 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/16/2016 4:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:47:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2016 12:17 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That was precisely my thought (the latter, not the former;) )
>>
>
>> There is a lot of grumbling on this side of the pond at the moment. With
>> drug treatments being not cost effective. So patients die and companies
>> prosper.
>
> Yeah, on this side as well. And then we have opportunists like Martin
> Shrikeli who take drugs that are affordable and jack the prices up, and
> then justify it by saying the insurance companies cover it *anyways*.
>
I hope they throw away the key.
> Because insurance company money is free to the consumer, apparently.
>
I wonder how the world would have turned out if you had a "free at the
point of use" health service.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/16/2016 4:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:42:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/10/2016 10:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Quite possibly. There's a stigma for pot users that somehow people who
>>> drink alcohol or smoke tobacco don't have (though in the US at least,
>>> tobacco users do have more stigma now than, say, 30 years ago).
>>
>> That view seems to have gone here. It is so common place. It might be
>> just the people I meet. There is a lot more tolerance than there was
>> when I was the age to smoke it.
>> Or maybe it's because I live in London - Sin City.
>
> Could be.
>
> The irony is that the criminalization of pot in the US is driven largely
> (but not exclusively) by a party that claims to be about "personal
> responsibility". There's an irony in that.
>
Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so keen
on passing oppressive laws?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-3-2016 9:53, Stephen wrote:
> Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so keen
> on passing oppressive laws?
>
<grin> You have just played your trump card, partner.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2016 12:23 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 17-3-2016 9:53, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so keen
>> on passing oppressive laws?
>>
>
> <grin> You have just played your trump card, partner.
>
He is not my Trump, the Duck. </Boak>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:53:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 4:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:42:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/10/2016 10:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Quite possibly. There's a stigma for pot users that somehow people
>>>> who drink alcohol or smoke tobacco don't have (though in the US at
>>>> least, tobacco users do have more stigma now than, say, 30 years
>>>> ago).
>>>
>>> That view seems to have gone here. It is so common place. It might be
>>> just the people I meet. There is a lot more tolerance than there was
>>> when I was the age to smoke it.
>>> Or maybe it's because I live in London - Sin City.
>>
>> Could be.
>>
>> The irony is that the criminalization of pot in the US is driven
>> largely (but not exclusively) by a party that claims to be about
>> "personal responsibility". There's an irony in that.
>>
>>
> Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so keen
> on passing oppressive laws?
Yep.
"We want government out of our lives" - and then pass laws that interfere
with women's health issues, have intrusive surveillance, want to weaken
strong encryption, and criminalize things like pot that only generally
affect the user.
Basically, to limit anyone who they feel has a different "morality" than
they do.
There's a word for this, I think....starts with 'h'. ;)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:23:00 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 17-3-2016 9:53, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Strange isn't it that parties who want a smaller governments are so
>> keen on passing oppressive laws?
>>
>>
> <grin> You have just played your trump card, partner.
What a terrible, terrible pun.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:15:55 -0400, dick balaska wrote:
> Am 2016-03-16 12:46, also sprach Jim Henderson:
>
>> The irony is that the criminalization of pot in the US is driven
>> largely (but not exclusively) by a party that claims to be about
>> "personal responsibility". There's an irony in that.
>
> There's several issues I've always thought were backwards.
> - Abortion is a personal choice, should be the Republican PoV.
> - Homosexuality is a personal thing, should have nothing to do with the
> government, and "outlawing" it should not be the Republican PoV.
> - Pot (and rec drugs in general) you just mentioned. "Government knows
> what's best for you" is not supposed to be the Republican PoV.
Agreed on all three points.
"We don't want government getting between a patient and a doctor" - well,
except in this instance, where it's imperative that the decision not be
made by the patient and the doctor.
Drives me crazy.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:47:17 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 4:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:47:14 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/11/2016 12:17 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> That was precisely my thought (the latter, not the former;) )
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a lot of grumbling on this side of the pond at the moment.
>>> With drug treatments being not cost effective. So patients die and
>>> companies prosper.
>>
>> Yeah, on this side as well. And then we have opportunists like Martin
>> Shrikeli who take drugs that are affordable and jack the prices up, and
>> then justify it by saying the insurance companies cover it *anyways*.
>>
>>
> I hope they throw away the key.
Same here.
>> Because insurance company money is free to the consumer, apparently.
>>
>>
> I wonder how the world would have turned out if you had a "free at the
> point of use" health service.
That would be a nice thing. As it is now, there's always a concern about
going to the doctor for something - because "how much is it going to cost
me?" is always a deciding factor.
Like "I've got kidney stones - but no insurance. Do I go to the ER for
pain meds and treatment, or do I live with the pain?" - that's a decision
nobody should ever have to make.
And then when you get charged $3,000 for the visit (what was essentially
a 15-minute consultation with the ER doctor), it's not exactly like
you're in a position to shop around for the least expensive ER, compare
Yelp reviews, and make an "informed consumer decision" about where to go.
And they don't really say anything about the pricing being negotiable
(I've had a few people claim that that is actually the case here in the
US - but I've never known it to be true).
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2016 5:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> There's a word for this, I think....starts with 'h'.;)
Hell bound?
At least by their own rules.
And it is all Old Testament, where is the Christianity?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2016 5:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >>
>> >I wonder how the world would have turned out if you had a "free at the
>> >point of use" health service.
> That would be a nice thing. As it is now, there's always a concern about
> going to the doctor for something - because "how much is it going to cost
> me?" is always a deciding factor.
>
> Like "I've got kidney stones - but no insurance. Do I go to the ER for
> pain meds and treatment, or do I live with the pain?" - that's a decision
> nobody should ever have to make.
>
> And then when you get charged $3,000 for the visit (what was essentially
> a 15-minute consultation with the ER doctor), it's not exactly like
> you're in a position to shop around for the least expensive ER, compare
> Yelp reviews, and make an "informed consumer decision" about where to go.
>
> And they don't really say anything about the pricing being negotiable
> (I've had a few people claim that that is actually the case here in the
> US - but I've never known it to be true).
I can't get my head round the American attitude to health care.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
