Obama Care: Res Ipsa Loquitur:

Posted by: Russ on 25 November 2013

Some time ago, I endured the whips and scorns cast by many of my well-meaning European and American friends by having the gall to question the policies of the chosen one whom I should very well know is better able to guide my future than I am.  At that time, I promised all of those who sang my praises on that thread that at some point I would pontificate on Obama Care.  Well, I wanted to, but I have been too busy watching with a combination of horror and amusement, the vast body of material which we are now provided by the Democrats themselves.  At first you could only hear about it on the hated Fox News channel, but eventually even the liberally-oriented cable organizations as well as the New York Times and Washington Post had to acknowledge what was going on. 

 

Now, Obama Care was passed when the Democrats held not only the White House, but both houses of Congress.  Not a single Republican voted for it—all of them predicting disaster.  The Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said: “We need to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it.”  Go Nancy!  Heartfelt Republican opposition was characterized as obstructionism and racism.   The bill mandated that all private health insurance plans include:

 

Insurers not being able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions

 

Insurers not being able to drop coverage for those who become sick

 

A ban on price discrimination based on sex, medical history, or community rating

 

Allowing “children” or dependents to remain on a parent’s policy through age 26

 

No lifetime or annual coverage caps on essential benefits—broadly defined in the bill as:

 

"ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care."

 

Contraception supplies mandatory

 

Elimination of co-pays and deductibles     

 

And with all of these “freebies”, Obama promised:

  1.  Health Insurance will be more affordable—across the board—saving families an average of $2,500.00 per year.
  2. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
  3. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan------PERIOD!

Hell, we really don’t need any of our mythical Supreme Beings to bring about miracles—we have Obama!

 

Now of course, like all the freebies promised by this unapologetic socialist—(who occupies the same Oval Office where Franklin Roosevelt worked day and night with Sir Winston Churchill to defeat Adolph Hitler and where William Jefferson Clinton worked day and night to get hum jobs from Monica Lewinski,) this was patently and obviously false—at the very least to anyone who could add two and two.  Unfortunately, it is apparent that a majority of the American People—at least a majority of Democrats, did not fit into that category.  The very Democratic leaders who pushed through passage of the bill are all on videotape parroting Obama’s talking points—word for word, just as they parroted President Bush’s words about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction—having seen the same intelligence reports he saw.

 

But in the case of Obama Care, they have proven themselves to have been lying, opportunistic weasels—just like their Boss.

 

Forget Operation Fast and Furious where Obama’s Attorney General sold guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels.  Forget the so-called Justice Department’s illegal investigation of Fox News executives.  Forget IRS (the same bunch who are supposed to enforce the individual mandate of Obama Care) targeting Tea Party and other conservative organizations.  Forget Obama and Hillary turning their backs on their own ambassadorial staff in Benghazi and letting them be murdered.  Forget their stonewalling Congress in all of the investigations of these matters.  Obama says he did not know about any of those scandals. 

 

Of course, he also said “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan---PERIOD.” In the past, Presidents have been held accountable for lying.  George H.W. Bush famously said: "Mark my words--no new taxes."  When he later raised taxes, the American People understandably and rightly held him responsible.  Obama has no more races to run, and it is doubtful that his own fall from grace will affect the coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  We shall see.

 

But as I say, forget all that—Obama Care affects millions of Americans and it is now obvious to all that its creator and namesake lied.  He didn’t forget—he didn’t misrepresent—he didn’t mis-state—He Lied!  53 percent of the American People now believe he is not trustworthy.  Well, Yeah!  We Racist Republicans (RR) were trying to tell you the truth five years ago.

 

So Obama Care got passed—all 2,200 pages of it.  The website was contracted out to a Canadian firm that had been dismissed from many other projects for failed results.  They had 3 ½ years to build the goddamn site and screwed it up royally.  Not with glitches—but with a completely faulty architecture.  As of today, 40 percent of the underlying structure—the back end—is not even built—the part that uh, actually pays the premiums to insurance companies!

 

But forget the website as well—that is the least of it.  So far 5.5 million Americans—almost all in the individual market-- have received cancellation notices from their companies.  Why?  Because they do not meet the list of some ten or so non-negotiable coverage items required by Obama Care.  So a 22 year-old male in perfect health with no wife or children who had a policy that did not include mamagrams, pap smears, or birth control pills now gets his relatively cheap policy cancelled.  But what the hell?  All he has to do is find a “better” policy for him on healthcare.gov—(once it starts working in 2045).  Oh, sure, the price may be higher—gee, ya think?  Now it is obvious that when the shit hits the fan with the individual mandate (recently delayed by Obama until two weeks after the 2014 midterm elections in order to protect several Democratic Senators who are going ape-shit over their own vulnerability) as many as one-hundred-million Americans may well lose their “crummy” plans.

 

Soon after passage, Obama granted “waivers” to over 1,500 organizations, including AARP and many of the huge labor unions who had helped him get it passed.  Several important states were given exemptions in order to appease them politically.   Now the major unions are going ape-shit because they have read the bill and discovered they may have to pay a reinsurance fee for each of their covered members.  Oh, but I forgot, Obama is considering a waiver for that as well.  After all, they voted correctly—and that is the only important thing to him.

 

But why would Obama lie about: (1) the cost of the bill to the government, (2) the cost of the bill to individuals, (3) the ability of individuals to keep their doctors and plans, (4) the fact that deductibles would go sky-high, (5) the fact that the intention behind the bill was, from the first, to do away with the private insurance market,   and most importantly that (6) the bill was (now acknowledged by even the New York Times) a giant scheme for the re-distribution of wealth?

 

BECAUSE HAD TOLD THE TRUTH, HE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ELECTED!

 

Now, the heathens are truly raging, the rats are leaving the ship, the lights have been turned on in the kitchen, the roaches are running under the stove, the insane are running the asylum, and the Democrats are pulling out all the political stops.  The Senate has changed the rules of cloture for filibustering, available in one form or another for over 200 years, so that a minority of Senators can no longer block appointees to the D.C. Court of Appeals—the second most powerful court in the land, because it is the court which decides administrative and regulatory cases and controversies—especially important to the cockroaches in today’s Washington--any challenges to administrative end-runs around Congress—including the Republican House of Representatives.  Hmmm.

 

Predictably Obama has chosen the strategy of blaming: (1) the insurance companies--(for cancelling the policies--even though it was his law that forced them to,) (2) the media (for having the guts to dare to question Him,) and (3) most hilarious of all, the Republicans--(even though not one voted for the garbage that became Obama Care and not one was consulted on either the content of the bill or the construction of His website.)

 

Obama is a sad, sad story.  Don’t get me wrong—he is enormously intelligent, apparently a great husband and father.  People who know him like him.  Until now, even with all the cynicism and incompetence, his likeability has kept his approval rating up.  And he is a political genius.  He knows how to campaign.  But to some extent he is either incompetent in the realm of actually governing OR in some ways, he is devilishly clever in governing in a radical way and then covering up the truth. 

 

Even sadder, as the first black man elected President of the United States, he might have been the inspiration even I, and others like me who knew where he came from politically and what he really stood for, (Chicago and the principles of Saul Alinsky) hoped he might be.   But sadly, a political hack from Chicago, black, white, or polka-dotted, is still a hack.  He promised to be a uniter—but no one has been more divisive.  And make no mistake—it is not white Republicans or Tea Party members who have created the division because he is black.  Rather, it is he and his race-baiting supporters who are vicious enough to claim that it is impossible to oppose the policies of a black president—UNLESS you are a racist.  There must, in short, be a double standard for blacks in that office.  And that, my friends, is by far the most damaging racist, paternalistic view one could hold. 

 

Black Americans of course support Obama by a factor of nearly 10-1.  But they make up only 15 percent of the country.  A very great part of white America elected President Obama.  (Fewer voted for him in 2012, so must one assume that they became racists overnight?)

It may be too late to stop the Democratic coalition in this country: too many checks are being written and there is, after all, the promise of all that wealth redistribution.  (Yummm!)  But at least, this train wreck that is Obama Care has proved beyond any doubt three things:

 

First, Barack Obama has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be capable of lying to the American People about anything and everything. 

 

Second:The kind of big government advocated by Barack Obama and his heir-apparent Hillary Clinton, is incompetent to either formulate sound policy or to execute it.

 

Third: Barack Obama is, whatever he may claim, attempting to introduce European Socialism into the United States, even as that ideology is being almost universally discredited.

 

The next step to "fix" Obama Cae will be single-payer socialized medicine--what they all said they wanted in the first place!

 

But now President Obama has turned from destroying the nation through domestic policies that are either naively incompetent or cynically socialistic—or both, in favor of the kind of pathetic foreign policy demonstrated by Neville Chamberlain in 1939—in the present case, leaving the Israelis to either attack Iran or allow themselves to be turned into a parking lot.  (But that’s another story.)  Or perhaps I am being unfair—The President of the United States says it is a good agreement.  But then he also said: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan—PERIOD!”

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Kevin-W
Originally Posted by MangoMonkey:
Originally Posted by Kevin-W:
Originally Posted by MangoMonkey:

 

Insurance companies have little incentive to make healthcare affordable - they can just pass on the tab to the customers. Even the in-network out of network doesn't mean much.

 


 

You don't get it, do you? Why should insurance companies worry about making healthcare affordable? That's not their job. Their job is to make a profit. It's the state's job to look after ill people.

 

That's exactly my point. Obama hasn't done the right thing - instead of attacking the core problem - which is the cost of healthcare, he's targeting mandatory insurance, which probably will end up fattening insurance companies further.

 

The core problem here is that the healthcare system is more of a monopoly - and reeks of extortion at times, rather than a free market. In a free market system, you're free to choose. When you're sick, and in the middle of a heart attack, you can't go comparison shopping.

 

No, you misunderstand Mango. The point is, that there cannot really be a "free market" in healthcare because healthcare - like, for example, public transport, or water - is not fungible; and as you rightly say, you can't shop around for healthcare when you're having a cardiac arrest.

 

Therefore the only sensible option, it seems to me, is for the state to provide healthcare itself. Free, at the point of delivery. Of course if you or Russ or anyone else wants to go "private" as it were, that is your right. But it only seems fair that you pay anyway - otherwise it isn't universal, is it?

 

On another note, I'd like to point out that the "free market" so fondly embraced by Hayek/Friedmanite ideologues doesn't really exist: certainly not now, and I doubt it has ever existed, or will exist. All we have now, in the US, UK and elsewhere, is a particularly rancid form of crony capitalism which does none of us any good. Its end cannot come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

 

Faith in "free markets" is in any case misplaced, because markets are not really rational - they are largely built on sentiment, which is why we have stock market panics and the like - nor are they self-correcting.

 

The only question is whether we continue to let corporations and scumbags like the Kochs of this world fix them for their advantage, or get the state to intervene as and when necessary to correct the markets. I know which way I'd answer that particular question.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by totemphile

The point also is that there is no free market, period! Just a market, which suits the US for its own economic benefits. A truly free market would encompass full use of whatever comparative advantage one nation has in production of good vs. the other. However, as soon as South Korea, India or China produce steel cheaper than the US or any other labour intensive products, because their average cost of labour is lower than that in the US, the America administration slaps their famous import tariffs on those products. That's just one example, the list is endless. It's all a joke. To be fair the EU is not much better in many respects vs. the developing regions of the rest of the world.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Russ

Toemphile: Ah yes--BUSH!!!!!  The hateful cause of every problem from the beginning of time until the end of the Earth!  Thanks for correcting me and focusing me back on the true evil.

You also point out that Texas = oil wells.  Got it!  Got the stereotype.  Hell's Bells, Boy, we're all rich!  Every episode of "Dallas" proves that!  Just watch James Dean and Rock Hudson in "Giant" and you get a good historical perspective on the dreaded BUSH family! 

We're all cowboy's too, down here!  Howdy, Podnuh!

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by MangoMonkey

Not sure how you guys out in Europe can trust the state so much.

 

I've lived there - everyone in Germany complained about the red tape. You need to register with the govt. anytime you move. How dumb is that?

 

The state here is going to get robbed blind if they go to a single payer system. Too much lobbying.

 

It's tough. It's a complicated issue - and the solution has to be multifaceted too.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Kevin-W
Originally Posted by MangoMonkey:

Not sure how you guys out in Europe can trust the state so much.

 

I've lived there - everyone in Germany complained about the red tape. You need to register with the govt. anytime you move. How dumb is that?

 

The state here is going to get robbed blind if they go to a single payer system. Too much lobbying.

 

It's tough. It's a complicated issue - and the solution has to be multifaceted too.

Hardly anyone trusts the state (or rather whichever government happens to be in power), at least here in Blighty. However most people trust the corporations you seem to put so much faith in even less.

 

You criticise German "red tape" for being "dumb". [Would you care to give us some examples of the red tape you encountered, by the way? Just so nobody can accuse you of making stuff up or relying on hearsay] But how dumb is the situation your lot has gotten into over something as fundamental as healthcare?

 

And the probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard is the government of the world's most powerful, and richest, nation almost being shut down because of pettifogging on the part of the moron wing of the Republican Party. America became the laughing stock of the world.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Kevin-W
Originally Posted by Russ:
 I hope with all my heart that the allies to whose aid we never failed to come will do well on their own against the next tyranny. 

So America's might will be turned against the tyranny of the failed neoliberal project next then? That's good.

 

Just make sure you don't leave it 27 months, like you did last time.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by Kevin Richardson
Originally Posted by MangoMonkey:

 

It isn't great, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

My contention is that healthcare should be affordable enough that ordinary people shouldn't need insurance for regular doctors visits, medicines etc - not really even for a broken leg.

 

Sure, if you need go for heart surgery or some really specialist procedure, where the bill is high you can insure yourself for that - and even there, with healthcare being affordable it shouldn't cost you your house if you really need to do so.

 

Insurance companies have little incentive to make healthcare affordable - they can just pass on the tab to the customers. Even the in-network out of network doesn't mean much.

 

Since doctors are several hundred thousand in debt by the time they're out of med school, they need to make a couple hundred thousand just to break even - specially when you tack on malpractice insurance.

 

Maybe the key is to finance higher education - make it free. Don't label it as socialism, capitalism etc.

 

You get roads and highways for 'free', don't you - sure - paid by your tax dollars.

 

Why not consider access to higher education simply basic infrastructure - something that a country needs.

 

a) That takes the pressure off off doctors to make big bucks.

b) They'll be in it because they want to, not because they'll become rich quick.

 

I have a better idea.  Ban health insurance and make healthcare a real free market commodity.  The truth is that nobody can really afford healthcare.  I believe, like mango monkey, health insurance in the US is  protection racket.

 

I believe that healthcare providers should be well compensated.  The real market value of their contribution needs to be determined.  I have no health insurance and pay 190$ for 5 minute of a gp's time.  I know I pay this because I have the means but I am sure if he had a 'real' business he would have to price his time at maybe 400$ / hour vs. 2,000$.

 

Also, I am morally opposed to being forced to pay for health insurance for the elderly and poor when I myself am unable to have the 'protection' of health insurance.

 

Health insurance is not going away anytime soon.  The step of making it available to everybody is the only morally acceptable solution.  If you can't afford it you go on the Medicaid.  If you can afford it you buy it.  If you don't want health insurance then don't use health care beyond your means.

Posted on: 26 November 2013 by mista h
Originally Posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
Originally Posted by backfromoz:

Bruce, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I always believed that GP practices were businesses with contracts with the NHS for the provision of healthcare.

 

Also that today the Practice receives funds and decides how best to apportion those funds with regards to the healthcare needs of that particular population. guided by local and national health initiatives.

 

Also today there are many Group Practices where by the Practitioners are directors of the business and or share holders of the business.

 

Practices can employ salaried GP's , but it is still a private business employing them.

 

So General Practice could be said to be wholly Private in its set up.

 

If the NHS was to take over all GP practices and salary the GP's on controlled salary structure with merit based annual increments, say at Band 8B or C on Agenda For Change salaries. Also TO RUN SERVICES 24 HOURS PER DAY 365 DAYS A YEARS.  Would this make General Practice more attractive and as  a result generate a greater interest for Doctors to enter General Practice.

 

I know that locally there is a plan to set up a Privately owned GP led Private Walk in Center , to try and improve access to Medical Care for many of the local citizens compared to the poor service provided by many local Practices.

 

I would add that my own local GP practice is excellent, but is only open office hours and not at weekends. So the Emergency Doctor service picks up the slack for out of normal business hours.

 

I worked in Sydney for 4 years and do not consider their system better than ours. it seems to be a halfway house model based upon UK and US.

 

regards David

 

 


The first bit is right, the rest is mainly not. There is a very important misunderstanding. Our system is ferociously complicated. I'lll try to be brief. What follows is a bit simplified but the principles are sound

 

GP surgeries are generally run as private small businesses contracting to the NHS. Most have some owner-partners and some salaried employee GPs. As a partner my income is a share of the profits and relates to NHS work and some private income (a small percentage of the total) from things like private medicals, occupational health advice for example. I also get paid to teach/train others. As a small business If I decide to re-paint the surgery or buy new chairs my profits fall. If I employ more staff to do the work the profits fall.

 

A chunk of our income is performance based ie it comes from hitting targets for good clinical care such as controlling blood pressure, managing diabetes well etc. We also get incentives that may be local or national such as schemes to reduce casualty admissions, or improve detection of dementia or alcohol problems for example. We have a few minor incentives to use resources efficiently and according to best practice but not just purely by cost.

 

HOWEVER. The amount of resources spent on my patients such as the cost of medication, number of referrals for hip replacements etc etc HAS NO IMPACT on my income. This is the crucial element. Decisions to prescribe cheaper drugs (or more expensive drugs) do not affect my pocket. My decisions to refer or not etc are of course made with one eye on using the limited NHS resources well and fairly but they are not an influence on my earnings. This is absolutely as it should be. If I say you do not need a referral to a specialist it is because I don't think it is needed-not to save my income.

 

To complicate matters GP's now belong to and 'lead' Clinical Comissioning Groups. They hold local budgets to purchase secondary and intermediate care services but NOT Primary Care. In other words some GP's are involved in designing and purchasing sevices for the local health economy however once again this is NOT about GP income. GP contracts are with NHS England. That role as part of a CCG is about using the skills of primary care to help design future services and look for improvements in quality and value. GP practices can also be providers-bidding to provide a service to the community that might have been provided in secondary care before (say a sexual health clinc). To do this they have to compete on a level playing field with any other bidder and show that they can do it better. If the GP practices get that contract all conflicts of interest will be declared in the decision making process which is open to public scutiny.

 

re your point about all GP's being salaried. As a profit sharing partner I work my arse off. I work part time and still do 60hrs a week. If I was salaried to the state I would clock in and clock off-and that is absolutely not the good way to provide care for patients. I care for my population, and if that means staying late I will do it. You'd also need to probably double the number of GP's in your suggested system. In truth if we started again that might be the way to do it but it will take a massive culture shift to dismantle the current established independent contractor status of UK GPs

 

I could go on, but a) I have not the time b) I've never really wanted to engage in debates about the state of the NHS on here as it feels bit to close to home. I use this Forum to break from work!

 

I remain generally proud of the NHS and being part of it. It is not perfect, other systems have good and bad too. The basic principle of equitable and free access remains solid.

 

Hope I've clarified things a bit.

 

Bruce

Bruce

You need to get yourself a job as a Saturday boy in your local Hi-Fi shop playing nice relaxing music to customers. You say you suffer from high B/P,that would help bring it down. Woking 60 hours a week!! how many hours do the fulltime staff do ?

Mista H

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Bruce Woodhouse

Actually to be fair it can be 50 hours. That does include some home working and study as well as my GP and CCG duties.

 

We don't have any full-time partners-it is not sustainable to work 5 full days.

 

Local Hi-Fi shop? Not had one for 10 years sadly.

 

Bruce

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by totemphile
Originally Posted by Russ:

Toemphile: Ah yes--BUSH!!!!!  The hateful cause of every problem from the beginning of time until the end of the Earth!  Thanks for correcting me and focusing me back on the true evil.

You also point out that Texas = oil wells.  Got it!  Got the stereotype.  Hell's Bells, Boy, we're all rich!  Every episode of "Dallas" proves that!  Just watch James Dean and Rock Hudson in "Giant" and you get a good historical perspective on the dreaded BUSH family! 

We're all cowboy's too, down here!  Howdy, Podnuh!

"Ten states accounted for roughly 94% of all onshore U.S. reserves as of the end of 2011, with roughly a third of this in Texas alone — just over 7 billion barrels."

 

"The quantity of Texas oil reserves and oil production dominates those in other states. According to the EIA, there were 32 new field discoveries between 2010 and 2011, more than double the fields discovered in North Dakota. Recent reports indicate these discoveries are not slowing down. In February, the Eagle Ford Shale Formation, which is composed of nine geographic fields underlying much of South Texas, produced 471,258 barrels of crude every day. This represents a 74% increase in oil production from the year before, according to the Texas Railroad Commission. As of 2011, the state's 27 oil refineries produce 4,754,681 barrels of oil per day."

 

Just pause for a minute Russ and imagine what could be, if all profits from Oil production in Texas went directly to Texan residents, providing free education, free health care, free child care, etc. Better still, if all oil profits in the US were made available to all Americans. The things that could be achieved for all members of society. Why should the proceeds of a resource that is American and arguably belongs to all Americans end up in the pockets of a few?

 

Just saying... 

 
Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Russ
Originally Posted by Kevin-W:
 

 

And the probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard is the government of the world's most powerful, and richest, nation almost being shut down because of pettifogging on the part of the moron wing of the Republican Party. America became the laughing stock of the world.

 

Consider this, Kevin: In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned for the Presidency on a platform that included his health care bill.  He was elected with a fairly good majority and declared that "...elections have consequences"--pretty much what Dubya meant by "I have gained political capital and I intend to use it." At that time, President Obama had a majority in both houses of Congress, including what is known as a "super majority" (60 or more) in the Senate. 

 

Interestingly, polls, and not just Republican polls, at that time, reflected an opposition to the health care plan that was proposed.  Still, I am sure that a majority of those who voted for him, favored the bill.

 

The bill was passed, signed and became law, and survived the first Court challenge.

 

Fast forward to the election of 2010.  Republican and Tea Party candidates campaigned on an austerity platform, highlighted by the repeal of Obamacare--at all costs. 

 

President Obama and the Democrats lost the House of Representatives by a stunning number of seats, and picked up enough seats in the Senate to obviate the previous super-majority.

 

So I am sure you would argue (and correctly, I might add) that President Obama was not unreasonable in assuming he had a mandate of some sort and at some level--to implement his planned bill.  And he did.

 

Now I know you would not characterize the Democrats' passage of the bill as "...pettifogging on the part of the moron wing of the Democratic Party.

 

So why would you use the same words on the Republicans for voting as they had a mandate to vote?

 

Why, because you support the former and not the latter--and with respect for your own opinion, I would have to characterize your words as pretty extreme pettifogging in their own right.

 

You, (who obviously care so much about the image of the United States) might also consider that it was damaging to our reputation to be selling guns to a drug cartel such that they were used to kill your own Border Patrol agent, using the Internal Revenue Service to deny tax free status to your political opponents, (one of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was based on illegal use of the IRS), spying on a major News organization which presents the case against you, and leaving your ambassador and staff to die without adequate support in Benghazi.

 

Given your deep respect for the U.S. Government, as long as it is controlled by the Democratic Party, you may be comforted to realize that less than 20 percent of it was actually shut down.  The political-minded Democrats of course, made maximum use of the bully pulpit to shut down such things as the National Parks and to try to deny WWII veterans access to their memorial.  Usually, they are, as I have said, far more politically astute than the Republicans, but they had to back off this latter pathetic and cynical move.

 

So never fear.  The U.S. Government is alive and well and still sticking its nose in so many places where it is not wanted.

 

As for your characterization of one part of the Republican Party as "morons", since Ted Cruz an Hispanic from Texas, was the leader of that movement, I have to question whether your opposition to his policies might indicate some racist tendencies on your part.

 

Aside from that, I wish you well.

 

Kevin Richardson: You will be happy to know that is exactly where Obama is headed.  He will blame the press, the insurance companies, and the opposition party for the outrage against his own program and then propose to "fix" it by doing away with the insurance industry.  So you may take heart.

 

Best regards,

 

Russ

 

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by totemphile
Originally Posted by Russ:
You, (who obviously care so much about the image of the United States) might also consider that it was damaging to our reputation to be selling guns to a drug cartel such that they were used to kill your own Border Patrol agent... 

Just stop the nonsense that is called "War on drugs" and legalize them! It's just one big phony war anyhow, serving ulterior motives, which have little to do with protecting people from these ever so "harmful" substances. To illustrate my point:

 

- Opiate related deaths in the US in 1999: 4,030

- Opiate related deaths in the US in 2010: 16,651

 

Source: CDC

 

That's pharmaceutically produced opiates btw. The abuse of pharmaceutical produced opiates in the US is epidemic, more people die of their abuse every year than of heroin and cocaine abuse together. 

 

Go figure....

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by totemphile

Forty Years of Failure

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the war on drugs - a critical time to shine a spotlight on 40 years of failed policy.

 

Since the declaration of a "war on drugs" 40 years ago:

  • America has spent at least $1 trillion on the drug war. It cost U.S. taxpayers at least $51 billion in 2009 at the state and federal level. That’s $169 for every man, woman and child in America – and that’s not counting opportunity costs or costs at the local level.
     
  • Millions of people have been incarcerated for low-level drug law violations, resulting in drastic racial disparities in the prison system, yet drug overdose, addiction and misuse are more prevalent than ever.
  • Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost to overdose and drug-related disease because cost-effective and lifesaving interventions are not sufficiently available.

The war on drugs drives mass incarceration of Americans:

  • More than 1 of every 100 American adults is behind bars. In 1980, the total U.S. prison and jail population was about 500,000 – today, it is more than 2.3 million.
  • The U.S. incarcerates more people than any country in the world – both per capita and in terms of total people behind bars. The U.S. has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet it has almost 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population.
  • The number of people behind bars for drug law violations rose from 50,000 in 1980 to more than a half of a million today – an 1100% increase. 
  • Drug arrests have more than tripled in the last 25 years, totaling more than 1.63 million  arrests in 2010. More than four out of five of these arrests were for mere possession, and forty-six percent of these arrests (750,591) were for marijuana possession alone. 
  • Arrests and incarceration for drugs – even for first time, low-level violations – can result in debilitating collateral consequences for an individual and their family. A conviction for a drug law violation can result in the loss of employment, property, public housing, food stamp eligibility, financial aid for college, and the right to vote – even after serving time behind bars.

The war on drugs is the new Jim Crow: 

  • While African Americans comprise only 13 percent of the U.S. population and 13 percent of drug users, they make up 38 percent of those arrested for drug law violations and 59 percent of those convicted of drug law violations.
  • Relative to population, African-Americans are 10.1 times more likely than whites to be sent to prison for drug offenses.

 

Source: http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-.../forty-years-failure

 

 

 

 

Imagine 1 trillion US$ invested in public services, education and healthcare over that 40 year period. 

 

America would be quite a different society today.

 

TBH Obama care seems the least of your worries!

 

 

 

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Kevin Richardson
Originally Posted by totemphile:
Originally Posted by Russ:
You, (who obviously care so much about the image of the United States) might also consider that it was damaging to our reputation to be selling guns to a drug cartel such that they were used to kill your own Border Patrol agent... 

Just stop the nonsense that is called "War on drugs" and legalize them! It's just one big phony war anyhow, serving ulterior motives, which have little to do with protecting people from these ever so "harmful" substances. To illustrate my point:

 

- Opiate related deaths in the US in 1999: 4,030

- Opiate related deaths in the US in 2010: 16,651

 

Source: CDC

 

That's pharmaceutically produced opiates btw. The abuse of pharmaceutical produced opiates in the US is epidemic, more people die of their abuse every year than of heroin and cocaine abuse together. 

 

Go figure....

Lets not compare heroin to legitimate medications.  The reason people generally die from pharmaceutical opiates is the damage done by acetaminophen [paracetamol].  Can we really say as a society that Heroin use is acceptable?  If anything we should remove the acetaminophen from the medicinal opiate mixtures so at least the few that get hooked sustain less significant damage.

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Bruce Woodhouse

Paracetamol is not an opiate. It is not addictive. Your last paragraph is completely incorrect.

 

Bruce

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by totemphile
Originally Posted by Kevin Richardson:
Originally Posted by totemphile:
Originally Posted by Russ:
You, (who obviously care so much about the image of the United States) might also consider that it was damaging to our reputation to be selling guns to a drug cartel such that they were used to kill your own Border Patrol agent... 

Just stop the nonsense that is called "War on drugs" and legalize them! It's just one big phony war anyhow, serving ulterior motives, which have little to do with protecting people from these ever so "harmful" substances. To illustrate my point:

 

- Opiate related deaths in the US in 1999: 4,030

- Opiate related deaths in the US in 2010: 16,651

 

Source: CDC

 

That's pharmaceutically produced opiates btw. The abuse of pharmaceutical produced opiates in the US is epidemic, more people die of their abuse every year than of heroin and cocaine abuse together. 

 

Go figure....

Lets not compare heroin to legitimate medications.  The reason people generally die from pharmaceutical opiates is the damage done by acetaminophen [paracetamol].  Can we really say as a society that Heroin use is acceptable?  If anything we should remove the acetaminophen from the medicinal opiate mixtures so at least the few that get hooked sustain less significant damage.

Yes I think we can. It's already a reality, so let's face it and not be hypocritical about it! Access to clean heroin and cocaine or any other substance for that matter on doctors prescription for the heavy addicts. Probably more likely to be heroin than cocaine. Legalize marihuana and tax it. I am not propagating the selling of hard drugs without prescriptions and of course the message to children and youngsters must emphasize the dangers of substance abuse. But the only way to achieve anything here is through education and information. Not by banning substances. 

 

And btw. who defined legitimacy, if I may ask? Alcohol in the US in the 1920s wasn't legitimate then, it is now. Marijuana, cocaine and heroin all were legitimate and legally obtainable once, they aren't now. Legitimacy is nothing more but a reflection of where society is at at any given moment in time. This is not a rigid term. And let's face it, the decriminalisation of all of these substances is being propagated by many people who truly understand the issues involved here.

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Kevin Richardson


Lets not compare heroin to legitimate medications.  The reason people generally die from pharmaceutical opiates is the damage done by acetaminophen [paracetamol].  Can we really say as a society that Heroin use is acceptable?  If anything we should remove the acetaminophen from the medicinal opiate mixtures so at least the few that get hooked sustain less significant damage.

Yes I think we can. It's already a reality, so let's face it and not be hypocritical about it! Access to clean heroin and cocaine or any other substance for that matter on doctors prescription for the heavy addicts. Probably more likely to be heroin than cocaine. Legalize marihuana and tax it. I am not propagating the selling of hard drugs without prescriptions and of course the message to children and youngsters must emphasize the dangers of substance abuse. But the only way to achieve anything here is through education and information. Not by banning substances. 

 

And btw. who defined legitimacy, if I may ask? Alcohol in the US in the 1920s wasn't legitimate then, it is now. Marijuana, cocaine and heroin all were legitimate and legally obtainable once, they aren't now. Legitimacy is nothing more but a reflection of where society is at at any given moment in time. This is not a rigid term. And let's face it, the decriminalisation of all of these substances is being propagated by many people who truly understand the issues involved here.

No ethical physician would ever prescribe heroin to a heroin addict any more than he would alcohol to an alcoholic.  Heroin has been shown to have an extremely high level of addiction potential.  It is not something that could be used in moderation.  Abuse of heroin is any use of heroin.  How can you tell  your children to not abuse heroin?  You say never use heroin.  Nobody wants their children to use heroin therefor it follows that every non-addict wants a society free of the substance.  Any individual that has a true addiction should work to free himself of his condition.

 

I don't know where you live but I've never seen the part of society where recreational use of opiates adds to the community in a positive manner.  Marijuana, on the other hand, is generally thought to not lead to addiction and I agree that it makes sense to legalize it.

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Kevin Richardson
Originally Posted by Bruce Woodhouse:

Paracetamol is not an opiate. It is not addictive. Your last paragraph is completely incorrect.

 

Bruce

I know but in the US the leading abused opiate medication is hydrocodone which is ALWAYS by law mixed with paracetamol.  The addicts ingest huge quantities of this toxic substance to get the high from the relatively low amounts of the opiate.

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Russ
I am not competent to discuss the difference between illegal use of prescription drugs versus banned drugs.  But i have to agree with Totemphile on the issues of (1) llegalization and (2) the comparison between "drugs" on the one hand and alcohol on the other. 

I have slowly come ariund to this point of view.  I am not personally religious and do not object to consumption of any subatances on moral grounds.  I think most of us would agree that our objections, if any, are based on the behavior of those who consume the stuff.

That said, I have always thought that it is important for the laws of a society to sanction seriously harmful behavior.

My son is a drug addict who has not indulged in over twenty years and has had a very successful career and is a great Dad.  I am an alcoholic who hasn't had a drink in 26 years.  And had we not quit I suspect we we would both be dead by now.  And i can assure you--as Totemphile implies--alcohol is a drug.  It just isn't illegal!

And when we tried to make it illegal,it surely didn't work very well.

And I have to agree with you, Totemohile, that continuing to penalize drug use is a fool's errand--for most, if not all the reasons you mention.

Best regards,

Russ
Posted on: 27 November 2013 by totemphile
Originally Posted by Russ:
I am not competent to discuss the difference between illegal use of prescription drugs versus banned drugs.  But i have to agree with Totemphile on the issues of (1) llegalization and (2) the comparison between "drugs" on the one hand and alcohol on the other. 

I have slowly come ariund to this point of view.  I am not personally religious and do not object to consumption of any subatances on moral grounds.  I think most of us would agree that our objections, if any, are based on the behavior of those who consume the stuff.

That said, I have always thought that it is important for the laws of a society to sanction seriously harmful behavior.

My son is a drug addict who has not indulged in over twenty years and has had a very successful career and is a great Dad.  I am an alcoholic who hasn't had a drink in 26 years.  And had we not quit I suspect we we would both be dead by now.  And i can assure you--as Totemphile implies--alcohol is a drug.  It just isn't illegal!

And when we tried to make it illegal,it surely didn't work very well.

And I have to agree with you, Totemohile, that continuing to penalize drug use is a fool's errand--for most, if not all the reasons you mention.

Best regards,

Russ

Russ,

 

You surprise me, I wouldn't have thought we agree on this topic. 

 

Kudos to you for keeping an open mind on this issue!

 

I would like to say that I have the greatest respect for you and your son having managed to stay clean for such a long time! It is as you mention, anyone with an addictive personality always stays an addict, no matter how long he or she has not consumed. The fact you referred to the both of you still as addicts, even though you've been sober for such a long time, is IMHO very honest and courageous, especially voicing this here on the forum.

 

I'd just like to add that in my view there is no shame in being or having been an addict. I believe many, possibly most, of us have an addictive personality in some way or another. How it manifests itself may be different from person to person but the mechanisms are the same. I guess it's how you deal with it that matters in the end.

 

 

All the best

Daniel

 

 

 

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Phil Cork

I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure this can be counted as GOP pettifoggery:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...youtube_gdata_player

 

Phil

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by totemphile
Originally Posted by totemphile:

Russ, I haven't bothered reading your entire post as it is mostly rubbish anyways. 

Russ, I owe you an apology for this sentence. It was rather rude of me and there is no need for that.

 

ATB

 

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Haim Ronen


This does not reflect my views but it is always important to be able to enjoy a good political cartoon regardless if it is coming from the left or the right.

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by totemphile
Originally Posted by Kevin Richardson:


Lets not compare heroin to legitimate medications.  The reason people generally die from pharmaceutical opiates is the damage done by acetaminophen [paracetamol].  Can we really say as a society that Heroin use is acceptable?  If anything we should remove the acetaminophen from the medicinal opiate mixtures so at least the few that get hooked sustain less significant damage.

Yes I think we can. It's already a reality, so let's face it and not be hypocritical about it! Access to clean heroin and cocaine or any other substance for that matter on doctors prescription for the heavy addicts. Probably more likely to be heroin than cocaine. Legalize marihuana and tax it. I am not propagating the selling of hard drugs without prescriptions and of course the message to children and youngsters must emphasize the dangers of substance abuse. But the only way to achieve anything here is through education and information. Not by banning substances. 

 

And btw. who defined legitimacy, if I may ask? Alcohol in the US in the 1920s wasn't legitimate then, it is now. Marijuana, cocaine and heroin all were legitimate and legally obtainable once, they aren't now. Legitimacy is nothing more but a reflection of where society is at at any given moment in time. This is not a rigid term. And let's face it, the decriminalisation of all of these substances is being propagated by many people who truly understand the issues involved here.

No ethical physician would ever prescribe heroin to a heroin addict any more than he would alcohol to an alcoholic.  Heroin has been shown to have an extremely high level of addiction potential.  It is not something that could be used in moderation.  Abuse of heroin is any use of heroin.  How can you tell  your children to not abuse heroin?  You say never use heroin.  Nobody wants their children to use heroin therefor it follows that every non-addict wants a society free of the substance.  Any individual that has a true addiction should work to free himself of his condition.

 

I don't know where you live but I've never seen the part of society where recreational use of opiates adds to the community in a positive manner.  Marijuana, on the other hand, is generally thought to not lead to addiction and I agree that it makes sense to legalize it.

That's not true Kevin, there are many countries in the world where Diacetylmorphin (Heroin) is being prescribed to long term heroin addicts as part of a comprehensive program to get them off that substance. The Swiss spearheaded this approach in 1994 with good results. The open heroin scene in Switzerland disappeared subsequently almost entirely. In addition the number of new entrants to consumption of drugs, drug-related crime and drug-related deaths declined as well. Since then many countries in Europe and other parts of the world have followed the Swiss example. Fyi, it is also being prescribed to addicts in the UK by the NHS. 

 

In no way am I trivialising the dangers of hard drugs to the individual and society as a whole. However, truth be told substances of all sorts are being consumed across all sections of society. If the real numbers were known to the public, people would fall off their chair. Just the number of cocaine users amongst politicians, bankers, lawyers and other high flying jobs would leave people gobsmacked. All I am saying is decriminalise hard drugs. Even the UK police is calling for this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24320717) So are police representatives in many other countries around the world. 

 

However, the real problem is not usage or abuse of hard drugs that are currently illegal. The real problem in almost every Western society is the huge number of people who are either dependent or addicted to prescription based medicine, pills sold by the pharmaceutical industry. Especially amongst the elderly. The numbers are huge and outrun those of heroin or cocaine addicts by a long, long margin. It's just that nobody talks about them and of course it's legal, so we got nothing to worry about, right? Wrong!

 

 

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Kevin-W
Originally Posted by Russ:

 

As for your characterization of one part of the Republican Party as "morons", since Ted Cruz an Hispanic from Texas, was the leader of that movement, I have to question whether your opposition to his policies might indicate some racist tendencies on your part.

 

Russ, you need to be extremely careful. Racism is an extremely serious charge to level at anyone. I am not a person to go crying to the mods but hopefully you will be man enough to apologise for this unsubstantiated slur.

 

I dislike Cruz for being a filibuster, a fanatic and a moron. His ancestry, of which I knew nothing until you bought it up, is irrelevant.