Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
John Simkin

Medical Treatment in your country

Recommended Posts

The nurse asked to arrange for my wife to have an intravenous drip was incompetent. It was her first day in the hospital (a bank nurse) and did not know where anything was kept. She also gave me the impression that she had never done one before.

Judith was being treated in a cubicle. I could hear the young doctor pleading over the phone for a bed. It took another two hours before she was taken to a bed in the Emergency and Accidents Unit. Soon afterwards we were told by a senior doctor that she might not survive the night.

From that point on the quality of treatment has been excellent. However, I suspect that is because my daughter and I have played an active role in her medical care. This included meetings with doctors to discuss the nature of her treatment. This is vitally important as treatment is clearly rationed. For example, we were told that the only thing that could save her life was to be put onto a haemofiltration machine. During hemofiltration, a patient's blood is passed through a filtration circuit via a machine to a semipermeable membrane where waste products and water are removed. Replacement fluid is added and the blood is returned to the patient. In other words, it does what the kidneys usually do. The hospital only has one of these machines. It also needs a nurse to permanently monitor the equipment. We were told that people suffering from terminal cancer of retirement age are not usually put on this machine. We therefore had to convince them that Judith’s life was worth saving. The consultant eventually agreed that she should be put on the machine.

John, I have gone through something similar with my father. Unfortunately, I had been away at a sports carnival and got to the hospital 3 days too late for any advocacy to change the outcome. Had I been around at the first, I really do think I could have got him the treatment he needed before it became too late. This was in 1994. Labor was in power, but this mob were those labor leaders courted and trained by the US. The health system was among the casualties of the new labor imperative: economic rationalism.

About 5 years ago, I was there to advocate -- this time on behalf of my wife. The advocacy this time, however centered on diagnosis. As such, I was scoffed at by the specialist looking after her in hospital ("And your medical qualifications are...???!!!). To cut a long story short, exploratory surgery proved I was right and they were wrong. But that was a hollow victory since, had they listened to me in the first place, she would have had a different type of specialist, endured less trauma, and would not now have a scar the length of her abdomen (they would have only needed to make a small incision to target the exact spot). The specialist avoided me like the plague afterwards and it was left to the surgeon to tell me the outcome of the biopsy. The specialist meanwhile had the hide to ask my wife if she could write a paper on her case given it was seen as unusual.

The NHS has remained popular with the British people. Although Churchill and the Conservative Party were back in power in 1951, it was politically impossible to remove the NHS. Instead, they tried to undermine it with the constant under-funding of the system, tax changes to encourage people to buy into private health systems and the privatization of parts of the service. It was these actions that helped Tony Blair to be elected to office in 1997.

Churchill 1951 = Howard 1996-2007.

Healthcare is never something I worry about. As many on here know, I am in the USAF and it is paid in full for me and my spouse and children. We never pay a cent. For prescriptions, if we go on base and wait it is free(the wait is often long unless you are active duty and on duty at the time). Otherwise we can go to any pharmacy and pay only $3. Dental and vision are different. Mine is completely paid for while theirs has limits and a small fee each month for that coverage.

Matthew, you are still "useful". Wait and see how you fare when you retire. A retired friend of mine in the US is going through hell trying to get timely treatment for medical conditions incurred during Vietnam and Desert Storm.

Like Matt, all my medical / dental is via the ADF. Difference for us is that partners / dependents are not entitled to treatment at Government expense... but since I have neither, it worries me not.

Evan, I know from living in Darwin for over 10 years how poorly you poor chappies are treated. Never mind. You obviously missed Kevin07 promising to extend medical coverage to families of ADF personnel during the election. We'll have to wait and see if it was a "core promise" or a "non-core promise" which can be jettisoned ala Howard. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that Greg - thanks. It will be interesting. For members with families (most of ADF) it will be a huge retention factor. It will cost a shedful of money, but the retention savings would far outweigh that I believe. The only problem will be the stress on the ADF medical personnel, (primarily doctors) who are already critically understaffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't know that Greg - thanks. It will be interesting. For members with families (most of ADF) it will be a huge retention factor. It will cost a shedful of money, but the retention savings would far outweigh that I believe. The only problem will be the stress on the ADF medical personnel, (primarily doctors) who are already critically understaffed.

Labor hopes its plan to extend free GP and dental care currently enjoyed by ADF personnel to their dependent spouses and children will deter people from leaving the armed forces, which is struggling to attract and keep service personnel.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0...5013650,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said I know little about heroin and why it was banned, nor do I really care. But an expired patent many many years ago is hardly the reason it is illegal in the US today.

Really? Since you're sure the expiration of the patent is not the reason for heroin being declared illegal, then maybe you can tell me the real reason why it is illegal.

The reason as far as I can tell is that it is deemed too dangerous.

http://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

Amazing about the asprin though. Patent expired about the same time and my gosh how much money has been made since with it as a generic?

Now how about YOU source your claim its the patent that caused it to be banned.

The patent for heroin was granted in the US in1898. The usual length is 20 years, so I assume it expired in 1918. I read that Bayer lost trademark and other rights as a result of Germany's loss to the allies in 1918. The US banned it with the Heroin Act in 1924. That's pretty neat timing, imo.

Actually it was banned after a rigged Congressional Committe heard a lot of phony testimony about the evils of this drug:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,506559,00.html

Heroin's not dangerous, it's benign. A study by Philadelphia General Hospital in the 1920's concluded as much. It causes much less damage to vital organs than alcohol or tobacco and the gap between a therapeutic dose and a fatal one is unusually wide. It's used in the UK on mothers experiencing difficulty in child birth. So much for heroin being dangerous. Are they going to inject a pregnant woman with a drug which they think is dangerous?

I think it's banned because it's a dangerous medicinal foe for many existing drugs, including aspirin, and because the current black market for heroin and other illegal drugs is so lucrative. Heroin and other drugs are making a lot of money for people who can influence lawmakers. Politicians, after denouncing a drug like heroin as the devil's drug etc, etc, often claim they are bound by international treaties to maintain the current drug laws. That's crap, too:

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/sin_conv.php

You trust your Government too much, Craig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said I know little about heroin and why it was banned, nor do I really care. But an expired patent many many years ago is hardly the reason it is illegal in the US today.

Really? Since you're sure the expiration of the patent is not the reason for heroin being declared illegal, then maybe you can tell me the real reason why it is illegal.

The reason as far as I can tell is that it is deemed too dangerous.

http://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

Amazing about the asprin though. Patent expired about the same time and my gosh how much money has been made since with it as a generic?

Now how about YOU source your claim its the patent that caused it to be banned.

The patent for heroin was granted in the US in1898. The usual length is 20 years, so I assume it expired in 1918. I read that Bayer lost trademark and other rights as a result of Germany's loss to the allies in 1918. The US banned it with the Heroin Act ut in 1924. That's pretty neat timing, imo.

So in other words you have simply made an empty claim...why am I not suprised. You are too much of a CT mark.

Actually it was banned after a rigged Congressional Committe heard a lot of phony testimony about the evils of this drug:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,506559,00.html

Heroin's not dangerous, it's benign. A study by Philadelphia General Hospital in the 1920's concluded as much. It causes much less damage to vital organs than alcohol or tobacco and the gap between a therapeutic dose and a fatal one is unusually wide. It's used in the UK on mothers experiencing difficulty in child birth. So much for heroin being dangerous. Are they going to inject a pregnant woman with a drug which they think is dangerous?

Well lets see, its major league addictive...benign...yea...right.

I think it's banned because it's a dangerous medicinal foe for many existing drugs, including aspirin, and because the current black market for heroin and other illegal drugs is so lucrative. Heroin and other drugs are making a lot of money for people who can influence lawmakers. Politicians, after denouncing a drug like heroin as the devil's drug etc, etc, often claim they are bound by international treaties to maintain the current drug laws. That's crap, too:

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/sin_conv.php

A dangerous foe? Are you kidding? Asprin? You owe me a new keyboard...I just spewed diet coke all over it. Most everything else in the same class is way out of patent protection as well...so much for that argument. Sheesh, you really believe this crap?

You trust your Government too much, Craig.

Now I know you are cognitively impaired. I don't trust my government to to a proper job of providing tags for my cars let alone run things like health care. You spend too much time thinking as a CT Mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me respond to John's original posting and say something about the situation in Sweden. But first let me extend my condolences to John's wife and John himself - I hope that you're both doing as well as can be expected …

Last year I earned about 350,000 SEK and paid about 108,000 SEK in direct taxation. My employer paid slightly less than I did in various types of payroll tax (the Swedish economy is doing very well at the moment, by the way).

We are subject to a co-pay of 150 SEK each time we visit a clinic (although people under the age of 18 pay nothing at all). That's about $25. There's a cap of 1800 SEK per annum on that co-pay, so anyone who has a chronic condition quickly gets up to the limit and then pays no more for the rest of the year.

If we're referred to a specialist, we pay between 80 SEK and 250 SEK, depending on what kind of specialist it is. That co-pay also counts towards the annual limit.

There's a similar 1800 SEK per annum limit on costs for medicines. The state-run Apotek (drugstore/chemists) has an obligation to substitute cheaper generic drugs for any brand-name drug a doctor might prescribe.

There's also something called 'guaranteed care', which says that you have to start receiving treatment from a specialist (if the condition warrants it) within 90 days. If your local health authority fails to meet this guarantee, you can seek treatment somewhere else in the country, or the world, and your local health authority is obliged to meet the bill.

The health care system is basically excellent, with modern hospitals and properly-trained staff, although the current Conservative government is trying to run it down. (We're electing a Conservative government about once every 15 years at the moment. They get one term to screw things up, and then we have to spend 10 years or so putting things right again.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add a little to my previous post. After you've paid the co-pay, you don't pay anything else at all. There was a case which got a lot of publicity here recently of a young man who had a chronic, life-threatening and very rare condition which required medicines and other treatment costing just over 1 million SEK per annum. The state continues to pick up the bill for that (which actually means that the costs are spread out fairly equally among all of us). No-one even suggested that he should be left to his own devices …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said I know little about heroin and why it was banned, nor do I really care. But an expired patent many many years ago is hardly the reason it is illegal in the US today.

Really? Since you're sure the expiration of the patent is not the reason for heroin being declared illegal, then maybe you can tell me the real reason why it is illegal.

The reason as far as I can tell is that it is deemed too dangerous.

http://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

Amazing about the asprin though. Patent expired about the same time and my gosh how much money has been made since with it as a generic?

Now how about YOU source your claim its the patent that caused it to be banned.

The patent for heroin was granted in the US in1898. The usual length is 20 years, so I assume it expired in 1918. I read that Bayer lost trademark and other rights as a result of Germany's loss to the allies in 1918. The US banned it with the Heroin Act ut in 1924. That's pretty neat timing, imo.

So in other words you have simply made an empty claim...why am I not suprised. You are too much of a CT mark.

I have? Where?

Actually it was banned after a rigged Congressional Committe heard a lot of phony testimony about the evils of this drug:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,506559,00.html

Heroin's not dangerous, it's benign. A study by Philadelphia General Hospital in the 1920's concluded as much. It causes much less damage to vital organs than alcohol or tobacco and the gap between a therapeutic dose and a fatal one is unusually wide. It's used in the UK on mothers experiencing difficulty in child birth. So much for heroin being dangerous. Are they going to inject a pregnant woman with a drug which they think is dangerous?

Well lets see, its major league addictive...benign...yea...right.

Let's see, so are legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco and a host of other drugs available on prescription. Yes, heroin is addictive like those others are---and benign (unlike those others). So where's your rebuttal.?

I think it's banned because it's a dangerous medicinal foe for many existing drugs, including aspirin, and because the current black market for heroin and other illegal drugs is so lucrative. Heroin and other drugs are making a lot of money for people who can influence lawmakers. Politicians, after denouncing a drug like heroin as the devil's drug etc, etc, often claim they are bound by international treaties to maintain the current drug laws. That's crap, too:

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/sin_conv.php

A dangerous foe? Are you kidding? Asprin? You owe me a new keyboard...I just spewed diet coke all over it. Most everything else in the same class is way out of patent protection as well...so much for that argument. Sheesh, you really believe this crap?

It's not hard to believe you are so misinformed. Yes, prescription heroin would be fierce competition for many other drugs. aspirin included.

You trust your Government too much, Craig.

Now I know you are cognitively impaired. I don't trust my government to to a proper job of providing tags for my cars let alone run things like health care. You spend too much time thinking as a CT Mark.

Yet you trust them to conduct foreign wars with no valid pretext. You support them strongly in this. You also appear to support draconian domestic laws which impinge on civil liberties and drug laws which underpin massive criminal enterprises. I may think like a CT but it's debatable whether you actually think at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said I know little about heroin and why it was banned, nor do I really care. But an expired patent many many years ago is hardly the reason it is illegal in the US today.

Really? Since you're sure the expiration of the patent is not the reason for heroin being declared illegal, then maybe you can tell me the real reason why it is illegal.

The reason as far as I can tell is that it is deemed too dangerous.

http://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

Amazing about the asprin though. Patent expired about the same time and my gosh how much money has been made since with it as a generic?

Now how about YOU source your claim its the patent that caused it to be banned.

The patent for heroin was granted in the US in1898. The usual length is 20 years, so I assume it expired in 1918. I read that Bayer lost trademark and other rights as a result of Germany's loss to the allies in 1918. The US banned it with the Heroin Act ut in 1924. That's pretty neat timing, imo.

So in other words you have simply made an empty claim...why am I not suprised. You are too much of a CT mark.

I have? Where?

Right here. You have nothing that supports your claim heroin was banned because its patent expired. In fact, if you look, Bayer quit making Herion in 1913. They quit becaause they had marketed Heroin as non addictive when it fact it was highly addicitive, and they had created scores of people who would be addicited to the drug they had created for the rest of their life.

You Mark have simply created an false reality...a CT reality.

Actually it was banned after a rigged Congressional Committe heard a lot of phony testimony about the evils of this drug:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,506559,00.html

Heroin's not dangerous, it's benign. A study by Philadelphia General Hospital in the 1920's concluded as much. It causes much less damage to vital organs than alcohol or tobacco and the gap between a therapeutic dose and a fatal one is unusually wide. It's used in the UK on mothers experiencing difficulty in child birth. So much for heroin being dangerous. Are they going to inject a pregnant woman with a drug which they think is dangerous?

Well lets see, its major league addictive...benign...yea...right.

Let's see, so are legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco and a host of other drugs available on prescription. Yes, heroin is addictive like those others are---and benign (unlike those others). So where's your rebuttal.?ut

What an I to rebut? You said it was benign. I've shown that its not. Its addicitive. You agree. Agrument over. That other things arr also addicitve is beside the point. We are talking about Heroin. What are you trying the change the subject? And why are we talking about the legality of heroin in the first place?

I think it's banned because it's a dangerous medicinal foe for many existing drugs, including aspirin, and because the current black market for heroin and other illegal drugs is so lucrative. Heroin and other drugs are making a lot of money for people who can influence lawmakers. Politicians, after denouncing a drug like heroin as the devil's drug etc, etc, often claim they are bound by international treaties to maintain the current drug laws. That's crap, too:

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/sin_conv.php

A dangerous foe? Are you kidding? Asprin? You owe me a new keyboard...I just spewed diet coke all over it. Most everything else in the same class is way out of patent protection as well...so much for that argument. Sheesh, you really believe this crap?

It's not hard to believe you are so misinformed. Yes, prescription heroin would be fierce competition for many other drugs. aspirin included.

Wow! now you think that a doctor would precribe heroin in place of aspirin? Amazing. It that were the case why not just perscribe morphine, which is available now. As I'm sure you know, Heroin turns back into morphine once in the body. Morphine is not under patent. Into that false reality again. Snorting Heroin? Since Heroin as well as the the major drugs in its class are all generic at this point why would the generic drug companies care? They would have the rights to make and sell it cheaply. Another of your empty claims shot down. And again why are we discussing heroin?

You trust your Government too much, Craig.

Now I know you are cognitively impaired. I don't trust my government to to a proper job of providing tags for my cars let alone run things like health care. You spend too much time thinking as a CT Mark.

Yet you trust them to conduct foreign wars with no valid pretext. You support them strongly in this. You also appear to support draconian domestic laws which impinge on civil liberties and drug laws which underpin massive criminal enterprises. I may think like a CT but it's debatable whether you actually think at all.

Mark, in case you have missed it this thread is about healthcare. If you are left without an argument, the proper thing to do is quit and not try and change the subject to something eles. So much for your attempts at rational thought.

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And finally why do you believe that someone else should be required to make up your shortfall and pay so YOU can have health insurance?

This is how you view universal health care? What about welfare, WIC and Section 8 housing? Should all programs helping the poor and underpriveleged be outlawed? Should only rich people get the proper health care, housing, and food?

So you think its right for someone like me to give up my hard earned money...at the point of a gun I might add...to pay for the health care insurance of a 30 year old woman with a collage education who has made poor life choices? I don;t think so. Welfare? What a great program if you consider creating an entire class of multi-generational dependants of the state. WIC? No problems with heping people short term. Section 8 housing. See welfare. I'm sorry that your desire to become a teacher has not worked out for you. Maybe its time to move on. I hear sales reps for Big Pharma make good money.

Yes, food is a basic human right. Give me a break! Everyone should have the right to eat, or don't you believe in charity?

It is? Last time I looked food was a product. And you know I'm pretty well versed in the constitution and the bill of rights and I've never seen food nor healthcare in them anywhere. Can you refresh my memory? I'm all for charity. I give freely. Of course thats seems to be the difference between you and me. You would prefer I be forced to give at the point of a gun.

Of course I've looked in to health insurance. And as I said, I can't afford it right now.

Well I don't know where you live but in Indiana you can have a basic healthcare plan for about 3 bucks a day. I find it hard to believe that you don't waste 3 bucks a day on something. If you can't find that 3 bucks a day it brings us back to my original point. Why should I ( and others) be forced at the point of a gun to pay for your healthcare insurance simply because you have failed to properly provide for yourself?

But what about children who have no health care? Should they have to do without? Shouldn't everyone have the ability to visit a doctor when they are sick, without worrying about the cost? Why should anyone have to choose between eating and getting the medicine they need to survive? Why should anyone die because they couldn't get the surgery they needed, the transplant they needed to live?

We have programs in place to help children without inusrance. We have programs in place to provide healthcare to the elderly and disabled. There are many free clinics. Hospitals cannot turn anyone away due to the lack of ability to pay. Heres a doose of reality. Not everyone gets to live. People get sick and sometimes they can't be saved. Close inspection of the healthcare systems in Canada and the UK show that universal does not be all-inclusive. Care is rationed. Facilites and equipment are limited. There is a reason why people from are coming to the US for medical service.

Why this is even a problem is beyond me. Other countries don't seem to view universal health care in such a negative light. Why is the United States so against it?

Maybe its because Americans in general value personal freedom and dislike ther nanny state. And perhaps Americans in general know our goverment and as much as our current system could use change, they understand that the government will screw up universal heathcare. Healthcare is far too important to leave in the hands of politicians.

I believe it's greed and because the average person doesn't want to pay higher taxes. And Americans apparently aren't as altruistic as their Canadian neighbors.

Lets get real here. You don't pay fed income taxes, or very little, so what would be your contribution? You say you can't afford 3 bucks a day so how wold you pay additional taxes? Will you expect those making more maney than you to cover your load? Sure the Americans who DO pay fed income tax don't want to pay more. We pay too much now. Did you know that the top 1% of income pay 40% of the federal tax bill? The top 5% pays 60%. The top 10% pays 70%? You only have to make about 100k to make it to the top 10%. Did you know the bottom 50% only pay 3%? Are Americans greedy? I don't think so. Tired of carrying the load for others? You bet. So I'll ask again. Why should I and others pay for your personal shortfall?

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said I know little about heroin and why it was banned, nor do I really care. But an expired patent many many years ago is hardly the reason it is illegal in the US today.

Really? Since you're sure the expiration of the patent is not the reason for heroin being declared illegal, then maybe you can tell me the real reason why it is illegal.

The reason as far as I can tell is that it is deemed too dangerous.

http://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

Amazing about the asprin though. Patent expired about the same time and my gosh how much money has been made since with it as a generic?

Now how about YOU source your claim its the patent that caused it to be banned.

The patent for heroin was granted in the US in1898. The usual length is 20 years, so I assume it expired in 1918. I read that Bayer lost trademark and other rights as a result of Germany's loss to the allies in 1918. The US banned it with the Heroin Act ut in 1924. That's pretty neat timing, imo.

So in other words you have simply made an empty claim...why am I not suprised. You are too much of a CT mark.

I have? Where?

Right here. You have nothing that supports your claim heroin was banned because its patent expired.

I didn't make that claim. Can you show me where I made it? I believe it is one of the reasons why heroin was banned in the US in 1924. The main reason for its current status is that it's one of the central pillars in the War on Drugs.

In fact, if you look, Bayer quit making Herion in 1913. They quit becaause they had marketed Heroin as non addictive when it fact it was highly addicitive, and they had created scores of people who would be addicited to the drug they had created for the rest of their life.

And most died in their beds at an old age. Since you're moralising about their addiction, shouldn't you also advocate prohibition of tobacco and alcohol? Or is that just another lack of consistency in your position?

You Mark have simply created an false reality...a CT reality.

False.

Actually it was banned after a rigged Congressional Committe heard a lot of phony testimony about the evils of this drug:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,506559,00.html

Heroin's not dangerous, it's benign. A study by Philadelphia General Hospital in the 1920's concluded as much. It causes much less damage to vital organs than alcohol or tobacco and the gap between a therapeutic dose and a fatal one is unusually wide. It's used in the UK on mothers experiencing difficulty in child birth. So much for heroin being dangerous. Are they going to inject a pregnant woman with a drug which they think is dangerous?

Well lets see, its major league addictive...benign...yea...right.

Let's see, so are legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco and a host of other drugs available on prescription. Yes, heroin is addictive like those others are---and benign (unlike those others). So where's your rebuttal.?ut

What an I to rebut? You said it was benign. I've shown that its not. Its addicitive. You agree.

Agrument over.

Do you know the difference between addictive and benign? Benign means of kindly or favourable disposition. You've just shown what was obvious. I agree it's addictive. I've shown it's benign. You didn't read the link to the Nick Davies piece:

Dr. Richard Brotman, who stated after his 1965 study that "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body".

Dr. Wills Butler, who ran the clinic in Shreveport in the twenties said none of his many patients showed any side effects or the Philidelphia Hospital study which concluded that the users suffered no physical harm of any kind.

There's stacks more, Craig. The drug is benign. I agree the argument is over.

That other things arr also addicitve is beside the point. We are talking about Heroin. What are you trying the change the subject? And why are we talking about the legality of heroin in the first place?

I think it's banned because it's a dangerous medicinal foe for many existing drugs, including aspirin, and because the current black market for heroin and other illegal drugs is so lucrative. Heroin and other drugs are making a lot of money for people who can influence lawmakers. Politicians, after denouncing a drug like heroin as the devil's drug etc, etc, often claim they are bound by international treaties to maintain the current drug laws. That's crap, too:

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/sin_conv.php

A dangerous foe? Are you kidding? Asprin? You owe me a new keyboard...I just spewed diet coke all over it. Most everything else in the same class is way out of patent protection as well...so much for that argument. Sheesh, you really believe this crap?

It's not hard to believe you are so misinformed. Yes, prescription heroin would be fierce competition for many other drugs. aspirin included.

Wow! now you think that a doctor would precribe heroin in place of aspirin?

In some cases, yes.

Amazing. It that were the case why not just perscribe morphine, which is available now.

I don't know. Are you a doctor?

As I'm sure you know, Heroin turns back into morphine once in the body. Morphine is not under patent. Into that false reality again. Snorting Heroin? Since Heroin as well as the the major drugs in its class are all generic at this point why would the generic drug companies care? They would have the rights to make and sell it cheaply. Another of your empty claims shot down. And again why are we discussing heroin?

I don't follow your hazy logic.

You trust your Government too much, Craig.

Now I know you are cognitively impaired. I don't trust my government to to a proper job of providing tags for my cars let alone run things like health care. You spend too much time thinking as a CT Mark.

Yet you trust them to conduct foreign wars with no valid pretext. You support them strongly in this. You also appear to support draconian domestic laws which impinge on civil liberties and drug laws which underpin massive criminal enterprises. I may think like a CT but it's debatable whether you actually think at all.

Mark, in case you have missed it this thread is about healthcare. If you are left without an argument, the proper thing to do is quit and not try and change the subject to something eles. So much for your attempts at rational thought.

I agree the argument has drifted from the thread topic. You started the argument. You've shown you are not capable of understanding the fallacy of the war on drugs. People who think like you are the best friend drug barons ever had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't make that claim. Can you show me where I made it? I believe it is one of the reasons why heroin was banned in the US in 1924. The main reason for its current status is that it's one of the central pillars in the War on Drugs.

YOU..upthread:

There is another wonder drug. Heroin. It's highly addictive but it's the most powerful pain killer ever discovered. It's used in British hospitals as we speak for a multitude of conditions. Unfortunately, Bayer's patent expired some years ago so it could potentially be mass produced generically--hence no profit for big pharma. And it would cut into the profits of synthetically manufactured alternatives--big pharma loses again. Redressing this potentially disastrous state of

affairs was simple---it was rendered illegal. I know this must sound like a scary tale, but it's true.

And most died in their beds at an old age. Since you're moralising about their addiction, shouldn't you also advocate prohibition of tobacco and alcohol? Or is that just another lack of consistency in your position?

And died addicted to heroin. I'm not moralizing Mark, just stating a fact. Tobacco and alcohol are not the issus. Heroin is. For the record I don't think smoking nor drinking are good things either.

You Mark have simply created an false reality...a CT reality.

False.

Wrong

Well lets see, its major league addictive...benign...yea...right.

Let's see, so are legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco and a host of other drugs available on prescription. Yes, heroin is addictive like those others are---and benign (unlike those others). So where's your rebuttal.?

Whats to rebut? see below.

What an I to rebut? You said it was benign. I've shown that its not. Its addicitive. You agree.

Agrument over.

Do you know the difference between addictive and benign? Benign means of kindly or favourable disposition. You've just shown what was obvious. I agree it's addictive. I've shown it's benign. You didn't read the link to the Nick Davies piece:

Dr. Richard Brotman, who stated after his 1965 study that "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body".

Dr. Wills Butler, who ran the clinic in Shreveport in the twenties said none of his many patients showed any side effects or the Philidelphia Hospital study which concluded that the users suffered no physical harm of any kind.

There's stacks more, Craig. The drug is benign. I agree the argument is over.

Being addicted for life with limited chances for withdrawal is kindly or of a favourable disposition? Yes the argument is over and you lost.

Wow! now you think that a doctor would precribe heroin in place of aspirin?

In some cases, yes.

Great, cite some examples.

Amazing. It that were the case why not just perscribe morphine, which is available now.

I don't know. Are you a doctor?

Are you? If heroin works, then why not morphine, which is what heroin becomes in the human body.

As I'm sure you know, Heroin turns back into morphine once in the body. Morphine is not under patent. Into that false reality again. Snorting Heroin? Since Heroin as well as the the major drugs in its class are all generic at this point why would the generic drug companies care? They would have the rights to make and sell it cheaply. Another of your empty claims shot down. And again why are we discussing heroin?

I don't follow your hazy logic.

You claim was that heroin was banned because its patent expired and it was a threat to other drugs in its class. That is a baseless argument since the other drugs in its class are also without patent pretection. Heroin cannot be a threat since it has an equal footing as far as patent protection is concerned.

I agree the argument has drifted from the thread topic. You started the argument. You've shown you are not capable of understanding the fallacy of the war on drugs. People who think like you are the best friend drug barons ever had.

No Mark, you started the argument and you took the left turn. Exactly were have I made any statements about the war on drugs, pro or con? Sheesh there you go again making crap up out of whole cloth. You don't have a clue what my position is. Give it a rest.

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, the great strength of the system is that very expensive treatment is available to people who could not afford to pay the market price.

I am interested in hearing about other member’s experience of the health care system. Have you been satisfied with the treatment you or family members have received?

Firstly, may I say that my thoughts and best wishes are with you both, John and Judith. It is a hell of a thing to be going through and I wish you well.

I think one of the best things about the NHS or similar systems is that you can just concentrate on dealing with the health issue. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be in the situation where you not only have to manage something like cancer, heart surgery, or the aftermath of an industrial or car accident AND have to deal with how the medical bill will be paid and all the consequences there from. It can only be bad for your health and recovery.

Australia had no universal public health system until the Labor government of 1972. They introduced a public health system called Medibank. It was paid through the taxation system as was loved by the vast majority of Australians. Prior to 1972 the leading cause of bankruptcy and home repossession was unpaid medical bills. Some doctors were sympathetic to an individuals situation and would make other arrangements including pro bono work. Most were not. In any case people hate to ask for 'charity'.

The Fraser government after the 1975 coup/dismassal dismantled Medibank and made it a government owned private health insurance company. I should also mention that there were state health systems in place some of which were publicly funded. When I had my first child in 1978 my planned homebirth went wrong and I was taken in the back of the family station wagon to the local hospital on the Gold Coast in Queensland (same one Dr. Haneef worked at FWIW). Queenland was then run by the most reactionary red neck (Bjelke-Petersen) but he had kept in place the free state hospital system previously put in place by a Labor government. The care was good. Not an accountant or bill in sight. I was able to stay a whole 2 weeks. Unheard of now.

Another public health system, Medicare, was established by the Hawke government when they defeated the Fraser government in 1983. It has been in place since. It has been politically unpopular to even suggest dismantling it for any party. However, it has also been undermined. It has been underfunded while at the same time many billions of public dollars have been poured into private health insurers ostensibly to take the burden off Medicare :blink: Even the government owned Medibank Private insurance has been privatised (there is almost nothing left to sell) Because all of the government insurance companies and many of the member owned insurance companies have been privatised the insurance companies have been hiking up the cost and reducing the benefits. The sky is the limit. This includes the health insurers. Even if you have health insurance you will still have to pay on top of that. In some cases it is still thousand of dollars more.

My husband had cancer 5 years ago and we dealt with it through the public system and have been generally happy with the whole experience. Yes, it does help to be educated (as it does in any situation) And since my husband is not an native English speaker I can't say how he would have faired on his own. It may have been different. But it certainly has been a huge benefit not to have to worry about whether we can afford to have a treatment or not nor have we had to pay any bills for any of it. On the other hand, a friend of ours got cancer about year after my husband. She has full private health insurance and has used it to the maximum. She has been happy with her treatment but has had to pay thousands to cover 'gaps' here and there.

My last two children were born in Sydney and the whole thing was done through Medicare and not a cent was paid. Just one form to fill in (for each :lol: ). That is another thing about Medicare. It is much simpler. It cost about 3-4% to administer where as the private heath insurers cost about 10-14% (and more in some cases) to administer. Then the shareholders have to get their cut and the managers their bonuses etc. Personally, I find an elegant simplicity in a progressive tax system where all the basic things (housing, education, health, infrastructure, are publicly funded and just there for any one needs (not want) it.

My mother always had private health insurance as she thought this paid for something 'better'. The only thing it brought that I could see was a guy in a tuxedo to bring the food at night and she could have wine with her meals if it wasn't medically a no no. Same nurses and same doctors. Same training. Same equipment. May be a private room but you get that in the public system if medically needed.

Market forces do not seem to meet medical needs in my husbands country (unless you are wealthy but wealthy people nearly always get their needs met by the market) he has experiences of people having to go without medicines or with out treatment because of the costs. On the other hand when he lived in Hungary (socialist times) medicine was free and accessible. They would also send you else where if they could not provide it there. Don't know what it is like now. Another friend (Australian) used to take her daughter to Moscow for treatment for an eye condition. It was all free. But that was pre counter revolution and I don't know what it is like now. A local (here) Cuban friend says his family has had great experience with the Cuban system all totally free. According to the WHO statistics Cubans now have a longer life expectancy than the US. Maybe its the music and not the free health system or 1 doctor for every 100 population :ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't make that claim. Can you show me where I made it? I believe it is one of the reasons why heroin was banned in the US in 1924. The main reason for its current status is that it's one of the central pillars in the War on Drugs.

YOU..upthread:

There is another wonder drug. Heroin. It's highly addictive but it's the most powerful pain killer ever discovered. It's used in British hospitals as we speak for a multitude of conditions. Unfortunately, Bayer's patent expired some years ago so it could potentially be mass produced generically--hence no profit for big pharma. And it would cut into the profits of synthetically manufactured alternatives--big pharma loses again. Redressing this potentially disastrous state of

affairs was simple---it was rendered illegal. I know this must sound like a scary tale, but it's true.

And most died in their beds at an old age. Since you're moralising about their addiction, shouldn't you also advocate prohibition of tobacco and alcohol? Or is that just another lack of consistency in your position?

And died addicted to heroin. I'm not moralizing Mark, just stating a fact. Tobacco and alcohol are not the issus. Heroin is. For the record I don't think smoking nor drinking are good things either.

You Mark have simply created an false reality...a CT reality.

False.

Wrong

Well lets see, its major league addictive...benign...yea...right.

Let's see, so are legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco and a host of other drugs available on prescription. Yes, heroin is addictive like those others are---and benign (unlike those others). So where's your rebuttal.?

Whats to rebut? see below.

What an I to rebut? You said it was benign. I've shown that its not. Its addicitive. You agree.

Agrument over.

Do you know the difference between addictive and benign? Benign means of kindly or favourable disposition. You've just shown what was obvious. I agree it's addictive. I've shown it's benign. You didn't read the link to the Nick Davies piece:

Dr. Richard Brotman, who stated after his 1965 study that "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body".

Dr. Wills Butler, who ran the clinic in Shreveport in the twenties said none of his many patients showed any side effects or the Philidelphia Hospital study which concluded that the users suffered no physical harm of any kind.

There's stacks more, Craig. The drug is benign. I agree the argument is over.

Being addicted for life with limited chances for withdrawal is kindly or of a favourable disposition? Yes the argument is over and you lost.

Wow! now you think that a doctor would precribe heroin in place of aspirin?

In some cases, yes.

Great, cite some examples.

Amazing. It that were the case why not just perscribe morphine, which is available now.

I don't know. Are you a doctor?

Are you? If heroin works, then why not morphine, which is what heroin becomes in the human body.

As I'm sure you know, Heroin turns back into morphine once in the body. Morphine is not under patent. Into that false reality again. Snorting Heroin? Since Heroin as well as the the major drugs in its class are all generic at this point why would the generic drug companies care? They would have the rights to make and sell it cheaply. Another of your empty claims shot down. And again why are we discussing heroin?

I don't follow your hazy logic.

You claim was that heroin was banned because its patent expired and it was a threat to other drugs in its class. That is a baseless argument since the other drugs in its class are also without patent pretection. Heroin cannot be a threat since it has an equal footing as far as patent protection is concerned.

I agree the argument has drifted from the thread topic. You started the argument. You've shown you are not capable of understanding the fallacy of the war on drugs. People who think like you are the best friend drug barons ever had.

No Mark, you started the argument and you took the left turn. Exactly were have I made any statements about the war on drugs, pro or con? Sheesh there you go again making crap up out of whole cloth. You don't have a clue what my position is. Give it a rest.

Since this has drifted a fair way from the specific thread topic, I'll start a thread about decriminalising illicit drugs, including heroin.

Our debate here has shown that your claim that the illegality of heroin is the result of it being 'dangerous' is without basis. Actually alcohol, a legal drug, is far more dangerous.

The argument about prohibition of certain drugs impacts heavily on the overall debate about healthcare, imo, because of the massive financial and social cost to the community of enforcing prohibition. It would be far more useful spending this money on real healthcare for those who need it. Those who rely on the tabloid media for their information are unaware of this massive price they have been paying, and the massive global criminal enterprise they have been subsidising. They think it is just part of the cost of maintaing law and order in society.

Once again, the mainstream media is complicit in decieving the public on a grand scale.

Edited by Mark Stapleton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since this has drifted a fair way from the specific thread topic, I'll start a thread about decriminalising illicit drugs, including heroin.

Thanks for that Mark. It has taken us away from the interesting topic of comparing medical treatment in different countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×