What will the newly passed Healthcare reform mean?

[David]

What I meant is that man does not give you those rights. They are yours when you are born, and have to be protected and defended.

Are you saying that the reason why we decided to become a sovereign nation rather than be under the tyranny of King George is because we owned weapons?

No one is arguing that. But, even that does not give us the right to oppress others. Even Moses knew that his people should be liberated.

As an infant you have nothing. To believe otherwise, implies the "evils" of entitlement.

Without the ability to take our freedom, we would be resigned to continue to live under British auspices.

The rights you speak of are moral constructs. Although we may preach the constitutional or Judeo-Christian tenants of rights, in practice no small amount of social Darwinism underlies our actions. Might making right, permits the US to dictate our policies upon lesser powers.

Mind you, I do not approve of it.

[David]

Yes, everybody, at one time or another becomes ill, injured or worse. That's a fact that cannot be avoided. Such is Life. But at any given time, only about 20% of all of us are ill at the same time. And by "ill" I mean actual pgysical illness. This does not include ills such as, "I'm hungry and tired and don't feel like doing my chores."

Yes, the body indeed does breakdown. After a certain age it breaks down more rapidly too. But general body breakdown can be somewhat controlled with a good diet and exercize. As well as regular needed maintenence of those things we so often tend to neglect. It's the individual's responsibility to maintain his body health.

Nothing at all bad about deductables or health insurance. The concept is fine. All I'm saying is that health insurance/healthcare cannot be enforced. It won't work if enforced and the system will fail.

TonyT,

Past a certain age, many exist on a regimen of medications, the chronically ill. We already understand each other's perspectives with that regard . Sure, some of it is diet. Much is also environment.

Enforcement..... the wording is what troubles so many.

[JawZ]

I was referring to three rights mentioned in the Preamble to our Constitution.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, among others.

Worthy of a discussion by itself. Sad that we've legislated in so many ways what constitutes life.

[JawZ]

TonyT,

Past a certain age, many exist on a regimen of medications, the chronically ill. We already understand each other's perspectives with that regard . Sure, some of it is diet. Much is also environment.

Enforcement..... the wording is what troubles so many.

Enforcement at what level of government? Think of it in terms of federalism. From my many travels abroad, I can say that Pashtun tribal law has more in common with federalism than our current government.

[Sarahnn]

As an infant you have nothing. To believe otherwise, implies the "evils" of entitlement.

Maybe to you it does. But to me, I am here to protect and teach that new born to be independent, because I expect that for myself. I'd rather die than to accept bondage just because I was born into it. . It is contrary to the human spirit.

Without the ability to take our freedom, we would be resigned to continue to live under British auspices.

True but having the ability to do so is not the reason why we do it.

The rights you speak of are moral constructs.

They are bigger than moral constructs. The rights I speak of is in the nature of man to be free. It is the strength of eons of evolution that made man migrators to survive. We have always been free unless we are oppressed. And those who are oppressed do not settle for it. It's not in man's nature.

Although we may preach the constitutional or Judeo-Christian tenants of rights, in practice no small amount of social Darwinism underlies our actions. Might making right, permits the US to dictate our policies upon lesser powers.

If you match the power the U.S. has to conquer and destroy to the amount of policies we have dictated to foreign countries, you will see that the gap is so enormous, it makes your statement a total fabrication of a biased mind.

Mind you, I do not approve of it.

Obama does.

[Sarahnn]

Worthy of a discussion by itself. Sad that we've legislated in so many ways what constitutes life.

Are you referring to the abortion issue?

[jeremyboycool]

Phoenetians
Egyptian
Greece
Rome (after falling, was followed by many hundreds of years of little cultural progress)
are the main civilizations we've had.

They all fell and decayed for the same reasons, man's inhumanity to man and man's immoral practices. During their last years (spanning about 30-50 years) they all had rising crime, debauchery, crooked politicians, failing edu, war as a solution, promiscuity and worse, criminal leaders.

Study your history. But don't go by the history books or the courses/propaganda they teach you in schools, go to a library and or read Will Durant. Don't for one minute think that another Dark Ages is not possible, it is, and worse. Atomic weapons and bio weapons would ensure that.

"They all fell and decayed for the same reasons, man's inhumanity to man and man's immoral practices. During their last years (spanning about 30-50 years) they all had rising crime, debauchery, crooked politicians, failing edu, war as a solution, promiscuity and worse, criminal leaders.
"

War as a solution? That is how many societies endured back then. The society that was best at war was the one that lived and sometimes the internal moral structure had little to nothing to do with, the civilization just fell because it was weaker. Heck sometimes a civilization even thrived or declined due to commerce (such as the discovery of a silver mine). You are over simplifying it, Tony, it is much more complex. Also, morality thousands of years ago had such a radically different meaning then how we would consider it today. Not only that but there would be ethical relative elements considering the specific era and culture.

Yes, ethics of the culture does play a role, but they lived in such a hostile world, not just in war but as well as plagues and famine. The challenges that Americans face today are greatly different to the challenges they faced back then.

These are two radically different worlds, Tony, sure you can understand constants in human by looking at history and perhaps learn a few thing, some stuff may be even be completely relevant today. But modern and ancient are vastly different and many things worked differently back then and would not make a proper comparisons, especially in concerns to health-care.

[TonyT]

War as a solution? That is how many societies endured back then. The society that was best at war was the one that lived and sometimes the internal moral structure had little to nothing to do with, the civilization just fell because it was weaker. Heck sometimes a civilization even thrived or declined due to commerce (such as the discovery of a silver mine). You are over simplifying it, Tony, it is much more complex. Also, morality thousands of years ago had such a radically different meaning then how we would consider it today. Not only that but there would be ethical relative elements considering the specific era and culture.

What do ypu mean "back then"? War is common today too. Morality then and now is pretty much the same. There are certain things that have always been known as detrimental to a society, as I mentioned earliert, and they were known back then as they are known now.

Yes, ethics of the culture does play a role, but they lived in such a hostile world, not just in war but as well as plagues and famine. The challenges that Americans face today are greatly different to the challenges they faced back then. .

These are two radically different worlds, Tony, sure you can understand constants in human by looking at history and perhaps learn a few thing, some stuff may be even be completely relevant today. But modern and ancient are vastly different and many things worked differently back then and would not make a proper comparisons, especially in concerns to health-care.

I think you still need a good history study.

By civilization is meant "an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached. "

This is a relative term. High levels of the above had been reached, as compared to what existed priorly.

Yes, Life was harder in earlier civilizations, but man was a whole lot tougher too. The challenges we face today are the same challenges that man has always faced: food, shelter, protection from hostile environments, disease, evils of man himself, ecoonomic hardship, etc.

The suppressors are the same, the methods of the suppressors have changes slightly. Man no longer need fear being eaten by beast, but today's beasts may be microscopic.

Man's greatest enemy has always been himself.

[David]

Maybe to you it does. But to me, I am here to protect and teach that new born to be independent, because I expect that for myself. I'd rather die than to accept bondage just because I was born into it. . It is contrary to the human spirit.

The newborn is a tabula rasa, it is being taught.

True but having the ability to do so is not the reason why we do it.

Why we did it....

They are bigger than moral constructs. The rights I speak of is in the nature of man to be free. It is the strength of eons of evolution that made man migrators to survive. We have always been free unless we are oppressed. And those who are oppressed do not settle for it. It's not in man's nature.

There is in nature, a proclivity for all things to press boundaries. It is through domestication and imprinting that certain tendencies may be ablated.
The oppressed DO settle into their roles, through force or by subtlety. All too often, we are not mindful of these restrictions... After all, much of it is taught morality...

If you match the power the U.S. has to conquer and destroy to the amount of policies we have dictated to foreign countries, you will see that the gap is so enormous, it makes your statement a total fabrication of a biased mind.

Would you like a case by case for each country south of the Rio Grande? Our military and financial hegemony, like that of the British not long ago has permitted us to shape the world. No, we did/do not destroy all that oppose us.
I kindly ask that you curb your ad hominem.

Obama does.

Obama has been attempting to keep a campaign promise. One that put him in the White House.

[Sarahnn]

Clearly, we see things very differently.

The newborn is a tabula rasa, it is being taught.

The tabla rasa theory has never been proven. It is only one theory on the table. We are learning new things every day about the brain and how it may not be the only part of what makes cognizance, but relies on other parts of the body to function. I used to accept the blank slate theory. It made perfect sense to me. Now I'm not so sure.

They are bigger than moral constructs. The rights I speak of is in the nature of man to be free. It is the strength of eons of evolution that made man migrators to survive. We have always been free unless we are oppressed. And those who are oppressed do not settle for it. It's not in man's nature.

There is in nature, a proclivity for all things to press boundaries.

Not for the sake of pressing boundries. There is no reward in that.

It is through domestication and imprinting that certain tendencies may be ablated.

We are a product of our cultures but have not lost our natural urges. In fact, all cultures reflect man's most basic needs, fears and drives. We aren't that domestic, in my opinion, simply subliminal.

The oppressed DO settle into their roles, through force or by subtlety. All too often, we are not mindful of these restrictions... After all, much of it is taught morality...

I just can't agree with that. The oppressed tolerate their roles. But when they know there is something better for them and their children, their tolerance becomes patience and there is hope within them to break free of oppression.

Would you like a case by case for each country south of the Rio Grande?

The geographic location means nothing. It would be the culture that has the influence. So, no.

I kindly ask that you curb your ad hominem.

That you are biased? You said, Might making right, permits the US to dictate our policies upon lesser powers.

Why would you single out the United States, in this global community as a country that dictates its policies on other countries? It's just not true. America's greatest allies exemplify our ideology.

Obama has been attempting to keep a campaign promise. One that put him in the White House.

So was Bush.

[David]

Clearly, we see things very differently.

Perhaps. We also have many more important things in common.

Be well,
david

[jeremyboycool]

What do ypu mean "back then"? War is common today too. Morality then and now is pretty much the same. There are certain things that have always been known as detrimental to a society, as I mentioned earliert, and they were known back then as they are known now.


I think you still need a good history study.

By civilization is meant "an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached. "

This is a relative term. High levels of the above had been reached, as compared to what existed priorly.

Yes, Life was harder in earlier civilizations, but man was a whole lot tougher too. The challenges we face today are the same challenges that man has always faced: food, shelter, protection from hostile environments, disease, evils of man himself, ecoonomic hardship, etc.

The suppressors are the same, the methods of the suppressors have changes slightly. Man no longer need fear being eaten by beast, but today's beasts may be microscopic.

Man's greatest enemy has always been himself.

"War is common today too."

Yes, war is common today but the type of war we face is not the same as ancient war. Maybe some of the smaller nations in the current more hostile parts of the world but certainly not Americans. Nobody is going to come running through America and kill every male, burn all the the buildings and sell all the women and children into slavery. The logistics of it are just not the same, Tony.

"Morality then and now is pretty much the same."

Yes, we also like to throw deformed babies off a cliff because they'll only slow us down. There are universals in morality but a good part of it is relative.


"By civilization is meant "an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached. "

This is a relative term. High levels of the above had been reached, as compared to what existed priorly."

Yes, civilizations of today are different then the ones in the ancient world. Which of course was part of my point.


"Yes, Life was harder in earlier civilizations, but man was a whole lot tougher too. The challenges we face today are the same challenges that man has always faced: food, shelter, protection from hostile environments, disease, evils of man himself, ecoonomic hardship, etc"

I have never had much problems with food, shelter, protection from hostile environments or disease. Modern technology goes a long way in making this much easier.

As far as evil, well so far we have not had the ruling class run through my village killing peasants because our number are growing to threatening levels. Now, by American standards I may be poor but that does not mean I face economic hardship like even some people in the world today face. The common class of America lives in a much higher state of luxury then the common class of the ancient world. Not to mention, most of us don't have to work from sunrise to sunset just to make a simple living.

Yes, all these are central to our concerns as it was to people in the ancient world, but things are much, much different today.

[TonyT]

As far as evil, well so far we have not had the ruling class run through my village killing peasants because our number are growing to threatening levels. Now, by American standards I may be poor but that does not mean I face economic hardship like even some people in the world today face. The common class of America lives in a much higher state of luxury then the common class of the ancient world. Not to mention, most of us don't have to work from sunrise to sunset just to make a simple living.

Yes, all these are central to our concerns as it was to people in the ancient world, but things are much, much different today.

Yes, there's less threat in the USA of attack by foreign forces, but we live with a small threat daily. In EU, people live with that threat every day, not knowing if the bus they are on will blow up, or a storefront explode as you walk by it.

And today all it takes is the push of a button, so to speak, to obliterate the entire world. Not to mention bio weapons.

The real difference today is that the color bar & class system has been eradicated in most of the world. No more royals and serfs, but that concept still lives on in newer names.

We have a larger middle class today. Most of the people who belong to it are asleep at the wheel, too frightened to rock the boat.

But I assure you that our lives today are being managed by a ruling class, they just don't call themselves kings and queens.

In our world today it's easy to forget about the threats we live with. Take a llok at any newspaper or news rag. It's filled with nothing but crime, war, threats, immorality, non-survival activites, etc.

These things just don't randomly occur, they are caused. By who? By people, that's who. Take a trip to a few impoverished nations and you'll see that things are far worse than the media lets on. My friend, this society is on it's way out unless man as a whole wakes up from his complacent sleep.

[JawZ]

Are you referring to the abortion issue?

No. I thought your post would be a good discussion as a whole. It's a good topic.

[JawZ]

Health Reform Subsidy Calculator -- Premium Assistance for Coverage in Exchanges/Gateways

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[Mutch]

He calls it health care, but there is nothing caring about what Obama just did to the American people. He confiscated our means to take care of ourselves without government intervention.

When the government has the power to determine how you will fight illness; and when the government tells you under which conditions they will help you, or fine you, your life is in the governments hands.

A government that controls it's people's health will have to make life and death decisions whether you think so or not.

Our Preamble to the Declaration of Independence may say we have the right to Life, but the government will now decide when, where and how through beaurocratic red tape and fines.

Who are these 32 million people who would want this?

One funny thing I got out of this post.

The whole government speal about how they help you to control your illness.. Have you ever looked at a Paramedic scope of practice, or ALS, BLS standards?

Of course your government controls it.

[Sarahnn]

One funny thing I got out of this post.

The whole government speal about how they help you to control your illness.. Have you ever looked at a Paramedic scope of practice, or ALS, BLS standards?

Of course your government controls it.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

[Sarahnn]

Perhaps. We also have many more important things in common.

Be well,
david

Thanks, David. You too.

[jeremyboycool]

Yes, there's less threat in the USA of attack by foreign forces, but we live with a small threat daily. In EU, people live with that threat every day, not knowing if the bus they are on will blow up, or a storefront explode as you walk by it.

And today all it takes is the push of a button, so to speak, to obliterate the entire world. Not to mention bio weapons.

The real difference today is that the color bar & class system has been eradicated in most of the world. No more royals and serfs, but that concept still lives on in newer names.

We have a larger middle class today. Most of the people who belong to it are asleep at the wheel, too frightened to rock the boat.

But I assure you that our lives today are being managed by a ruling class, they just don't call themselves kings and queens.

In our world today it's easy to forget about the threats we live with. Take a llok at any newspaper or news rag. It's filled with nothing but crime, war, threats, immorality, non-survival activites, etc.

These things just don't randomly occur, they are caused. By who? By people, that's who. Take a trip to a few impoverished nations and you'll see that things are far worse than the media lets on. My friend, this society is on it's way out unless man as a whole wakes up from his complacent sleep.

"Take a llok at any newspaper or news rag. It's filled with nothing but crime, war, threats, immorality, non-survival activites, etc."

I know they are and that is why I don't pay them much mind. What the papers offer is only a superficial glance; in order to penetrate deeply and come to an actual understanding it requires study of various different topics.

"These things just don't randomly occur, they are caused. By who? By people, that's who. "

Yes, Tony, I know human actions comes from people.

[jeremyboycool]

As an infant you have nothing. To believe otherwise, implies the "evils" of entitlement.

Without the ability to take our freedom, we would be resigned to continue to live under British auspices.

The rights you speak of are moral constructs. Although we may preach the constitutional or Judeo-Christian tenants of rights, in practice no small amount of social Darwinism underlies our actions. Might making right, permits the US to dictate our policies upon lesser powers.

Mind you, I do not approve of it.

"The rights you speak of are moral constructs."

And if not from the human soul where did these moral constructs come from? Humans are naturally moral by simply being intelligent and compassionate. Also we are clearly innately social or else we have never formed societies.

Everyone is born with power and the freedom to do that which is in their power to do. Might is not the only thing that gives you power, the mind can do that as well.

[blebs]

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

I know what he means, but explaining it is a whole different thing. Laws dictate (dicktate) what can and cannot be performed by EMT's and Paramedics. Even those must be followed from a Doctor or not administered. If they do or don't follow the law, dictates whether you live or die, receive the necessary care at the appropriate time, etc,. It's all controlled.

[mnosteele52]

I know what he means, but explaining it is a whole different thing. Laws dictate (dicktate) what can and cannot be performed by EMT's and Paramedics. Even those must be followed from a Doctor or not administered. If they do or don't follow the law, dictates whether you live or die, receive the necessary care at the appropriate time, etc,. It's all controlled.

Not to get off topic, but I'm a Paramedic and that's not really correct. We practice under a Doctor's license, he is our Medical Director, and a group of ER doctors decides what procedures we can perform. We can do pretty much everything a doctor at the hospital can do in a cardiac arrest situation, we all (doctors included) follow ACLS Protocols (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) during a cardiac arrest. To insinuate that "law dictates whether you live or die" is VERY misleading.

[blebs]

Not to get off topic, but I'm a Paramedic and that's not really correct. We practice under a Doctor's license, he is our Medical Director, and a group of ER doctors decides what procedures we can perform. We can do pretty much everything a doctor at the hospital can do in a cardiac arrest situation, we all (doctors included) follow ACLS Protocols (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) during a cardiac arrest. To insinuate that "law dictates whether you live or die" is VERY misleading.

Technically yes, but the Doctor operates under law too. What if you have the D- Doctor that graduated only by a hair calling the shots and you know for fact his instruction is wrong? Do you follow his orders or take matters into your own hands? This is where it gets pretty hairy.

[mnosteele52]

Technically yes, but the Doctor operates under law too. What if you have the D- Doctor that graduated only by a hair calling the shots and you know for fact his instruction is wrong? Do you follow his orders or take matters into your own hands? This is where it gets pretty hairy.

Your still not on the right track. We have a book of protocols that are written by a panel of doctors and paramedics that are our guide for what to do in certain situations. But in order to be able to practice as a paramedic you have to have a medical director, an ER doctor that allows us to practice under his medical license. Take a look at my local EMS governing body's website HERE, you can even download our protocols in .pdf format. Protocols change a bit from region to region but the core of them is usually the same. We are allowed to do quite a bit more than a lot of other regions on standing orders, we also have EVMS (Eastern Virginia Medical School) in our city so we do a lot of trials for them on new procedures/medications that may be helpful to save lives.

[David]

"The rights you speak of are moral constructs."

And if not from the human soul where did these moral constructs come from? Humans are naturally moral by simply being intelligent and compassionate. Also we are clearly innately social or else we have never formed societies.

Everyone is born with power and the freedom to do that which is in their power to do. Might is not the only thing that gives you power, the mind can do that as well.

What of the human soul? Do not other species show intellect and compassion?

Where you are born and to what social strata will dictate your starting point.

Morality is taught. I agree that humans are innately social creatures, however that does not imply any particular code. Consider the machine gun toting packs in Africa that rape and kidnap at will.

The world was designed by the mind, but sculpted the knife.

[TonyT]

Doctor school grade scores and averages mean very little in the actual work-a-day world because current testing is geared only to test what one can remember about what one studied. What counts is "can the person apply waht one has studied?"

I know many people who are very glib when it comes to reading and studying data. They can read it and 30 seconds or 30 days later tell you exactly what was written when questioned. But ask them to demonstrate the concepts or apply the data to a real world situationans they fall on their face.

Sure...what you know IS important but what you can DO with what you know is senior to that.

That's why doctors intern and hold residencies after med school. They need to gain the real world experience and their judgement rounds out a bit. And these interns are usually led by a skilled experienced doc (hopefully).

When it comes to my treatment I'll take the D- doc who knows he doesn't know it all already over the A+ doc whose attitude is a lofty "I know best".

[David]

Not to get off topic, but I'm a Paramedic and that's not really correct. We practice under a Doctor's license, he is our Medical Director, and a group of ER doctors decides what procedures we can perform. We can do pretty much everything a doctor at the hospital can do in a cardiac arrest situation, we all (doctors included) follow ACLS Protocols (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) during a cardiac arrest. To insinuate that "law dictates whether you live or die" is VERY misleading.

Indeed, however under ACLS, we are treating emergency conditions in the field.

Having insurance companies decide what procedures and medications they will cover is also life or death, though in a different milieu.

[mnosteele52]

Indeed, however under ACLS, we are treating emergency conditions in the field.

Having insurance companies decide what procedures and medications they will cover is also life or death, though in a different milieu.

ACLS is for all emergency situations, in the field or hospital. I agree with your second statement.

[JawZ]

Indeed, however under ACLS, we are treating emergency conditions in the field.

Having insurance companies decide what procedures and medications they will cover is also life or death, though in a different milieu.

Actually, as it relates to pharma...the bigger fish is the FDA and their approval process. People are dying from drug lag and the insanely priced $400 million dollars it takes to cover the FDA imposed fees discourages smaller firms from offering up new innovative drugs...many of which are already in use in Europe!!!

Here is just one small example...

22,000 people died waiting for the FDA to approve streptokinase -- a drug that dissolves clots in heart attack patients -- and since approval has saved tens of thousands of lives.

Cancer drugs are probably the biggest concern. If someone is DYING from cancer...why does the FDA block drugs that show minimal adverse risks? At the same time, the FDA approved treatments of radiation and chemo both have high risks of complications. It doesn't make sense at all.

[Sarahnn]

Cancer drugs are probably the biggest concern. If someone is DYING from cancer...why does the FDA block drugs that show minimal adverse risks? At the same time, the FDA approved treatments of radiation and chemo both have high risks of complications. It doesn't make sense at all.

Wow, this is pretty inflammatory. Can you show me some sources that Cancer patients are not able to receive more humane and successful treatments here in the U.S. because the FDA is holding back? Can you get these humane cures overseas? Why aren't our Cancer patients flocking overseas for the treatment?

I would like more information on this. Thanks.

[David]

ACLS is for all emergency situations, in the field or hospital. I agree with your second statement.

You are correct.

[David]

Actually, as it relates to pharma...the bigger fish is the FDA and their approval process. People are dying from drug lag and the insanely priced $400 million dollars it takes to cover the FDA imposed fees discourages smaller firms from offering up new innovative drugs...many of which are already in use in Europe!!!

Here is just one small example...

22,000 people died waiting for the FDA to approve streptokinase -- a drug that dissolves clots in heart attack patients -- and since approval has saved tens of thousands of lives.

Cancer drugs are probably the biggest concern. If someone is DYING from cancer...why does the FDA block drugs that show minimal adverse risks? At the same time, the FDA approved treatments of radiation and chemo both have high risks of complications. It doesn't make sense at all.

It is possible to have a patient placed on drug trials. I know of a handful from personal experience.

[JawZ]

It is possible to have a patient placed on drug trials. I know of a handful from personal experience.

Yes it is possible but is it possible for the masses? As a healthcare provider, we are supposed to save as many as can be saved. That's the basis for triage.

IMO, the FDA needs an overhaul.

[JawZ]

Wow, this is pretty inflammatory. Can you show me some sources that Cancer patients are not able to receive more humane and successful treatments here in the U.S. because the FDA is holding back? Can you get these humane cures overseas? Why aren't our Cancer patients flocking overseas for the treatment?

I would like more information on this. Thanks.

Sure.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... /index.htm

Also, another fine example of FDA aggression.

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/ruwart_all.html

[size=-1]Paying with Our Lives

[/size][size=-1]While the British continued to enjoy many new drugs to treat their illnesses, only half of these were available to Americans, and only after many more years of waiting. (26) One of these new drugs denied to Americans was propranolol, the first beta-blocker to be used extensively to treat angina and hypertension. In the three years between introduction into the United Kingdom and the United States, approximately 10,000 Americans died needlessly every year, (27) because it was against the law for their doctors to treat them with propranolol. Even in 1968 when propranolol became available in the United States, it was approved only for minor uses.[/size]


[size=-1] Advertising propranolol as a treatment for angina or hypertension was illegal until 1973 and 1976, respectively, so countless other Americans died because their doctors hesitated to prescribe the drug for a use that was still unapproved by the FDA. When the FDA finally gave approval, it was criticized by a congressional committee for exposing the American public to a drug with potential side effects! (28) Since every drug has side effects in some individuals, asking the FDA to license only drugs that are completely safe is asking them to approve no drugs at all![/size]


[size=-1]Our aggression, applied to this single drug, cost at least 30,000 American lives. Britain also practices the aggression of licensing laws, but to a lesser extent than the United States. Thousands more lives might have been saved if no aggression were present at all.[/size]

Sara, as a free American don't I have the Constitutional right to assume more risk in how I go about treating my own illness?

[Ken]

We already use 1/2 of our federal budget or $1 trillion for Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid, basically taking care of the unfortunate. How much do you think it will require increasing our budget to cover another 30+ million people that don't qualify to existing programs? And why don't they qualify?? Who is going to pay for this? What will be the effects of trying to pay for it? Start up effects, short term, long term effects...

I heard a news report that stated Medicare was going to take a huge cut, but don't worry as the money will be made up by cutting down on Medicare fraud... We don't need universal health care to cut down on fraud, why hasn't that been being done from the beginning? This is not Obama’s fault as it has been going on way before him. He is merely trying to cash in on it, give himself a legacy...

Medical costs are a large reason for bankruptcies!!! Really? Is there a set percentage ratio of medical bills to personal bills to qualify to state this? ...NO... Many people that list medical as reason for bankruptcy had being living with their credit maxed out and making minimum payments for a long history. Anything unexpected sends them into financial ruin... Medical is merely used as an excuse oftentimes. Bankruptcies are public record. Anyone interested can visit their local courthouse and see the details...

In truth, entertainment is far more important to most than saving for a rainy day. Who expects to get hit with a health problem anyways... The most expensive car-that the bank says you can afford, and 1 for your spouse, the most expensive house-that the bank says you can afford, nice vacations, eating out at restaurants, hitting a movie, stopping by the bar a few times a week and no money is left for anything unexpected... Yes, the wealthy and the business should pay for our healthcare! We need our money for more entertaining things! We deserve it!

Yes, people get ill. There is no cure for what the majority of people get ill with, the common cold. No need to go to the doctor for it. We are rapidly approaching the ineffectiveness of anti-biotics already due to over use, misuse, abuse... Allergies? I see people that take medicine everyday, yet still have the same allergy results... Maybe soon they will invent a pill so that people no longer need to exercise! What an inconvenience that is! (those are the type of people that tend to get sick more often, as is over weight, smokers, heavy drinkers, drug users, get the picture, see the pattern...) How is more insurance going to help them as it will repeat endlessly…

In our PC world, we are being lead, and even encouraged to be expectant and dependant on others, especially our government. No personal responsibility or accountability. I don't mind helping people that want to help themselves, I am against helping the lazy, free-loader, take advantage, want something for nothing, type people that somehow believe that they deserve and have rights for it...

[JawZ]

We already use 1/2 of our federal budget or $1 trillion for Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid, basically taking care of the unfortunate.

What source are you using for this statement Ken?

Here is the breakdown of the 2009 budget.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... egory2.png

Medicare/Caid/Welfare amount to 31%. Social Security if added would take it to slightly over 50%.

I heard a news report that stated Medicare was going to take a huge cut

Sounds like the same kind of propaganda you had mentioned earlier.

I don't mind helping people that want to help themselves, I am against helping the lazy, free-loader, take advantage, want something for nothing, type people that somehow believe that they deserve and have rights for it...

I agree 100%. What can we do to help children that can't help themselves?

[Shinobi]

http://smartabouthealth.net/diseases/20 ... pany-dies/

Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company denied coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the young boy.

Houston Tracy was born in Crowley, Texas, and unfortunately only lived for a total of 10-days after he was denied coverage by BlueCross BlueShield of Texas.

The baby boy was born with a condition that is known as d-transformation. This is diagnosed when there is a transposition of the heart’s great arteries.

This can be fixed, but a major surgery is needed, one that the insurance company would not pay for.

The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of Texas deemed a pre-existing condition.

Since they considered his disease as this, they refused to cover the health care of the baby boy.

What this meant is that the boy was not able to get the surgery, and unfortunately died less than two weeks after being born.

Could you imagine what it felt like for his parents, Doug and Kim Tracy, to be told that their son was not going to be covered?

This is an absolute tragedy to say the least and one which health insurance companies should be absolutely embarrassed about.

Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants due to “pre-existing conditions.”

[Mutch]

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

In the ALS / BLS standards if you fit the criteria you get a life saving drug, if your bp is off by 2 you dont.

Government controlling who lives or dies.

[jeremyboycool]

What of the human soul? Do not other species show intellect and compassion?

Where you are born and to what social strata will dictate your starting point.

Morality is taught. I agree that humans are innately social creatures, however that does not imply any particular code. Consider the machine gun toting packs in Africa that rape and kidnap at will.

The world was designed by the mind, but sculpted the knife.

"What of the human soul?"

Anything that is subjective in nature is derived from the human mind and therefore any internal mechanism is going have an influence on the resulting shape.

Consider for a comparison language. Many cultures have there own unique language but yet there are also universals in all natural languages. We may not have genetic language like the bee, where there are little variations. But it is suggested that the human mind generates language by set of rules which would suggest that all languages have a common structural basis. So why can't morality function in a similar fashion?

Just as all natural languages have nouns, verbs, consonants and vowels. All human morality could be molded by the same things; perhaps such as: ego, intelligence, and emotions. Perhaps all morality is generated by a core set of internal rules. Just for an example: desire for human bonding, a desire for justice or the desire to conform to social norms.

Humans may not have genetic morals but I think that it can be said that we have a genetic predisposition to a certain nature and that causality well generate a common structural basis out of this.

"Do not other species show intellect and compassion?"

Not exactly in the same way as humans do.

"Consider the machine gun toting packs in Africa that rape and kidnap at will.”

A variation, David, I am not suggesting that my supposed universals cannot be bent or all together broken. But I do think that perhaps if given enough time such deviance would correct itself, even if the culture was isolated.

If we say morals are resulted in a deterministic fashion then the influencing factors would be environmental and genetic. The environmental is pliable, however the genetic influence is much more stable and would in the long run have the greater influence. Then over time, as humans come to a clearer understanding of optimal morality, the ethical structure of different cultures will begin to resemble each other. As morality will become an intellectual reflection of our internal structure and its place in a healthy society. And since all humans are basically the same on the inside, once we understand the human soul, diligent deductive logic and reasoning will ideally all lead to the same place.

"The world was designed by the mind, but sculpted the knife."

That is not always the case, David. Just for one example, consider Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement, much of it has progressed without violence. In a world ruled by causality anything capable of exerting force would produce a reaction, this would included, in my opinion, words.

But really, who knows how all this works? We are really just giving it our best guess; humans are such complex creatures it could be awhile yet before we understand the underline workings of our own nature.

[mnosteele52]

In the ALS / BLS standards if you fit the criteria you get a life saving drug, if your bp is off by 2 you dont.

Government controlling who lives or dies.

BS, you didn't read a thing I posted. Some of you are so misinformed and refuse to listen to logic and truth, no wonder Obama has so many followers.