do something different.
As to where our moral rules came from, there are two answers to this question- either they were put in our nature by God (C.S. Lewis uses this as one of his arguments for faith in his book “Mere Christianity”) or they were the result of evolution- those with the morals that have endured tend to live longer and procreate more. I subscribe to the first answer, obviously.
Quote:
Quote:
There are plenty of things that I think should be legal even though I personally hold them to be wrong and immoral.
Can we agree, idealogically, that sitting at home alone and getting drunk is one of these things? If we can, how about getting high with other substances? How are these two things ANY different, from a moral and idealogical point of view?
Well most of the time you aren’t going to be busted for abusing drugs sitting at home. If you are truly in an isolated environment where you aren’t going to hurt anything, then you can do whatever you like to yourself- and it seems this is the way it all works out practically anyway. Getting high with an infant in the house is a different story, though. There are also different degrees of controlled substances. Alcohol and Marijuana are both probably pretty innocuous in these situations (unless you then decide you are fit to drive). LSD and other, more powerful drugs can lead to more dangerous results.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272506 - 20/12/2005 14:12
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Would all of this irritate you as much if everything involved was state-sponsored? (And, for the moment, put aside your obvious libertarian politics.) What I'm getting at is that, if this was a "perfect" world and all of this (the doctor's visit, the drug itself, etc.) had no cost, financial or temporal, to anyone, would you still be as irritated? That is, is it the fact that you have to rely on a doctor or the fact that it's a money-making scheme? You seem to be vascillating on that issue. I can understand that it might be both for you, but, generally speaking, people get worked up over a specific reason and then find other (legitimate) reasons to back up their stance. I want to know which it is for you.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272507 - 20/12/2005 19:59
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Good question. Its needing to appeal (and submit) to authority to get what I think is best for myself that I have a problem with. The financial consideration is actually not that important to me, but I think it is a problem that arises when these kinds of systems are put in place. I think that people who may disagree that I should be the "soverign of my body" might agree with the other negative conseqences, like the financial conflict of interest.
I *suppose* I would be considered a libertarian, but I can't get behind the Libertarian (capital L) party. For one thing, I think the society should see to the education of its people. There are many other specific reasons. The big-L Libertarians tend to be a bit distant from what one might call "Jeffersonian liberalism" or "classical liberalism" ala David Hume, which I think is spot on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272508 - 20/12/2005 20:08
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
On what basis do you think this? It seems to me my opinions in this thread have been fairly moderate. I have stated that I think unregulated use of drugs creates a danger to other people and therefore it probably needs some regulation from the government. I am not advocating creating laws so that other people live by my moral viewpoint, but I do want a safer world for my family and myself.
I'm working on a longer reply to your careful and well-reasoned post. I just wanted to point out that I intend none of my arguments as "ad hominem" attack. Really, nothing personal. Also, I agree that your opinions have been really moderate. I also think you are open to reconsidering your views.
I want you to know that I am open to reconsidering my views. I've thought through the issue a great deal, and I have (to me) good reasons for my position. I know that you do, too. First, though, we need to reach the point where we are sure that we understand each other's point of view.
For many years, I was as adamantly anti-captial punishment as I am on this issue (for some pretty good reasons, if I do say so myself). While I still believe those reasons are valid, and I am opposed to capital punishment in almost every situation, I read an opinion by a California judge some years ago that made me see that it is necessary, in some cases. Not to derail this thread, but this judge was himself an anti-capital punishment judge -- who ordered the death penalty. His reasons were pretty compelling...
Anyhow, I've got to run to the bank, so my reply to all of your points is going to have to wait. I wanted to post right away to let you know how much I appreciate the open, honest, and civil exchange! Many people think these conversations are not worthwhile because "nobody is going to change their mind." I don't think that's true. While I don't think you and I are going to totally agree on this topic, the discussion forces both of us to really consider our points of view and think through the problem.
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272509 - 20/12/2005 20:36
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I think that the crux of the biscuit is: Should the government protect people from their own dumbassery? And an important part of that determination is whether or not that dumbassery affects others, or if the dumbassery is incidental to any effect that might be forced upon others. The latter I'm more comfortable with personally, and I'd say no. I'm reasonably against anti-drug laws, as I think they cause more harm than good. Lots of people probably went blind during prohibition for drinking wood alcohol because they had no verification that what they were drinking was what it was supposed to be. But now that alcohol is legal again, virtually no one turns to moonshiners and the government can make sure that what people are selling is not dangerous. I feel like more people are hurt by drug impurities than by the drugs themselves. If we could remove the baby laxatives, powdered milk, and talcum powder from heroin or at least make the purity level known, for example, I think there would be fewer deaths. (This is an extreme example, of course.) And a good way to do that would be to make them legal and start regulating them, for accurate content labelling, if nothing else. In other words, not only do I think that people should be responsible for their own actions and allowed to be responsible for them, I also think that the government should provide a way for people to be responsible within the context of allowing them to what they want. In the context of doctors and legitimate prescriptions (as opposed to recreational drugs), I think this means that the government should continue to license medical doctors so that you have the ability to get expert advice, but they probably should not restrict those drugs, either. But, in the context of my argument, that makes you a dumbass for not seeing your doctor in ten years.  But then does that mean that the government should spend resources to help people who choose to be irresponsible anyway? Unfortunately, I'd say yes. There should be some penalty for those people after they've been helped, but we cannot allow them to rot. Perhaps these people should be required to seek the government's responsibility so as to not affect the wellbeing of others. That brings us back to moonshiners and whatever non-taxed recreational drug makers would be called. But I think that that market is likely to be small enough that it would be relatively insignificant. The paradox in all of this is that if you want a large margin of freedom for most citizens, but restictions on those who'd screw it up for the rest of us requires a very large and potentially dictatorial government. In order to mark those people that need government restrictions, you end up marking everyone else, too. And the potential for abuse becomes higher. So the thing that makes a free yet healthy society work is the very thing that makes a tyrannical society work. It just has to be used differently.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272510 - 21/12/2005 12:25
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Bitt, I think that was a great post, and I think we agree about where the issue is. I think the current system isn't working, nor do I think simply legalizing drugs without accountability would be a good thing either. Some sort of legalizing with regulation seems to be a better approach, but it'd be a tough nut to crack, especially with some of the more extreme drugs. I really like your statement: Quote:
In other words, not only do I think that people should be responsible for their own actions and allowed to be responsible for them, I also think that the government should provide a way for people to be responsible within the context of allowing them to what they want.
Just in general that rings true to me, though like many things its easier said than done.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272511 - 21/12/2005 12:38
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I wanted to post right away to let you know how much I appreciate the open, honest, and civil exchange! Many people think these conversations are not worthwhile because "nobody is going to change their mind." I don't think that's true. While I don't think you and I are going to totally agree on this topic, the discussion forces both of us to really consider our points of view and think through the problem.
I've enjoyed it too, and I also appreciate the civility of this thread.
While I think it unlikely that I'd support the blanket legalization of drugs without some government oversite, I am very interested in ideas to change the current situation, especially as it relates to healthcare.
You know something else that really gets my blood boiling? When a doctor prescribes a non-generic and you fill the perscription but the the insurance won't pay. And at that point you can't get the generic because it wasn't perscribed so you're stuck either forgoing the medicine or paying a lot of money when you've already paid for perfectly good insurance. I'm sorry, but when I'm sick and go to my doctor, the last thing on my mind is trying to make sure he perscribes generics when they're available. We ought to have some way to downgrade a perscription to a generic (or some other solutin), because while it's all fun and games for the doctor and insurance company, there are people who are really sick or in pain not getting their medication.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272512 - 21/12/2005 12:50
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
For many years, I was as adamantly anti-captial punishment as I am on this issue (for some pretty good reasons, if I do say so myself). While I still believe those reasons are valid, and I am opposed to capital punishment in almost every situation, I read an opinion by a California judge some years ago that made me see that it is necessary, in some cases. Not to derail this thread, but this judge was himself an anti-capital punishment judge -- who ordered the death penalty. His reasons were pretty compelling...
If you remember what the case was, I'd like to read it. I used to be pro-death-penalty (a dead person will commit no crimes) but I came around to the value of life.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index