NationStates Jolt Archive

Having had a lot of discussions about healthcare, I have revisited my ideas about how it should be provided.

It basically breaks down into 3 basic premises-
1) more self-reliance
2) no company provided benefits
3) better doctors an fewer lawyers


1) self-reliance

I strongly object to needing a doctor to write me a prescription for everything – I can read a physician’s desk reference just as well as my general practitioner can and my father certainly knows more about the biochemical pharmacology. So why can’t we just go to any pharmacy and pickup what we might need?

The restriction of narcotics and other highly addictive substances is of obvious benefit, but unless it is highly addictive, I see little reason for keeping people from getting what medications they want (there are arguments for not restricting the addictive ones as well, but lets leave that for another thread). People should be able to take a little personal responsibility – if you know what you need you should be able to get it. You should only have to see a doctor if you need a diagnosis. Worst case, a pharmacologist could ask you a quick question on the more dangerous drugs and possibly suggest something else.

Being able to get what you need, when you need it, will reduce the need to visit the doctor just to get written approval to get what you already know you need. This is by no means a majority of visits, but it will help reduce the strain. If I make a mistake or continue overmedicating, that is my own fault. The FDA should not exist to treat people like children.


2) no company benefits.

Before you all start on the flame-ridden diatribe, actually take the time to read and process what I am saying.

Currently, we have a major distortion in markets. Company provided benefits are tax deductible while private plans are not. This is highly discriminatory against those who do not work for a company providing benefits and distorts the costs involved. Company plans provide a collective bargaining power which allows them to negotiate for lower prices, which shifts some of the burden onto those who must purchase it individually. Additionally, it being a tax write-off makes those company plans less price sensitive that it would otherwise be. This raises the costs of healthcare and shifts it disproportionately onto those who do not get company provided benefits.

Employer provided benefits also shifts companies to focus very narrowly on short-term solutions. Given that most people only stay with a company for a few years, insurance companies have no incentive to focus on long-term benefits. Preventative care is largely ignored and care is more focused on quick-fixes rather than on something which may be higher cost, but have better long-term benefits.

Everyone having individual health insurance would bring better incentives into play. Companies would be more likely to retain customers for greater portions of someone’s lifetime, making preventative care very attractive as they have to pay for long-term effects. Companies would also have to work to attract individuals to choose that particular firm – they would have to compete for customers like any other industry. Market forces would force them to provide better service at better prices – no longer would they be able to just placate the company executives and piss off the individual.


3) better doctors and fewer lawyers

Legal costs massively inflate the cost of healthcare. This sue-happy society makes it very difficult to be a doctor these days; we need massive tort reform to bring down costs.

Lawsuits should be limited to damages only, no multi-million dollar punitive awards which only attract people who see lawsuits as a ‘get-rich-quick’ plan. Even then you should have to prove gross negligence or incompetence. Capable doctors are not miracle workers and cannot save everyone or restore the worst injuries to being as good as new. If a doctor is proven to have been negligent or incompetent, the punitive part is having their medical license revoked and thus being barred from practicing medicine.

The flip-side to this legal protection is the need for better policing of the medical community. Doctors need to have some oversight and peer-review of their work on a regular basis. When you go into a hospital, ask any nurse who the good doctors are and who is incompetent, they know exactly who they would want working on their family. If doctors were better screened and the bad doctors purged (or at least restricted to doing less critical work in the questionable cases) there would be far fewer legitimate lawsuits, and thus still lower costs.

There is also the cost of unnecessary tests and procedures doctors carry out because the consumer is fairly price-insensitive and one more test might mean the difference between being negligent and doubly sure. Without having to worry about potential lawsuits if they do not conduct every test imaginable, doctors would have less incentive to order unnecessary tests and thus bring down costs.

--------------------------------------

On a completely separate note (which people are welcome to disregard and just reply to the previous text) there is another more morally questionable way to reduce costs even further. Letting people die. If I am faced with a couple months of pain and misery, I should have the option of death on my own terms. Most medical resources people consume are in the last 6 months of life, so allowing people to die when they want would save a lot of resources.

The really controversial slippery slope would be doctors simply not treating lost causes. If someone has no brain left (such as with Terri Schiavo) they should be euthanized. Likewise, if heroic measures would give someone another couple days of life, one has to rationally ask if those couple days are worth what would be spent on it. Since a lot of you are going to be screaming about that one, just think of it not in terms of millions of dollars (the irrational and inaccurate ‘you cant put a price on life’ argument), but in terms of opportunity costs. Those medical resources could be used to treat others. How many children must suffer a lifetime of debilitation or death to extend your life by a day?

Not all that bad of a proposal. It involves some serious reforms in areas which could greatly benefit from such reform.

I especially like proposals one and three.

So... you're supporting universal healthcare? :D In addition to letting people have access to medicine without a prescription, which is an excellent idea. People can make their own decisions.

Sounds like a well tought-through plan to seriously reduce the population of the USA within a couple of years. Well done.

you didn't think this through much did you?

Don't have time for a long response.... but:

1) We restrict access because many medicines would be overused if we did not. Bacteria adapt to medicine, so the more we use that medicine, the higher the chance that a fully resistant strain will emerge.

2) While we're at it, we can return to the era of union busting too? Got your pinkertons ready?

3) Insurance rates increase with or without tort reform. The rise in malpractice insurance is disproportionate to the rise in lawsuit cost. Tort reform would only allow the bad 5% of doctors responsible for a massive majority of malpractice cases to get off lightly.

We need restricted acces to medications as people will tend to over-use them. Narcotics are a controlled substance because of this and the fact that over-use has HUGE health risks. Not everybody will follow the directions on the bottle. If you are in pain you will take something for it..nevermind the fact that you just took one an hour ago. And then you will be wondering why you are in the ER getting your stomach pumped. Yes alot of people do this even when its a script..but most will follow the directions so they will last up until the script expiration date (and then can get it renewed).

Having peer reviews can be very biased though. That is the problem with that. You can ask different nurses who is the best and worst and most likely you will come up with one saying one doc is the best and another is the worst..and ask another nurse and they will say the opposite.

(n the case of "lost causes"..letting people die is not the doc's choice..no matter what. It is the family's.

I do agree that if it is your will to be euthanized..you should be able to have it done.

Sorry if this reply seems out of wack..I am tired.. lol

1. Would leave it opened for a wide spread abuse of medications...

2. I don't consider the tax deductibles to be discriminatory, I consider it to be more of an incentive for businesses to start offering Health Insurance...

3. I'm hungry and am going to make me some Ramen Noodles for lunch...

I'm sorry, but I live in a world where people are fucking morons. I'm not sure where YOU live, but I certainly would like to visit this land of people who read directions and follow them, have a certain amount of intelligence to their name, and are all avid biochemists with a vast knowledge of how differing medicines work when taken with other medicines.

1-insanity

2-private insurance on top of public insurance is a good thing, basic quality of healthcare must be universal, nothing wrong with a group pooling their resources for the extra frills ie dental, vision(eyeware) and such

3-better minimum standards for doctors will reduce the number lawsuits.

-yes-people should have the right to die when they wish with the doctors assistance if need be, the option taken by many in my family...

euthanasia-there needs to be a protocol for such things when requested by a family

1. Bad idea. Self reliance is good, but that was the last part that made sense. Seeing a doc before self-medicating is a good idea because he may uncover another cause to the symptom. Buying antibiotics isn't like buying aspirin.

2. Bad idea. Give citizens the ability to take the same tax breaks that companies have. Make shopping for health insurance more like shopping for auto insurance. Let me pick the coverages and limits. Make health insurance more like insurance, rather than the health care plan that it is now. It should be used for unexpected losses -- not babies, Viagra, and laser eye surgery.

3. Close -- Loser pays is the way to go.

2. Bad idea. Give citizens the ability to take the same tax breaks that companies have. Make shopping for health insurance more like shopping for auto insurance. Let me pick the coverages and limits. Make health insurance more like insurance, rather than the health care plan that it is now. It should be used for unexpected losses -- not babies, Viagra, and laser eye surgery.


babies-absolutely, poor prenatal care has detrimental effects for long term health of the unborn and the mother

Viagra-yes impotence is a health problem like any other, mental health is equal to physical health

laser eye surgery-agreed unless eye glasses are no longer an option...

babies-absolutely, poor prenatal care has detrimental effects for long term health of the unborn and the mother

Viagra-yes impotence is a health problem like any other, mental health is equal to physical health


babies-Thats why we have abortion. I'm sorry but if some whore wants to have 12 children she 's paying for it, not me.

viagra-thats an interesting argument. Not being a doctor, I would want to know what the medical community has to say about it.

babies-Thats why we have abortion. I'm sorry but if some whore wants to have 12 children she 's paying for it, not me.

viagra-thats an interesting argument. Not being a doctor, I would want to know what the medical community has to say about it.

not all babies are planned, incest, rape, and if only the rich can afford abortions the poor are being forced into even deeper poverty when they can't pay for an abortion...of course I can't deny they shouldn't have taken precautions but not everyone is that bright and denying the lazy or stupid abortions just worsens the problem...

viagra...imagine being in you're mid 20's and no longer being able to have sex how would that effect you're mental health? depression, suicide are mental health issues no different than physical ailments...quality of life is a mental health issue; happy mind=healthy body

The problems with your first point have already been pointed out, and I can't really comment on the second, but the third point is the fault of your silly legal system, and not healthcare itself.

I strongly object to needing a doctor to write me a prescription for everything – I can read a physician’s desk reference just as well as my general practitioner can and my father certainly knows more about the biochemical pharmacology. So why can’t we just go to any pharmacy and pickup what we might need?

If you can't answer that yourself, I can't be bothered to read the rest of your gibberish.

I like a good deal of what you have to say.

1.) Sounds like a good idea. I don't think people would be rushing out to grab as many drugs as possible and shove them down the throat if this were changed. I know I would still go to my doctor before buying any kind of drug.

2.) I agree, the tax system has utterly screwed up the price system of healthcare and eliminated many incentives and disincentives that would make the system work better.

3.) Loser pays should be applied generally to law, so that people aren't terrified of lawsuits and take ridiculously expensive measures just to protect themselves. However, I do not agree with your proposition of regulation. In this kind of system, the doctors would be naturally inclined to defend each other at the expense of the consumer- that's what we have already with the AMA. Instead, the market should be the regulator of the healthcare sector- bad or incompetent doctors would be sued and punished, and good doctors would be rewarded. Not to mention that people wouldn't go to "Dr. Joe's Clinic and Sportsbar," but would take more care to research who they are paying for.

1.) Sounds like a good idea. I don't think people would be rushing out to grab as many drugs as possible and shove them down the throat if this were changed. I know I would still go to my doctor before buying any kind of drug.


Yeah, it's not like there are such things as addicts who are physically and psychologically addicted to addicting drugs or anything.

For fuck's sake people, laws are being passed to limit and investigate peoples' purchases of cough syrup due to creation of meth.

I can agree with point #1 up to a point. There are some drugs that the public can't be trusted not to abuse- narcotics and antibiotics have been mentioned.

But if I sign an informed consent waiver why can't I get birth control pills or a decongestant without seeing a doctor? I'm sorry, but people should be allowed to and in fact encouraged to think for themselves. And the uninsured- a shockingly large preportion of Americans- can't afford to see a doctor for everything.

1# I disagree with. Theft and abuse of prescription drugs is a serious problem and that's WITH the safeguard of the prescription process. I agree that people ought to be able to get what they need without a lot of hassle, but in this case, I think there's good reason.

Consider this: Big drug companies are in it for the money, friends, not for the humanitarian reasoning. Think of the lengths tobacco companies will go to to get their product out there and people hooked on it. How long before we see the same sort of stupidity with morphene and so forth?

Also, never underestimate the human capacity for stupidity. You and I know perfectly well that you can't treat a viral infection with an antibiotic, but there are plenty of people out there who swear up and down that you can, and given access to antibiotics, will try. That's bad for the rest of us because it will severely accelerate the bacterial resistance to what we have available.

#2 I agree with in principle, although I might go about it differently. Managed Health Care is a serious problem, one that nearly cost my mom her life a few years ago. Cost becomes more important than results. How to lower costs? Well, firstly doctors and insurance companies ought to take a stand against the drug companies and medical supply companies and force them to lower prices. 35,000 dollars for a machine the size of a TV set is not a fair price, and you won't convince me that it cost tens of throusands of dollars to produce. Know why Canadian drugs are so cheap? because the drug companies can gouge us here in the US because insurance companies will pay whatever they're told to, if the doctor deems the procedure/treatment medically necessary or face a lawsuit.

#3 I agree with completely. in my home state of Maryland it's getting harder and harder to find a doctor because many of them are leaving the state. Why? Because massive lawsuits are driving the price of malpractice insurance beyond the ability of the doctors to afford. When it costs $175 to go in and have the doctor tell you that yes, indeed you do have the flu, then there's a very serious problem. Whether you pay that out of pocket or its covered by insurance, that's a stupidly high amount to pay for 2 minutes of the doctor's time. (Yes, 2 minutes.)

babies-absolutely, poor prenatal care has detrimental effects for long term health of the unborn and the mother

Viagra-yes impotence is a health problem like any other, mental health is equal to physical health

laser eye surgery-agreed unless eye glasses are no longer an option...

See, here's where you are insisting we buy health care plans, instead of insurance. The difference may seem subtle, but what we really need is a way to insure that a catastrophic health problem doesn't leave us destitute. We don't need a plan to care for every cough and cold. Children should only be born into families that can afford them and that includes the pre-natal, natal, and post-natal care.

Let's expand on your Viagra nonsense, too. What if wearing glasses or contact lenses makes me feel bad? Should I get my all my co-workers, via my insurance company, to pay for an operation? According to your logic, that would be necessary.

I can agree with point #1 up to a point. There are some drugs that the public can't be trusted not to abuse- narcotics and antibiotics have been mentioned.

Why can't the public be trusted. Before 1914, 1.3% of America was addicted to drugs. Today, with many more laws and drugs, 1.3% of the population is addicted. See for yourself at www.leap.cc

But if I sign an informed consent waiver why can't I get birth control pills or a decongestant without seeing a doctor? I'm sorry, but people should be allowed to and in fact encouraged to think for themselves. And the uninsured- a shockingly large preportion of Americans- can't afford to see a doctor for everything.

YES! and with less government regulations, health care would be cheaper!

Yeah, it's not like there are such things as addicts who are physically and psychologically addicted to addicting drugs or anything.

They'll find a way to get the drugs anyway, if they're truly addicted, and then we have a lovely criminal blackmarket. You can't just wave a magic wand and think regulations will cure people's addictions. It's ultimately up to the people, not the state.

For fuck's sake people, laws are being passed to limit and investigate peoples' purchases of cough syrup due to creation of meth.

It's wonderful that the government increases its control over innocent people who have absolutely nothing to do with meth in its vain attempts to stop drug abuse. But what the government fails to realize is that its actions exacerbate the problem, instead of fixing it.

I did specify that my removing the requirement for a prescription did not apply to addictive or dangerous drugs. I see no reason why a doctor visit is required when you know exactly what you need. This is especially true in repeat prescriptions for chronic problems. Either people can be trusted to pay attention to what they take or they are so stupid then need to be coddled through life. I happen to be an optimist who thinks people will not go batshit crazy swallowing every pill they can get their hands on just because they can.

If there are some individuals who are so amazingly stupid they cannot figure out taking massive doses of estrogen will not cure a toothache, then that is their problem. It should not inconvenience the vast majority of the population who can function on at least a basic level.

I personally believe the whole ‘war on drugs’ is an absolute failure. Vast sums are being spent on a rather pointless and futile attempt to keep people from having what they want (here is a hint: you will never shut down an industry making a 3000% profit). When cocaine, morphine, and marijuana were prevalent in our society we were not a nation of incompetent junkies. Most people are actually competent and responsible enough to look after ourselves. Alas, there is this terrible meme that has promulgated which states that everyone is functionally no more mature than a 2 year old and should constantly be watched over by big brother. But that is getting a little off topic I suppose…

The point is that the vast majority of people are sufficiently competent to be able to follow basic directions on the label of prescription drugs, so I see no reason why they could not be just as competent when it comes to reading the basic directions on the label when they don’t require a prescription.

They'll find a way to get the drugs anyway, if they're truly addicted, and then we have a lovely criminal blackmarket. You can't just wave a magic wand and think regulations will cure people's addictions. It's ultimately up to the people, not the state.



It's wonderful that the government increases its control over innocent people who have absolutely nothing to do with meth in its vain attempts to stop drug abuse. But what the government fails to realize is that its actions exacerbate the problem, instead of fixing it.

There is almost nothing I trust the the government to do well, for this very reason. The problem really becomes compounded because then the government tries to fix the new problems and so on. This is not who we want to manage our health care.

I did specify that my removing the requirement for a prescription did not apply to addictive or dangerous drugs. I see no reason why a doctor visit is required when you know exactly what you need. This is especially true in repeat prescriptions for chronic problems. Either people can be trusted to pay attention to what they take or they are so stupid then need to be coddled through life. I happen to be an optimist who thinks people will not go batshit crazy swallowing every pill they can get their hands on just because they can.

there are OTC medications for things that are easily self diagnosed. If you have a chronic problem surely you need to be under the care of a doctor. You may think you can diagnose yourself and adjust your medications accordingly, but most people can't.

They'll find a way to get the drugs anyway, if they're truly addicted, and then we have a lovely criminal blackmarket. You can't just wave a magic wand and think regulations will cure people's addictions. It's ultimately up to the people, not the state.


I'm done. The insinuation that people should just be able to write and fill their own prescriptions is so ludicrous I don't see how no one else is calling you out on it. Everyone here disappoints me.

there are OTC medications for things that are easily self diagnosed. If you have a chronic problem surely you need to be under the care of a doctor. You may think you can diagnose yourself and adjust your medications accordingly, but most people can't.

I agree with Smunkee. After all, most people think they're above-average drivers, too.

I'm done. The insinuation that people should just be able to write and fill their own prescriptions is so ludicrous I don't see how no one else is calling you out on it. Everyone here disappoints me.

Well, your lack of argument disappoints me too, so I guess we're even. :)

I agree with Smunkee. After all, most people think they're above-average drivers, too.

exactly.

I suggest everyone who thinks they can self diagnose go over to this (http://wrongdiagnosis.com/symptomcenter.htm) site, see what you come up with. haha.

I was misdiagnosed for 11 years by doctors, who went to medical school, I really don't expect an average Joe on the street to be able to diagnose anything.

YES! and with less government regulations, health care would be cheaper!

not that i want to be dragged into this topic again at this time, public systems have proved to be less expensive than private insurance and deliver better quality care...the USA is well down the list for quality of health care among industrialized countries while also being the most expensive...you'll dispute that of course and I'm not going to provide you any links to my sources, if you want to know the facts you'll do the research yourself...

See, here's where you are insisting we buy health care plans, instead of insurance. The difference may seem subtle, but what we really need is a way to insure that a catastrophic health problem doesn't leave us destitute. We don't need a plan to care for every cough and cold.

I don't insist you buy anything I don't care what you do but I do know what works...I don't buy any health care directly, the government does that for me with my tax dollars and to get extra benefits I pay private insurance to help with dental bills and other things not covered by the public system. I cannot be left destitute by illness nor can I ever be left without insurance, I'm covered by the public system from the day I'm born till the day I die...

Children should only be born into families that can afford them and that includes the pre-natal, natal, and post-natal care.that's just weird and discriminatory you can't legislate the right to have children to the rich only...


Let's expand on your Viagra nonsense, too. What if wearing glasses or contact lenses makes me feel bad? Should I get my all my co-workers, via my insurance company, to pay for an operation? According to your logic, that would be necessary.you're making a ludicrous comparison...Viagra and laser eye surgery aren't comparable, hence here Viagra is covered but not laser eye surgery ...mental health is much more than "feeling bad":rolleyes:

See, here's where you are insisting we buy health care plans, instead of insurance. So then you'd rather have separate transactions for health plans and health insurance?

1. Would leave it opened for a wide spread abuse of medications...
That's only really a problem where that misuse would cause wider harm (like antibiotics and antivirals). Their use needs to be restriced because their misuse is a danger to the population as a whole, but other drugs like antipsychotics, cholesterol medication, insulin - I don't really see the problem.

That's only really a problem where that misuse would cause wider harm (like antibiotics and antivirals). Their use needs to be restriced because their misuse is a danger to the population as a whole, but other drugs like antipsychotics, cholesterol medication, insulin - I don't really see the problem.
Because popping pills can lead to you being dropped into a 6ft deep hole.

Seriously, it's not the risk of addiction, but that many medications are toxic if mixed or taken without controls. Many times doctor care is just to make sure that in your pain, you're not ignoring the warnings about that.

Because popping pills can lead to you being dropped into a 6ft deep hole.

Seriously, it's not the risk of addiction, but that many medications are toxic if mixed or taken without controls. Many times doctor care is just to make sure that in your pain, you're not ignoring the warnings about that.

After looking at like responses like the one you replied to, we should have a 6 month "write and fill your own prescription period." Would obviously rid the world of alot of people who think they are medically smarter than some one who went to medical school.

After looking at like responses like the one you replied to, we should have a 6 month "write and fill your own prescription period." Would obviously rid the world of alot of people who think they are medically smarter than some one who went to medical school.
True, but we've only got so much space in the graveyards... ;)

1) With how high the cost of care is, simply pandering to absurd ideological terms like "self-reliance" is as dangerous as it is elitist. The regulations on prescription drugs exist to prevent hoarding and allow some means for those lesser off to have access to them.

2) Yay, let's curb stomp what left of health care in America. :rolleyes:

3) Malpractice is a very important check on doctor incompentance. That said, what I think we need is a national no-liability insurance system for doctors to pay for most problems that were not wanton doctor errors. It would cut costs of malpractice and other insurances, which means we can justify paying doctors less and could possibly hire more.

1) With how high the cost of care is, simply pandering to absurd ideological terms like "self-reliance" is as dangerous as it is elitist. The regulations on prescription drugs exist to prevent hoarding and allow some means for those lesser off to have access to them.

2) Yay, let's curb stomp what left of health care in America. :rolleyes:

3) Malpractice is a very important check on doctor incompentance. That said, what I think we need is a national no-liability insurance system for doctors to pay for most problems that were not wanton doctor errors. It would cut costs of malpractice and other insurances, which means we can justify paying doctors less and could possibly hire more.

Isn't this kind of limited by the available supply of doctors? When there are so many more applicants than there are seats in the med schools, I don't think we will ever reach a point where we can talk about hiring more and paying them less. Unless, of course, we want to hire the Canadian docs that are disillusioned with the great mistake that their country has made.

Whether or not drugs are prescribed or not, it seems like something of a false economy to say that drug preduction shouldn't be regulated. I know I want drugs I take to be scientifically and rigorously tested. How am I supposed to be assured of that if there isn't a powerful government presence making sure all testing is transparent and unbiased? I certainly think that if drug companies were given licence to cut corners, they wouldn't think twice. I also think the hoarding point is pretty good; most drugs are used by a rather small number of people, so the production lines aren't very large. It wouldn't be that difficult for a drug speculator to get control of a drug supply and hold the rest of the country to ransom.

Isn't this kind of limited by the available supply of doctors? When there are so many more applicants than there are seats in the med schools, I don't think we will ever reach a point where we can talk about hiring more and paying them less. Unless, of course, we want to hire the Canadian docs that are disillusioned with the great mistake that their country has made.

The reason why doctors can demand so much for their work is because of the high price of malpractice insurance. If you reduce the costs of insurance dramatically, you can pay doctors a whole lot less in absolute terms, but they'll still take home the same amount of money.

Besides the obvious problem with making all Rx's OTC is there are often underlying medical problems for your symptoms. Take Viagra for example: an all too common cause of impotence is cancer.

A cap on malpractice settlements would be a good start for affordable healthcare and mandatory for free healthcare.

If you want doctors to take a pay cut you also have to take a look at the exorbitant cost of medical school. Of course doctors want a return on their $100,000+ investment.

Whether or not drugs are prescribed or not, it seems like something of a false economy to say that drug preduction shouldn't be regulated. I know I want drugs I take to be scientifically and rigorously tested. How am I supposed to be assured of that if there isn't a powerful government presence making sure all testing is transparent and unbiased? I certainly think that if drug companies were given licence to cut corners, they wouldn't think twice. I also think the hoarding point is pretty good; most drugs are used by a rather small number of people, so the production lines aren't very large. It wouldn't be that difficult for a drug speculator to get control of a drug supply and hold the rest of the country to ransom.

I think you completely misunderstand what a prescription is - it basically is a permission slip written by a doctor that lets a person get the medications needed. No prescription, no medicine.

It has absolutely nothing to do with quality assurance of medications or with testing to determine the safety of said medications.

Hoarding is not a problem because to hoard with the intention of selling it later would assume that drug production would cease - or at least fall well below what is needed. Since the production line produces what is needed, the pharmaceutical companies would simply increase production to meet the additional demand of the hoarder, so there would only be that brief time between the hoarder buying the medication and production increasing, after which the hoarded drugs would be worth considerably less than what the hoarder paid for them. Not to mention medications do have a relatively short shelf-life so the hoarder would have to be fairly certain there would be a massive surge in demand beyond what everyone else was expecting within the next year.

Hoarding is a rather weak argument for keeping people from getting what they need when they need it without having to get an appointment and pay for a visit to a doctor or forcing them to go to the emergency room.

1 = guess what? most people are stupid. stupid people + free reign at the drug store = stupid people with fucked up medical conditions that they can't afford to have treated cuz they wasted their money on medications they didn't need... or they bought the wrong kind of medication for a serious illness..... that's a ridiculous proposal.

That's only really a problem where that misuse would cause wider harm (like antibiotics and antivirals). Their use needs to be restriced because their misuse is a danger to the population as a whole, but other drugs like antipsychotics, cholesterol medication, insulin - I don't really see the problem.

of course you don't see the problem because you have no idea what you're talking about...the perfect example of why doctor prescriptions are needed to prevent idiots from self medicating themselves to death...anti-psychotics and Insulin taken in the wrong doses can kill you, cholesterol medications have been linked to a number of side effects including permanent nerve damage...

Myrmidonisia
Isn't this kind of limited by the available supply of doctors? When there are so many more applicants than there are seats in the med schools, I don't think we will ever reach a point where we can talk about hiring more and paying them less. Unless, of course, we want to hire the Canadian docs that are disillusioned with the great mistake that their country has made.


disillusioned:rolleyes: ya right, they're stampeding south because they want to work in a crappier system where 45 million people have no health care, and the average lifespan is more than 2 years shorter than Canada's..

disillusioned:rolleyes: ya right, they're stampeding south because they want to work in a crappier system where 45 million people have no health care, and the average lifespan is more than 2 years shorter than Canada's..

Up until 2005, that was the trend. I believe you're around an equilibrium point now, with the departing and returning about equal.