Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Terry Maloney who wrote (225134)	2/6/2022 1:06:52 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354594

>> i-node seems to think that if you can afford it that's great, they'll keep your brain alive in a jar if they can, but most of us up here agree with Laura Nyro about going naturally. I actually would support a better system, which is why I opposed Obamacare. I could see clearly it was a terrible piece of law. The primary downside has been the decline in R&D which has cost lives the world over. But no one really notices it except when they're paying at the drugsore for new molecules. Your comment fails here: "Citizens have a right to whatever health care they may need, within certain limits. A few new, experimental or extremely costly drugs may not be covered, and an eighty year old smoker is unlikely to get a double lung transplant, but for almost all necessary medical procedures the answer is yes." You cannot define what you will and won't pay for. The idea that you penalize smokers is stupid, patently. Smokers are not a monolith. I smoked for decades when I was young. Quit many years ago. Am I in or out of the club? Besides, you cannot discern whether lung cancer is caused by smoking. My best friend has it and AFAIK, never smoked a day in his life. How is that different from deciding who gets treated for Type II diabetes or Black Lung disease or hepatitis or AIDS? We really do not do that. Morever, it is a stupid thing to do. In the 80s, many people suffered from what was then believed by many to be a "behavioral problem" (what many today foolishly believe drug addiction is). There was nothing to do be done about this problem -- "depression" -- short of life altering medications and even shock treatments. Along came a new drug, Prozac, that for many, solved that problem. Overnight. Problem was, it was expensive at $1/day (that was a lot back then). Over time, it was discovered it saved lives. Ultimately, the patent ran out and it became generic. And today, someone who is dead broke can afford to be treated with Prozac. People in third-world countries can be as well. It is a lifesaver, that is dirt cheap. Drug manufacturers have to set prices high early on to recover development costs. Over time, those drugs become cheaper and affordable for all. Most drug companies provide ways to assist the poor in getting necessary drugs. I've worked in a good number of medical oncology clinics, and most of them today have counselor whose function it is to find ways to help patients get the meds they need. One day, those meds will be less expensive for the next generations. These are complex issues. But when you start rationing as we are now seeing with Covid treatment, it is an inhumane barrier that should not be broken. At this moment we have a cop dying in this country because he refused vaccination. No evidence that refusal had ANYTING to do with his impending death -- what killed this cop was a refusal of the hospital to treat him. FUCKING DAVID CROSBY GOT TWO LIVER TRANSPLANTS BECAUSE HIS FIRST TWO LIVERS WERE BURNED UP ON DRUG ABUST. But that's okay. He's a great entertainer. The problems with your comment are broadbased and have extensive reach. Perhaps you don't grasp it or maybe humanity isn't your thing. But you should re-think this position.

To: Terry Maloney who wrote (225134)	2/6/2022 2:10:41 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 354594

if there's an inherent understanding of that framework, I for one am not aware of it Thank you for your thoughtful response. most of us think of it as merely a practical way of paying for and administrating health care IMO the advocates in the US would be well advised to pitch it from a pragmatic perspective and quit framing it as a right. The US is inherently resistant to welfare programs let alone contrived rights from progressive countries. ...ever more advanced technologies are developed to keep ever more frail elderly patients alive. Yes, that's a real problem in the US. Way too much deity and way too little common sense. It has gotten better, though. Hospice is more prevalent and there are a few more right to die states. But it's an uphill fight. Back during the development of Obamacare there was a lot of talk about "death panels," the British version in particular, a situation that is inherent in socialized medicine where your aged smoker doesn't get his lung transplant. Of course, that happens anyway but the government doing it rather than the transplant managers in the medical system is anathema. I don't know how the US advocates can get past that, particularly now since the pandemic culture schism. how is it that your Constitution allows the government to tell you to go die in Vietnam, The Constitution gives the federal government the authority to raise armies. The Supreme Court affirmed that. The Constitution doesn't say anything about supplying insulin to individuals. The framers would never have entertained the notion, not even in a drug induced fantasy.