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:

Health Insurance will be more affordable—across the board—saving families an average of $2,500.00 per year.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
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: 27 November 2013 by Russ

Originally Posted 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.

Uh, Kevin--you make my point. Of COURSE you are not a racist. You oppose Senator Cruz for his remarks and his policies--in short, because of hisactions! Nothing you have said or implied would make one believe it were otherwise. I am using irony here without benefit of emoticons. The point I am making (and perhaps you are not aware of the phenomenon) is that here in the U.S. there is a tendency among apologists for the President to either explicitly state or if not that, to broadly hint that anyone--especially someone from the formerly slave-owning South--who opposes some or all of President's policies most likely is doing so due to racism. Hints of this have been leveled at me on this forum in the past by those whose narrow minds tend to stereotype disagreement with a person of color as racism.

Consider: If a man or woman in office happens to be black (or Hispanic, or Asian, or anything different from my own white ethnicity), and I happen to stand diametrically opposed to her or his views, then, if I hold back, I am committing the worst form of racism. If I act and speak as though, because he or she is black, I have to cut some additional slack, then I am acting in a paternalistic way--on an assumption that I have a "white man's burden" and have to give the office holder in question the special privilege of silencing my opposition.

So no, I know of nothing you have said that would make you a racist. I used you to make a point via irony.

Obama's supporters unquestionably try to silence opposition to his policies by playing the race card. And to the extreme discredit of a President who promised to be a uniter, he does not call them on it.

Best regards,

Russ

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Russ

Kevin:

No problem, my friend. You did not attack me--or call me trash (and I have been called that before, with some justification ). You called my words "rubbish". And that is nothing more or less than vigorous debate. Hell, when someone holds forth as strongly on controversial issues as I do, he has no cause whine or cry when someone comes after his butt! So not to worry.

I thank you for your good words on my son's and my addictions. Quitting was very hard for him at first, but then not so much after the years went by. He did it through 12-step programs. I did it through dumb will-power. I personally was very lucky in that although I loved to drink (especially good sour mash whiskey, old tequila, and red wine---yummmmm), when I decided to quit, I did not experience any severe cravings. I did go to AA for a while and it made a huge impression on me when, during the brief time I was there (a couple of months), two very nice people who lived meeting-to-meeting failed to show up and later were reported dead. I also have to add that my father drank himself to death at the age of 53. Sad. But your point is still well-taken: unenforceable laws end up hurting more than they help.

It really isn't so odd that we agree on this, or other issues. If you think about it, there is a tendency on all our parts to stereotype each other. Someone like me, an old white fart from Texas, comes out on the padded cell periodically with some conservative rant or another on some subject on which the great majority of conservatives agree: gay marriage (notice, I completely support civil union with all the rights of marriage), immigration reform, requiring people to friggin prove they are citizens prior to voting, and...oh yes, Obamacare. You were quite right in assuming that someone with that set of values and beliefs would, statistically probably be a religious, protestant, rigid supporter of right-to-life (I am not), and supporter of the death penalty (I am) who is extremely rigid on law enforcement. (I always have been and still am, with the growing exception of the drug question." For example, it might knock your socks off to know that I am a screaming radical on the right of a woman to control her own reproductive rights. We all draw our own lines, if we do not rely on a supernatural being to do it for us, and where I draw the line is that her right to an abortion, as seriously as I take them, is absolute--even the biological father should have no say in the matter legally--so long as she can make up her goddamn mind prior to viability of the child to live outside the womb. I do not stand for abortionists snapping the spine of a breathing child, no matter how tiny, with a pair of scissors. Some of my opposition to the President is that he voted to allow that as an Illinois State Senator.

So there we are: most of my conservatism is fiscal in nature. I happen to believe, rightly or wrongly, that those greedy corporations tend to produce more for all of us and the crumbs that fall down to me are more and better crumbs than I or my less-fortunate brethren would get if we rely on the government.

In many regards, I am a liberal. I marched with my black high-school classmates in 1963 to integrate the Majestic Theater in San Antonio. I stood guard around the Juke box in the University of Texas cafeteria in 1969 while Stokely Carmichael, a black activist spoke, to prevent white fraternity boys from drowning him out with loud rock music. While working in a quasi-legal capacity for the U.S. government, I investigated claims of racism and non-promotion by numerious blacks and Mexican Americans and ensured that where I knew discrimination was taking place, that the employee had a remedy. One of the women in whose case I was active, after learning that I had not voted for Obama, told me she was very disappointed in me and that that proved I was a racist. As Senator Ted Cruz (known to be a moron, by the way) would say: "Ay de mi!!!!!"

Ronald Reagan is my hero--but so are JFK and FDR.

Best regards,

Russ

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Kevin Richardson

Originally Posted 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!

Fair enough. In a clinically proven addiction recory protocol, I am sure a physician would prescribe the best possible solution. Your original statement sounded like doctors would prescribe the addicted substance just because the individual is addicted. If the Swiss plan works, and lets face it they do make great watches, then it should implemented on a global level.

As for prescription medications.... The societal loss when a single teenager gets addicted to 'hard drugs' is likely more significant than 50 pensioners dependent/addicted to pain pills. First, dependency is not necessarily a bad outcome. In my thinking dependency equates to "Needing something to function." Addiction is more like "Can't function with it.". Addiction is always the result of either 1. Negligent overprescribing or 2. Abuse (more likely). People do not get addicted to Schedule 2 / 3 medications when taken as designed. If they do get physically/psychologically dependent on these substances there are relatively easy ways to help them recover. All schedule 2 and 3 drugs are clinically proven safe and effective. Millions of people take them every year and only a few get addicted. Do we tell grandma she needs to live with the pain? No. We provide her with safe medications and clear instructions. Nobody should have to live with unnecessary pain. The few that end up addicted should be helped but should not deter the appropriate use of safe and effective medications for society as a whole.

Posted on: 27 November 2013 by Russ

Interestingly the moronic Ted Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton and took his Doctor of Jurisprudence magna cum laude from that well-known harbor of idiots, Harvard University, the alma mater of his fellow moron Barack H. Obama! Of course one can be a genius and still be a moron, provided one disagree with the radical agenda.

Also to use the word "moron" at all betrays insensitivity to mentally challenged persons with special needs.

Best regards,

Russ

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by Russ:

Also to use the word "moron" at all betrays insensitivity to mentally challenged persons with special needs.

Nice try, but it doesn't. If I'd have called him a retard you'd have a point.

"Moron", which is from the ancient Greek μοροσ, or foolish, was briefly used in the 19th and 20th centuries to describe people with mental retardation. But it for far longer has been used as a generic insult to describe a dolt or a fool.

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by Russ:

See above. Cruz is a fool wedded to a broken ideology. You can be the most intelligent lifeform in the universe and still act like an idiot.

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Hook

Originally Posted by Bruce Woodhouse:

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

Bruce

Hi Bruce -

That is true, but thousands of people do rush to the emergency room each year because they take too much acetaminophen (marketed here in the US as Tylenol, the "#1 doctor recommended brand of pain reliever"). As I am sure you know, the margin between a maximum safe dose and a potentially harmful dose is way too slim. Sudden liver failure from acetaminophen overdoses kills several hundred people each year.

There are a number of law suits pending, mostly targeting the manufacturer, Johnson and Johnson, for not having adequate warning labels on their bottles.

ATB.

Hook

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Bruce Woodhouse

Hook

Absolutely true, however the previous post described people as getting 'hooked' on paracetamol and equated it with opiates. It is not a drug of addiction, but it surely is a drug that causes many deaths from overdose (intentional or otherwise). You are right that the safefty margin is lower than most people assume.

The issue is not about the drug really. Look at other freely available non-prescription analgesics such as ibuprofen/diclofenac, aspirin and codeine. All have safety issues that are far from trivial. The issue is the behaviour not the medicines.

Bruce

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Hook

Originally Posted by Bruce Woodhouse:

Hook

Bruce

Hi Bruce -

Kevin does make a valid point though -- there's no good reason why acetaminophen should be included with hydrocodone. While I think the amount of opioid abuse we see today is scary, I can not think of a good reason this particularly popular opioid can't stand alone. By contrast, oxycodone is not mixed with any pain reliever when it is sold as Oxycontin. Why not leave it to Docs like you to prescribe acetaminophen separately as necessary?

I can only think of one reason why hydrocodone includes acetominophen, and that's the power (and profit motive) of a big pharma like J&J. It's the same reason why so many people unknowingly overdose -- they can get away with misleading advertising.

And sure, taking too many ibuprofen is not good for your liver either, but the truly harmful doses are huge. By contrast, people have died from taking only twice the maximum "safe" dose of acetominophen.

The way drugs are marketed is very troubling. When all people see on TV is that Tylenol is safe, gentle, #1 doctor recommended and so on, they take it a license to eat them like candy. With many folks yes, the problem is behavioral, and it goes beyond this one drug. But there have also been a number of Tylenol-related deaths that aren't what I would call behavioral. I read about the tragic death of one woman who was in the grip of a very bad headache. She took a couple of Tylenol, slept for a couple of hours, took two more, slept another couple of hours...she lost track of time and dosing, and repeated until she was dead, about a day later. If she had used ibuprofen instead, the worst she would have had was a bad stomach ache.

Hook

PS - I have a good friend who works at Eli Lilly and, in general, I try not to demonize companies who investing billions of dollars trying to invent new drugs to help people cope with their medical conditions. But I do think that their marketing and sales organizations need to be more strongly regulated.

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Bruce Woodhouse

I agree about co-analgesics (ie mixtures).

You''ll not be suprised it comes down to marketing mainly. Plain paracetamol costs a few pence per hundred but if you bundle it up in a mixture with another drug you can market it as a branded item and charge lots of money. The addition of paracetamol to modest amounts of codeine that we use the UK has some logic but I'm not familiar with how much oxycontin or hydrmophone is added to combinations elswhere. They certainly sound less sensible.

On a prescription basis we do sometimes combine drugs to simply reduce the numbers of tablets being taken and simplify treatment regimes.

My understaniding is that opiate availability OTC and from medical practitioners is a huge issue in the US. Lack of continuity of care in Primary Care is one reason.

I don't really know how pharmacies work in the US and Canada. Here you cannot buy more than 16 paracetamol in one go and the strongest combination you can buy is paracetamol with just 8mg codeine. The rest requires prescription. OTC drugs can be direct-marketed but anything prescription only cannot be marketed in any way to the public. That is a very fundamental difference and any transgressions are quite vigorously prosecuted.

I don't entirely agree that ibuprofen and diclofenac are as safe as you say. The issues may be more with sustained use rather than acute overdose but this class of drugs (OTC and prescribed) are the highest causes of drug-related deaths. They increase cardiac risk, can cause renal failure and also bleeding from the stomach and gut. They can also trigger significant asthma in susceptible patients. Liver damage is not really a major issue. We see lots of adverse events from unwise OTC use.

For those concerned the fatal dose of paracetamol can be as low as 12g in 24hrs. Deaths have ocurred with less. The OTC recommended maximum dose is 4g/day.

Bruce

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Russ

Thanks for the instruction, Kevin. So the formula I should go by is this: Obama is a genius and Ted Cruz is a moron, (in spite of the fact that Cruz's bottom line at the end was that Obama Care should be postponed for a year and the Democrats refused and shut down the government uh, make that 1/5 of the government, and now because of the incompetence of all these freaking geniuses, THEY are now postponing each part of it piece by piece!) Yuk Yuk, Chortle Chortle Ha Ha, Sut Sut!!!!

Oh, and the whole world depends on Kevin to instruct it on which terms for mentally challenged people are offensive and which are not! Probably applies to all of Kevin's other opinions as well. How convenient!...for Kevin. I do wish you well and hope in the future that I can once again be the beneficiary of your wise teaching.

Russ

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by GraemeH

Last nights R4 american hosted comedy/quiz type programme were surmising that 'Health-Care' was not a combination of words readily associated with America and propsed 'Fat-Gun' as a more appropriate alternative.

Wicked.

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Russ

GraemeH: That is funny. As Haim points out with his political cartoon, we have to be willing to laugh at ourselves occasionally. Stereotypes are sometimes (make that often) based on fact. And God help us, Americans are fat! One trip to Wal Mart will convince you of that. I have always made the point that if you are going to live in abject poverty, it is better to do so in the United States (where one of the chief problems of the poor, along with owning only one television, is being overweight and having diabetes) than say, in the poorer parts of Asia and Africa.

As a rich American, however (BHO defines me as such) I have to admit that I too am a bit overweight.

Best regards,

Russ

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by Russ:

Russ

Why do you continue to assume - without any evidence - that I, and anyone else who doesn't share your worldview, is a supporter of Obama (or of the Democrats)? I'm certainly not, and I don't think many people in the UK or Europe are. Of those here who have an opinion of the US President, most I guess would view him as a bit of a disappointment.

Generally, most people in the UK, if they have an opinion about Obama, is that he's better than Dubya, and quite good-looking. And that it's nice that there's a black guy in the White House.

Your problem Russ is that you have no understanding of the world outside of America, and, I suspect, of your particular political bubble. You assume that everyone else cares as much about your obsessions as you do. They don't. They really don't. Nobody's that interested, apart from a few hardy souls like me who just like the rough and tumble of debate.

Everyone in the UK finds US healthcare, the wranglings over it and the minutiae of Obamacare absolutely incomprehensible - if they think about it at all. Most would shake their heads and say "Thank God for the NHS" and move on.

Finally if you think that the word "moron" - which, as I said is a general informal insult [outside of its very specific and nowadays no-longer-used meaning in psychological classification] - is offensive to those you describe as "mentally challenged", then fine, go ahead.

Like I said, you live in a bubble in any case and listening to (or even understanding) anyone else who doesn't share your worldview seems to be beyond you. So go on, be offended on behalf of the "mentally challenged" of the world.

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Kevin Richardson

Originally Posted by Bruce Woodhouse:

Hook

Bruce

Again.... I said the paracetamol is the component in the pills that does the damage. Of course I know it's non addictive. In the US schedule 3 drugs always are mixed with another substance to limit the total max daily dosage. The addicts are hooked on the opiate but need to consume unhealthy quantities of paracetamol get enough of the opiate.

I agree the issue is behavior. These Medicines are extremely safe, effective and inexpensive. People only get addicted when taking more than intended dosages. II do not however believe ibuprofen is a safe medicine. It has too many potentially serious side effects. NSAIDS are in my opinion a very risky class of drug. I believe the pharmaceutical industry keeps pumping while demonizing opiates. You will never suffer a heart attack from hydrocodone.

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by MangoMonkey

I actually find Russ's post very refreshing - and funny. To me, it's an insight into a different way of thinking, a different point of view. I don't think he's right, but I'm not judging. He doesn't claim to have a solution to the problem, but then their do I.

It's the holier-than-thou attitudes of other folks that I find totally nauseating. As if there aren't any problems with govt. run health systems.

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Kevin Richardson

On a prescription basis we do sometimes combine drugs to simply reduce the numbers of tablets being taken and simplify treatment regimes.

My understaniding is that opiate availability OTC and from medical practitioners is a huge issue in the US. Lack of continuity of care in Primary Care is one reason.

This is a significant issue in the US. Any codeine mixture is class 3 and requires a prescription. Personally, I feel the pharmaceutical companies like this as it forces people to buy expensive NSAIDS which I feel present a greater health risk.

In the US you can buy packages of up to 500 [this may have changed recently] 500 mg paracetamol. You can not, however, buy any mixed with any amount of codeine. The simply are not available.

I agree 100%. I do not recommend anybody take NSAIDS for any reason.

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by MangoMonkey:

And Kevin-W thinks he's knows everything. :-)

I actually find Russ's post very refreshing - even though I pretty much disagree with everything he has to say - or maybe I don't, don't remember now. In any case, I find it better than the holier-than-thou attitude that others spout.

Oh I wish that I did know everything, or at least more than I do currently, Mango me old fruit.

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Kevin Richardson

Originally Posted by Hook:

Originally Posted by Bruce Woodhouse:

Hook

Bruce

Hi Bruce -

Hook -

It is a classification issue currently. Schedule 3 medications like hydrocodone are easier to prescribe than Schedule 2 drugs like oxycodone. Oxycodone is much stronger than hydrocodone and is used to treat more severe conditions. Patients needing oxycodone would not benefit from the the additive benefits of acetaminophen. The maximum daily dose of hydrocodone containing compounds is thus limited by the inclusion of the acetaminophen. If a patient needs more hydrocodone then that they need a different medication.

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by MangoMonkey:

It's the holier-than-thou attitudes of other folks that I find totally nauseating. As if there aren't any problems with govt. run health systems.

I don't think that anyone said that there weren't. Perhaps you just don't like people criticising the USA and you are getting a bit cross about it.

Maybe you should go back to fiddling around with your kit?

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Kevin Richardson

Originally Posted by Kevin-W:

Originally Posted by MangoMonkey:

It's the holier-than-thou attitudes of other folks that I find totally nauseating. As if there aren't any problems with govt. run health systems.

I don't think that anyone said that there weren't. Perhaps you just don't like people criticising the USA and you are getting a bit cross about it.

Maybe you should go back to fiddling around with your kit?

Well It's obvious that you hate the US. Seems like every post you make has some kind of "Americans suck and British Subjects Rule!" tone.

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Kevin-W

Originally Posted by Kevin Richardson:

Well It's obvious that you hate the US. Seems like every post you make has some kind of "Americans suck and British Subjects Rule!" tone.

Funnily enough I don't. I really like and admire America - the music, the movies (well not the superhero ones), the diners, the art, the landscapes, much of the literature, the bars of Chicago and New York, the best of the TV, the humour, the vistas... and the energy and optimism of the people most of all.

However my admiration and affection for Uncle Sam is not unconditional.

Perhaps you haven't been reading my posts properly, otherwise you'd know that Yankee-bashing only comprises a small proportion of my forum output. Or perhaps you're in a sulk as well - and what is your obsession with "British Subjects"?

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Russ

KevinW: well at least we agree on one point--how great it is that the United States finally overcame the shame of our history of slavery and elected a black man president--a potential role model for millions of black kids in the inner cities.

I just wish it had been Herman Caine or Condy Rice.

The sad part for so many of us (including now many who voted for him) is that whereas he promised there would be no black and no white America, (even though I was a skeptic from the first) I hoped he meant that. But he turned iut to be an opportunist who is willing to trade on race.

He also is bankrupting us and increasing the dependence of so many of our citizens on government.

Of course slavery was not America's fault. Hell, we were lured into it by 250 years of slave ships from Great Britain!

No, no, no, Kevin--that was a joke! Not funny, of course, but a joke.

Those 3,500,000 black men and women transported to our shores between 1560 and 1807 when the slave trade became unprofitable and was outlawed by Parliament would have been brought here anyway--by the friggin Portugese!

I love the British-I truly do. But on at least three occasions I have nearly swallowed my teeth when Yankee-baiting English friends have referred to "American Imperialism".

I suppose we too would have gleefully participated in the rape of India and Africa--but all we really got was the Phillipines, the Canal Zone--and friggin Cuba for crissake! (Thankfully, the latter is now doing quite wel, thank you very much, under Fidel Castro.)

But don't get me wrong, Kevin--you are not alone. Sometimes I piss myself off!

Russ

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Russ

Thanks, Monkey. You are correct--we may disagree with each other and still be friends. Actually, though, we have only one serious area of disagreement--that may be the end of our association--the Superuniti was not good enough for you. You moron!

Best regards,

Russ

Posted on: 28 November 2013 by Kevin Richardson

Originally Posted by Kevin-W:

Originally Posted by Kevin Richardson:

Well It's obvious that you hate the US. Seems like every post you make has some kind of "Americans suck and British Subjects Rule!" tone.

However my admiration and affection for Uncle Sam is not unconditional.

I admit I was a bit lazy in my post. I really meant to say:

I have the perception that, based on the set of your posts which I have read, you have an anti-american tendency.

I just believe that issues like universal health care and gun control represent far more than just health care for all and guns. Taking away any part of a persons ability to freely determine the outcome of his life is objectionable to a large portion of Americans. I feel that a lot of outsiders are lacking in an understanding of the philosophical individualism underpinning Americans' belief systems. Conversely, it is difficult for many here to understand why the British didn't implement the French solution.

I want everybody to have affordable access to health care. I don't want anybody to suffer malnutrition. I want a world where people are able to achieve their full potential in life. Society benefits greatly when all these conditions are met. Society should feed the hungry, care for the disabled and elderly and help heal the sick. The issue is that the government is not society.