Health Care Law Stands

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
In before medicaidbabiesandpoorpeoplearetrash argument.
Members don't see this ad.
 
spacecowgirl said:
News flash: if you have insurance, you are already paying for other people's bad decisions. Not to mention other people's bad luck. I cost my coworkers about 80K when I had cancer and I didn't even have to have chemo. Maybe it was too many diet Cokes or being too close to the microwave. Or maybe I just have crappy genes that made some booboos. It's a long way to fall of that high horse when you realize that even with a good job, you can't afford 80K in medical bills.
Click to expand...

It's like talking to a wall...or a box of rocks programmed with media soundbites.
 
xiphoid2010 said:
Ah, I guess someone has to play the devil's advocate. So here it goes:

are you sure socialized medicine is a good thing? By artificially counteracting the mechanism put in place by natural selection to eliminate unfit genes, we are in effect degrading the overall fitness of the human specie.

Is letting sick people die humane? Of course not. But if we ask a computer what's the most efficient manner to advance the human race, it may very well tell us that we are weakening ourselves and possibly paving the way to our own extinction. Just something to think about.
Click to expand...

With that logic we might as well start shooting cripples and the mentally ill. We stopped unfettered natural selection centuries ago, I don't think taking care of people in need is going to negatively alter human evolution anymore than we have already.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
joetrisman said:
I meant a drop in quality due to even less accessibility to health care providers due to the volume providers must do with decreased reimbursements. I avoid going to the doctor like the plague as it is as I always feel ripped off for going. I dig the preventive focus. In the long run, this could be a huge money saver if everyone gets on board for primary prevention.
Click to expand...

that's true.

It's going to be an interesting few years to say the least.
 
rxlea said:
Right. Because we all started out on equal footing and all have the same access.
Click to expand...

What about the animal kingdom? Alpha male/female and then the rest. We humans came to be from the same process. Natural selection: the more fit genes become dominant over time, and the weak ones die off. Cold but it works.

Again, I'm just advocating some thought experiment. By no means saying that our society can stomach a pure natural selection process these days.
 
All4MyDaughter said:
Because you've always had a full time job and supported yourself and paid ALL your own bills???
Click to expand...

I am starting this year! :D (except for car insurance) I am going to pay for all my stuff on my own! God lets pray I don't die in Texas. :xf:
 
xiphoid2010 said:
Ah, I guess someone has to play the devil's advocate. So here it goes:

are you sure socialized medicine is a good thing? By artificially counteracting the mechanism put in place by natural selection to eliminate unfit genes, we are in effect degrading the overall fitness of the human specie.

Is letting sick people die humane? Of course not. But if we ask a computer what's the most efficient manner to advance the human race, it may very well tell us that we are weakening ourselves and possibly paving the way to our own extinction. Just something to think about.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought.
 
npage148 said:
With that logic we might as well start shooting cripples and the mentally ill. We stopped unfettered natural selection centuries ago, I don't think taking care of people in need is going to negatively alter human evolution anymore than we have already.
Click to expand...

Natural selection is still at work, still at that "over the millions of years" time scale. We humans has created an artificial selection process that's much shorter, able to produce changes that overshadow natural selection in a short-time span.

But that beckons the question, is artificial selection necessarily the right process? Look at dogs. We artificially breed them to the way we like them. But they are unfit for natural survival and full of genetic defects the is sustained only by human care and the veterinary system we created. The day we decided dogs are no longer wanted or could be supported, dog breeds will go extinct or evolved into a mut/wild dog population that natural selection meant them to be.

So if unfit genes accumulate to such an extent that the burden is unsustainable, what will happen to our specie?
 
xiphoid2010 said:
So if unfit genes accumulate to such an extent that the burden is unsustainable, what will happen to our specie?
Click to expand...

So what you are trying to say is if we let all the HIV patients, mentally ******ed patients, the psycho patients, etc all die then there will be no more AIDS spreading around, no more mentally ******ed people, no more crazy people etc. and the world will not have to worry about those problems?

Is that the point? Interesting.

I guess the world will have MUCH fewer problems if HIV alone no longer exist! haha....
 
SHC1984 said:
So what you are trying to say is if we let all the HIV patients, mentally ******ed patients, the psycho patients, etc all die then there will be no more AIDS spreading around, no more mentally ******ed people, no more crazy people etc. and the world will not have to worry about those problems?

Is that the point? Interesting.
Click to expand...

No. I'm just asking questions and hope others will do some "what if" thought experiments. I don't have the answers or the ability to predict the future.

We are healthcare professionals, but that should not limit our thinking to a linear line thinking based on compassion alone. We don't have to agree with our healthcare system to be good at our jobs. ;)
 
xiphoid2010 said:
No. I'm just asking questions and hope others will do some "what if" thought experiments. I don't have the answers or the ability to predict the future.

We are healthcare professionals, but that should not limit our thinking to a linear line thinking based on compassion alone. We don't have to agree with our healthcare system to be good at our jobs. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree.

And we all know if the world really could get rid of all those "problems" then life would be much easier. :laugh:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
npage148 said:
We tried that in the 80's, it didn't work out too well
Click to expand...

You know this really is stimulating some thoughts in my mind now. lol...

If ALL HIV and AIDS patients die today and everyone else left are HIV negative does that mean the disease is now GONE forever? :confused:

If ALL mentally ******ed people die today and no longer reproduce more of themselves and ONLY people with IQ of above 130 have children does that mean the world will be full of smart people from now on and NO more mentally ******ed people will exist on earth? :confused:

Some food for thought here...it would be really cool if only smart and good looking people have children then the world will be full of only bright people....

Interesting convo guys! :)
 
SHC1984 said:
Wow those two are my FAVORITE in pharmacy! LOL...I would love to have either job upon graduation...too bad its 1000000000 graduates to 100 jobs. :rolleyes:



How can anyone NOT love PBM? My first rotation was at a PBM place and my preceptor has the MOST RELAXING job in the history of the world.

For god sakes she comes to work whenever she wants to and leaves whenever she wants to...she told me she can work from home if she decides to.

She told me to take off 4 out of the 5 Fridays I was there too cuz she never works weekends and hardly ever work on Fridays. LOL...

Managed care is the BEST job ever.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY my thoughts. With today's upholding of ObamaCare, it guarantees a strong future for managed care!

I don't know why students keep on choosing the "glorious" clinical jobs that don't guarantee a good work-life balance when managed care gives you that balance!
 
SHC1984 said:
You know this really is stimulating some thoughts in my mind now. lol...

If ALL HIV and AIDS patients die today and everyone else left are HIV negative does that mean the disease is now GONE forever? :confused:

If ALL mentally ******ed people die today and no longer reproduce more of themselves and ONLY people with IQ of above 130 have children does that mean the world will be full of smart people from now on and NO more mentally ******ed people will exist on earth? :confused:

Some food for thought here...it would be really cool if only smart and good looking people have children then the world will be full of only bright people....

Interesting convo guys! :)
Click to expand...

SDN forum becomes a trash talking forum since I first join 4 years ago. So sad. This is why our profession can never advance.
 
xiphoid2010 said:
Natural selection is still at work, still at that "over the millions of years" time scale. We humans has created an artificial selection process that's much shorter, able to produce changes that overshadow natural selection in a short-time span.

But that beckons the question, is artificial selection necessarily the right process? Look at dogs. We artificially breed them to the way we like them. But they are unfit for natural survival and full of genetic defects the is sustained only by human care and the veterinary system we created. The day we decided dogs are no longer wanted or could be supported, dog breeds will go extinct or evolved into a mut/wild dog population that natural selection meant them to be.

So if unfit genes accumulate to such an extent that the burden is unsustainable, what will happen to our specie?
Click to expand...
What? It isn't artificial selection. It's just that with our species, the common conception of evolution isn't as relevant. You can't argue natural selection with humans, not really. The old evolution is cold, where one dies and the other prevails. It's not like that anymore, people no longer value the traits and characteristics associated with evolution from the last millions of years.
 
Notecard said:
What? It isn't artificial selection. It's just that with our species, the common conception of evolution isn't as relevant. You can't argue natural selection with humans, not really. The old evolution is cold, where one dies and the other prevails. It's not like that anymore, people no longer value the traits and characteristics associated with evolution from the last millions of years.
Click to expand...

We now value people that are intelligent and can PRODUCE results in society. You recommend selecting for that now?
 
Notecard said:
It's not like that anymore, people no longer value the traits and characteristics associated with evolution from the last millions of years.
Click to expand...

But is it? What drives humans to prefer for health looking mates? Why female prefer males that can provide, and male prefer female that are young and fertile? What makes us prefer food that is high in calorie nutritional content? Want to have sex? Feel the biological clock ticking?....
 
SHC1984 said:
We now value people that are intelligent and can PRODUCE results in society. You recommend selecting for that now?
Click to expand...
I disagree. Maybe society as a whole values them, but speaking in terms of evolution, no. Like we were saying in that other thread, the people we consider to be highly intelligent and successful have far fewer offspring than the undereducated. Who's passing on more genes here? Not the genius group.
 
xiphoid2010 said:
But is it? What drives humans to prefer for health looking mates? Why female prefer males that can provide, and male prefer female that are young and fertile? What makes us prefer food that is high in calorie nutritional content? Want to have sex? Feel the biological clock ticking?....
Click to expand...
Most of that is basic instincts. It's what we've been doing for thousands of years and isn't going to change in a few decades.

Look at the way the world is trending though. War, predation, dominance. These aren't valued at all. Not everyone gets their healthy partner or produces as much or even eats the right food anymore. These people don't just go extinct! Why not? As a species we've created a new evolutionary paradigm which I don't think we all quite understand yet.

Look at this thread lol, the people who don't agree with it are the ones that are getting singled out and bickered at.
 
xiphoid2010 said:
Natural selection is still at work, still at that "over the millions of years" time scale. We humans has created an artificial selection process that's much shorter, able to produce changes that overshadow natural selection in a short-time span.

But that beckons the question, is artificial selection necessarily the right process? Look at dogs. We artificially breed them to the way we like them. But they are unfit for natural survival and full of genetic defects the is sustained only by human care and the veterinary system we created. The day we decided dogs are no longer wanted or could be supported, dog breeds will go extinct or evolved into a mut/wild dog population that natural selection meant them to be.

So if unfit genes accumulate to such an extent that the burden is unsustainable, what will happen to our specie?
Click to expand...

Proponents of eugenics always argue that point. Galton famously said that healing the sick and the unfit was a form of misguided charity and it would result in the society deviating to the mean (society would get dumber over time). My problem with this thought experiment (obviously excluding moral reservations) is that it is hard to judge fitness. Unfit genes often hitch a ride with badass genes (case and point Stephen Hawkings) so isolating the undesirable ones would be impossible. Also definition of a fit gene is arbitrary. Society has moved from valuing physical fitness to valuing other things like intelligence, hard work and reality TV shows. Disease does not discriminate between the fit and the unfit. People with diseases can still contribute to society since physical fitness does not have a monopoly anymore.

Also we used artificial means of creating things that would have never existed in nature like dogs. They are a tremendous burden to us in many ways, so is producing movies (they also I believe do not exist in nature), so is a roller coaster, ice cream, alcohol (exists in nature but super ****ty quality). So we should stop doing that stuff also?

Anyway I really should be studying for the NAPLEX
 
SHC1984 said:
Me and my classmates were all talking about this just today.

We all agree that if there was just one "national" insurance and everyone pays for it automatically thru their paycheck deductions then that would be the best and most effective.

If EVERYONE's in the USA has to automatically pay $150 a month for this "national" insurance out of their paycheck each month then it would be the best.

That way everyone has insurance and it's affordable. Just go ahead and deduct $100 or $150 out of each month's paycheck for everyone and that should work.

There shouldn't be any exceptions if everyone could contribute a little ($100 a month is very little) then there shouldn't be any problems with being uninsured.
Click to expand...

many people makes minimum wage... 100-150 might not be much for those locking in 30-40+ bucks an hour but for those guys it's a good 2 days of work after tax. that's nearly 10% a month going for "insurance", tag on the cost of rent, travel expense, food, those guys will be eating grass for lunch in no time.
 
clockwork247 said:
many people makes minimum wage... 100-150 might not be much for those locking in 30-40+ bucks an hour but for those guys it's a good 2 days of work after tax. that's nearly 10% a month going for "insurance", tag on the cost of rent, travel expense, food, those guys will be eating grass for lunch in no time.
Click to expand...

No more than 8% can go to insurance.

Where do you guys get this stuff?

http://healthreform.kff.org/the-basics/Requirement-to-buy-coverage-flowchart.aspx
 
npage148 said:
Don't you think it's telling that the US the only developed country that does
not have socialized medicine. The rest of the world voted, Heath care is a right. We were too busy making corporations people to notice.
Click to expand...

I hate when people draw off the bull**** Democrat vs. Republican paradigm -- like if you think socialized medicine is bull**** that you must be beating the drums to blow more **** up overseas and support all the crony capitalism that goes on with the "conservative" Republicans. If you've looked at Europe recently, you'll see socialism is progressing slowly towards its deathbed -- it doesn't work. I believe we have a moral responsibility to look out for one another, but it should not be a legal responsibility as the government has absolutely no right to steal from its citizens in such a manner (i.e. to fund other peoples bad decisions...). The correct stance here is the stance for liberty, personal freedom, and personal responsibility. :thumbup:
 
Ackj said:
I disagree. Maybe society as a whole values them, but speaking in terms of evolution, no. Like we were saying in that other thread, the people we consider to be highly intelligent and successful have far fewer offspring than the undereducated. Who's passing on more genes here? Not the genius group.
Click to expand...

Thank Lyndon Johnson and his well-intentioned, but grossly misled Great Society bull**** for creating the moral hazard situation of the millenium...
 
StevePerry said:
I hate when people draw off the bull**** Democrat vs. Republican paradigm -- like if you think socialized medicine is bull**** that you must be beating the drums to blow more **** up overseas and support all the crony capitalism that goes on with the "conservative" Republicans. If you've looked at Europe recently, you'll see socialism is progressing slowly towards its deathbed -- it doesn't work. I believe we have a moral responsibility to look out for one another, but it should not be a legal responsibility as the government has absolutely no right to steal from its citizens in such a manner (i.e. to fund other peoples bad decisions...). The correct stance here is the stance for liberty, personal freedom, and personal responsibility. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

And what rock were you hiding under? Your rage is kinda sexy :smuggrin:
 
SHC1984 said:
We now value people that are intelligent and can PRODUCE results in society. You recommend selecting for that now?
Click to expand...


Oh for god's sake. You've been around almost 30 years and what have you ever produced except a big credit card bill at Victoria's Secret?
 
xiphoid2010 said:
Natural selection is still at work, still at that "over the millions of years" time scale. We humans has created an artificial selection process that's much shorter, able to produce changes that overshadow natural selection in a short-time span.

But that beckons the question, is artificial selection necessarily the right process? Look at dogs. We artificially breed them to the way we like them. But they are unfit for natural survival and full of genetic defects the is sustained only by human care and the veterinary system we created. The day we decided dogs are no longer wanted or could be supported, dog breeds will go extinct or evolved into a mut/wild dog population that natural selection meant them to be.

So if unfit genes accumulate to such an extent that the burden is unsustainable, what will happen to our specie?
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with anything being discussed. This just means people with "poor genes" who happen to have health insurance or wealth can live on and others simply die. It also might mean people with perfect genes who get a potentially deadly MRSA infection or environmentally caused cancer won't get the quality primary care they need. For your logic to work, people with "good genes" would have to always hold more wealth and healthcare access...which clearly isn't the case.

Also, our species invented this thing called "civilization." It's done a pretty decent job of allowing us to supersede the whole survival of the fittest thing. Using Darwinianism as an excuse for neglect-induced class genocide via a poor healthcare system is pathetic, sociopathic, and one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever read. Honestly, its the same thing as telling patients that they should only use herbal remedies. I mean...its natural. Just like evolution. Don't we want to be "natural?" No, we don't...because its ****ing ******ed.
 
Last edited:
StevePerry said:
I hate when people draw off the bull**** Democrat vs. Republican paradigm -- like if you think socialized medicine is bull**** that you must be beating the drums to blow more **** up overseas and support all the crony capitalism that goes on with the "conservative" Republicans. If you've looked at Europe recently, you'll see socialism is progressing slowly towards its deathbed -- it doesn't work. I believe we have a moral responsibility to look out for one another, but it should not be a legal responsibility as the government has absolutely no right to steal from its citizens in such a manner (i.e. to fund other peoples bad decisions...). The correct stance here is the stance for liberty, personal freedom, and personal responsibility. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Actually, the only thing you can really get out of Europe right now is that the entire concept of having a single currency for several states who have the independent ability to issue bonds is one of the dumbest ideas in the history of international macroeconomics.

Some of those "socialist" states (I must have missed the news article where all of Europe seized the means of all production and became Marxist utopias) like Iceland, all of Scandanavia, and Canada are doing just honky-dory with their rational, mixed economies and socialized healthcare systems.

The states who can't seem to understand how idiotic of an idea the Euro was and don't want to deal with the pain of correcting for it are the ones that will suffer. (This goes for those in the Eurozone that are "Greeks" and "Germans"...idiots, both of them...)
 
Last edited:
WVUPharm2007 said:
This has nothing to do with anything being discussed. This just means people with "poor genes" who happen to have health insurance or wealth can live on and others simply die. It also might mean people with perfect genes who get a potentially deadly MRSA infection or environmentally caused cancer won't get the quality primary care they need. For your logic to work, people with "good genes" would have to always hold more wealth and healthcare access...which clearly isn't the case.

Also, our species invented this thing called "civilization." It's done a pretty decent job of allowing us to supersede the whole survival of the fittest thing. Using Darwinianism as an excuse for neglect-induced class genocide via a poor healthcare system is pathetic, sociopathic, and one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever read. Honestly, its the same thing as telling patients that they should only use herbal remedies. I mean...its natural. Just like evolution. Don't we want to be "natural?" No, we don't...because its ****ing ******ed.
Click to expand...

Where was health insurance ever mentioned? I asked people to do some thought experiment on what consequences providing universal healthcare has on the human gene pool.

Yes we humans have created civilization, but that does not in itself stop natural selection. Every dominant specie that came before has risen and fallen to its power, and what makes us think that we would be immune? In fact, isn't civilization that now threatens human with extiction? Nuclear war, global warming, famines, destruction of ozone...

Again, I'm curious about the battle between artificial selection and natural selection, how long can it go on, and what will be the final outcome.

PS, interesting that you mentioned MRSA and ID. So do you think we are winning this war? Or is it a case of natural selection showing us that we can't win?
 
xiphoid2010 said:
I asked people to do some thought experiment on what consequences providing universal healthcare has on the human gene pool.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll type r e a l l y slow for you.

The answer is nothing. People with "poor genes" who happen to have wealth will still live on and reproduce. People with "better genes" who are poorer won't be able to in the case of environmentally caused ailments.

I suppose you could make the argument that healthcare should be dispensed based upon the worthiness of the specimen...but such a thing would have to exist outside of any sort of free market and thus be controlled by the government, anyway. So, if anything, your weird ass scenario would be in favor of government healthcare, if anything.

So, again, like I said...this has nothing to do with nothing.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
Ok, I'll type r e a l l y slow for you.

The answer is nothing. People with "poor genes" who happen to have wealth will still live on and reproduce. People with "better genes" who are poorer won't be able to in the case of environmentally caused ailments.

I suppose you could make the argument that healthcare should be dispensed based upon the worthiness of the specimen...but such a thing would have to exist outside of any sort of free market and thus be controlled by the government, anyway. So, if anything, your weird ass scenario would be in favor of government healthcare, if anything.

So, again, like I said...this has nothing to do with nothing.
Click to expand...

I don't pretend to know the final outcomes like you seem to think be so certain of.
But hey, at least I got you thinking. :D
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
The answer is nothing. People with "poor genes" who happen to have wealth will still live on and reproduce. People with "better genes" who are poorer won't be able to in the case of environmentally caused ailments.
Click to expand...
But if it's universal care, the wealth factor is removed. The poor still get healthcare. Theoretically of course.
 
ValeUC said:
What have YOU done aside from your natural ability as a female to have a child?
Click to expand...

Worked and paid taxes for over twenty years. The only time I worked part time during thst period was during pharmacy school.
Ran a nonprofit agency that served thousands of at risk kids.
Started a foundation that has given away thousands of dollars to various causes, including (most recently) a camp for kids with type 1 diabetes.
Donated thousands of dollars to the local library after a flood destroyed the children's collection.
Started my own business that now employs another pharmacist and four interns.

But, all of that is beside the point that I was trying to make to SHC, which is that she might be judged harshly and found lacking in a system that values only production and contributions to society. And I personally would never advocate such a system. Would you?
 
All4MyDaughter said:
Ran a nonprofit agency that served thousands of at risk kids.
Started a foundation that has given away thousands of dollars to various causes, including (most recently) a camp for kids with type 1 diabetes.
Click to expand...
You're diluting our gene pool! Those kids with d'betus are gon' reproduce and soon the whole world will have d'betus. Natural selection says to forget about them and help the healthy kids.
 
Ackj said:
You're diluting our gene pool! Those kids with d'betus are gon' reproduce and soon the whole world will have d'betus. Natural selection says to forget about them and help the healthy kids.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, but I get kickbacks from Medtronic and Novo and Sanofi for keeping them alive and filling RXs longer. How do you think I got so rich?? LOL
 
npage148 said:
Don't you think it's telling that the US the only developed country that does
not have socialized medicine. The rest of the world voted, Heath care is a right. We were too busy making corporations people to notice.
Click to expand...

If healthcare is a right and a socially mandated provision - then there should be limits and consequences. Smoking should be banned, drugs should be banned and if you do it - then you're out of the healthcare circle, people should pay for healthcare and not expect to be on public aid while driving an Escalade... etc...

It should not be abused and those included in the insurance system should feel responsible for others and know that the more they use/abuse the system - the less there is to go around. Why smoke when you know it'll cost everyone money and may leave someone out of being covered?

You want to make it a right? Then make it a priority for people to be responsible for their own and for others' health.
 
I agree, tobacco should be completely banned but you really lose me (and most rational people) when you start talking about welfare queens in escalades. And who's to say those are still not legitimate users of public assistance? You don't know their story, you just see what you want to

Of course fraud happens but you should really look at shady doctors, not the end user. For every 1 end user committing fraud there are 10 doctors billing inappropriately and this is the real source of the majority of insurance/gov't assistance fraud.
 
npage148 said:
I agree, tobacco should be completely banned but you really lose me (and most rational people) when you start talking about welfare queens in escalades. And who's to say those are still not legitimate users of public assistance? You don't know their story, you just see what you want to

Of course fraud happens but you should really look at shady doctors, not the end user. For every 1 end user committing fraud there are 10 doctors billing inappropriately and this is the real source of the majority of insurance/gov't assistance fraud.
Click to expand...

Yeah dude. I'm just WANTING to see a Medicaid recipient drive away in a Lexus... then over to the nail salon that they own down the street. I'm sure I just don't know their story though and that somehow their designer handbags were gifts from relatives.
 
ValeUC said:
Yeah dude. I'm just WANTING to see a Medicaid recipient drive away in a Lexus... then over to the nail salon that they own down the street. I'm sure I just don't know their story though and that somehow their designer handbags were gifts from relatives.
Click to expand...


Sounds like they got life figured out, not work and get paid for it. Pretty sweet gig, what's stopping you from joining them at the party? We look like the stupid ones, working like slaves to support their lifestyle
 
BenJammin said:
What's going to happen when doctors stop accepting Medicare and Medicaid? Your "insurance" is useless if a doctor refuses to bill it.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. I know an MD who refuses to accept insurance, however, that doesn't stop her patients from doing the paperwork and receiving reimbursement from their insurance companies...they just end up with the work and hassle not her.
 
The way I see it unless you are willing to turn people away the ER for inability to pay society will always--in one way or another--be paying for the health care costs of others. Whether it be openly through a government health system or indirectly by increasing health care costs for those who can't pay.

The thing is everyone wants to fix the pre-existing conditions exclusion of health insurance which has been crippling to many...but you can't do that unless you have enough cash flow. Healthy people need to be enrolled too...rather than be able to wait until they are sick then get health insurance with no pre-existing conditions. And JMO, but you'd either have to be very wealthy or very dumb to not carry health insurance when you can afford it.

So, if you chose not to carry health insurance and a medical crisis hits at best you are a burden to society who will have to pay for you, at worst dead.

Very interesting a recent graduate from my school did a rotation in New Zealand where they have--*gasp*--socialized medicine. Said they were the happiest people he's ever met and that it worked out really well there. Everyone had insurance. Everyone was covered. You knew exactly what your copay was for every medication. And...less insurance headache for the pharmacists because there was only one insurance company. Granted, they did complain about getting into the doctor but even here in the states to see a specialist can takes months and months to get in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

WildWing
[Announcement] CVS Health / AACP Community Pharmacy Health Equity Award for Student Pharmacists
Replies
0
Views
151
WildWing
WildWing
C
Cardinal Health
Replies
13
Views
2K
RXDOC1986
R
R
  • Question
Nebraska Pharmacy Law Questions
Replies
0
Views
311
rossikcuw
R
P
population health document ASHP
Replies
4
Views
524
Dred Pirate
Dred Pirate
P
Darrian Baines (UK) and pharmaceutical care
Replies
0
Views
489
PrincessSnow
P
Top