Healthcare & rationing

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:55 am

Just because a war is hard to win, does not make it a wrong cause.
That marijuana is safer than beer is a myth.
Its the dosage that makes the poison. How many beers can you drink in a certain amount of time, how many joints can you smoke in the same time?
Very few people that are not alcoholics drink a beer every day or more (well other than "Joe sixpack" and Joe the plumber maybe, ROFL). Most people that frequently smoke marijuana smoke a joint a day, or more.
The affects on lungs can be seen in the study I posted. Where is your study that says that marijuana is safer than alcohol?
Anyway, you are against people with preexisting conditions getting healthcare, but you are for legalization of drugs that will put a ton more pressure on the medical system. I dont even want to think of all the additional cancer, overdose, etc cases, that the system would have to deal with then. Personally I would even go so far and say that public healthcare should only be for people that do not smoke, do not take drugs and are not alcoholics. Drug related conditions should not be treated. People should only be allowed back into the system once they are "clean". I would actually not mind having a simillar law here in Austria. I do not see why I should pay for a condition someone is willingly inflicting on himself.

Oh and I am all for genetics and genetic research and engineering.
I do also know that there is a genetical prevalence for addiction, just like there is one for heart desease and so on. However, humans do have a choice to some extent. Everyone in my family smokes.
I smoked brievely, but I quit a long time ago. I have not touched a cigarette since, despite Austria being a country of smokers and me being constantly surrounded by smoke and smokers.
So I guess I do either not have the gene (as the exception in my family), or the genes do not have as strong an effect on this, as you think.

Also interesting: Despite being smokers, none of my family members are alcoholics or abusers of other drugs.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:14 am

On the topic of healthcare. I am still not old, yet I do need healthcare. My wife is still not old, but she is grateful for our system here.
It is all fun and games until someone gets hurt. Do you have children Simon?

Four of them. #2 son graduated with Honors in Russian Literature from the University of Chicago. A school I dropped out of. He wanted to top me. He did. In may ways he is like me. We both have strong math/science and language interests. He chose to focus on language. I chose the sciences. His first job out of school was as a quant. for a consulting company.

#3 son and #1 daughter are going to engineering schools. In addition #3 son is a wicked drummer.

#1 son has a chronic illness. At the present time he is in an American hospital getting treatment. I go to hospitals a lot.

In America kids find drugs easier to get than beer. So they grew up in a drug environment. Prohibition hasn't helped. In fact it made things worse by putting dealers in schools. How many beer dealers do you find in school? We had a lot more of them under alcohol prohibition. In fact drunken kids were a big problem for schools in that American era.

So let me see if I can explain it. With prohibition there is a crime plus drug problem. Alcohol, the currently illegal drugs, it doesn't matter. With legalization we just have the drug problem which, since it is genetic and triggered by trauma will only affect a small part of the population.

===

Why some doctors take drugs that make them black out (propofol):

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... s_dan.html

Which fits in well with what a doctor found about heroin:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/heroin.html

So if one of my kids had a drug problem lasting into his/her late 20s (high anxiety is common in the 16 to 25 age group so drug use in this cohort is not unusual. Most of them go for a mild anti-depressant such as marijuana.) I'd try to find the trigger and see what I could do in the way of repair. If they went for stronger dugs I'd assume a more serious problem.

So I consider chronic drug use a symptom of a deeper problem.

I consider the criminalization of symptoms barbaric. It may be because I'm a crude, uncaring, uncivilized, redneck, neocon.

====

I had a cousin who was a cocaine fiend. Her problem wasn't cocaine. Her problem was she was raped at age ten. She couldn't face it. She hid it from her family until I managed to get it out of her late in her life. So she used cocaine to cover it up. To victimize such people a second time seems barbaric. It may be because I'm a crude, uncaring, uncivilized, redneck, neocon.

BTW she could not get the help she really needed because she would be a target for law enforcement. So yeah. I've had some experience with the ills of prohibition.

====

Eliminating the 10,000 drug war murders of and by kids by ending prohibition would go a ways to bringing America's health care stats up. Killing them young really hurts the numbers.

So why isn't much done (so far) in America about this? Well the murders are confined to the drug war zone of cities mostly. Or to be more precise - Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Did I say the drug war is racist? Yes I did. It must be because I'm a crude, uncaring, uncivilized, redneck, neocon that this sort of thing bothers me.

====

The experience of Portugal with decriminalization:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... igion.html

====

So skipjack - you don't like America's health care system because it prevents you from coming here. So I ask again: why isn't yours portable?

OTOH I would call that a filtering mechanism. America is for risk takers. If you want to be taken care of (for as long as it lasts) Europe is the place for you. It won't last much longer. You guys are not reproducing.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:30 am

Also interesting: Despite being smokers, none of my family members are alcoholics or abusers of other drugs.

They would be safer if they smoked pot frequently. It seems to have anti-tumor properties that prevent cigarette smokers from getting cancer.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... cohol.html

and

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ients.html

and

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/ ... 6726.shtml

and especially relevant:

http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2008/11/ ... events-it/

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:37 am

Yeah. People have choices. They can take pain relievers for their pain or suffer in silence.

Being the uncaring fellow I am I think relieving suffering is a good thing. YMMV

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:40 am

Have you read my links, these studies are newer and they say the contrary.
Also, the whole "it is the society, the social environment, because he/she was raped, etc" argumentation does so not fit with your other opinions Simon. I think you should stop smoking to much pot, you are starting to suffer from split personalities, or something.

Here the drug problems are getting worse as well. With the immigrants came the drug dealers. Now they are standing in front of our schools. The government is unwilling to do something and the police cant. As soon as they arrest someone the dealers shout for amnesty international and cry foul play and so on. The left here of course supports all that.
Now people here are calling me a right winger because I dont tolerate this. Gee, if I did not have so much to loose (I still do, but it is getting less with every time fate strikes down on me), I would take care of that matter myself.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:44 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01729.html

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:51 am

So skipjack - you don't like America's health care system because it prevents you from coming here. So I ask again: why isn't yours portable?

If I was living in the US and paying my taxes in the US, I would not be insured by the Austrian system anymore. After all I would be paying into the US social insurance and not the Austrian one.
That kinda makes sense, doesnt it?
Where you are paying your taxes depends on where you live most of the year. That is by international agreement, if I remember correctly. That bit some of our sports men into their ass, when they got a home in Monacco, but ended up not spending most of the year there but in Austria (so they had to pay Austrian taxes anyway).

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:51 am

skipjack,

Let me put it clearly. I'm against rape because it leads to excessive heroin, cocaine, propofol etc. use.

I am against criminalizing the injured who seek pain relief through drugs. I'm against criminalizing a genetic variation.

I'm against criminalizing symptoms.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:57 am

Skipjack wrote:
So skipjack - you don't like America's health care system because it prevents you from coming here. So I ask again: why isn't yours portable?

If I was living in the US and paying my taxes in the US, I would not be insured by the Austrian system anymore. After all I would be paying into the US social insurance and not the Austrian one.
That kinda makes sense, doesnt it?
Where you are paying your taxes depends on where you live most of the year. That is by international agreement, if I remember correctly. That bit some of our sports men into their ass, when they got a home in Monacco, but ended up not spending most of the year there but in Austria (so they had to pay Austrian taxes anyway).

So wouldn't you be better off with an international insurer with a policy that was transferable across borders? Which is what many Americans want. Only we are trying to start with this country since it is large enough for the experiment.

You are now a slave to Austria. And you don't like it. It limits your choices. And yet you fail to properly diagnose the disease.

Do you see why a rather large plurality wants no part of government health care? Americans find being a slave to the state unwholesome. To the max.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:00 am

I'm against rape

At least we agree on something...
In Austria people can get medical help for any mental issues with their health insurance. They do not have to use illegal drugs, but can instead use controlled and prescribed drugs and under the careful observation by psychiatrists, neurologists and even psychotherapists (which I dont regard very highly, a priest is cheaper and does the same... which is listen to your problems and nodd kindly).
Yet, we still have people using drugs. 12 to 14 year olds, that have never been raped or are even from so called "good families" get into contact with drugs, because they are young and gullible. In addition there is idiots that spread so called "studies" that say "they are not bad at all anyway".
Great!

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:02 am

Nope, I would have the same problem with pretty much any US insurer, other than those that have additional international policies.
Unfortunately, these dont want to insure me, because of my preexisting condition.
With the government system in Austria, I am at least insured here. With the US system I would be insured nowhere.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:34 am

Let me go through your links:

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v12 ... .2369.html

counter link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 120141.htm

University scientists are finding that specific elements of marijuana can be good for the aging brain by reducing inflammation there and possibly even stimulating the formation of new brain cells.

Note: anti-depressants generally cause an increase in brain cells. So the fact that marijuana does it is not unusual.

=====

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 104017.htm

and then there is this:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/c ... yth4.shtml

Frequent marijuana smokers experience adverse respiratory symptoms from smoking, including chronic cough, chronic phlegm, and wheezing. However, the only prospective clinical study shows no increased risk of crippling pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema).

Since 1982, UCLA researchers have evaluated pulmonary function and bronchial cell characteristics in marijuana-only smokers, tobacco-only smokers, smokers of both, and non-smokers. Although they have found changes in marijuana-only smokers, the changes are much less pronounced than those found in tobacco smokers.

The nature of the marijuana-induced changes were also different, occurring primarily in the lung's large airways - not the small peripheral airways affected by tobacco smoke. Since it is small-airway inflammation that causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, marijuana smokers may not develop these diseases. 22

In an epidemiological survey, approximately 1200 subjects gave information on smoking and pulmonary function at two-year intervals. A large percentage of the subjects underwent pulmonary function testing. Although a small group who reported previous marijuana smoking had significant pulmonary abnormalities, current marijuana smokers had no significant reduction in any pulmonary functions. 23

There are no epidemiological or aggregate clinical data suggesting that marijuana-only smokers develop lung cancer. However, since some bronchial cell changes appear to be pre-cancerous, an increased risk of cancer among frequent marijuana smokers is possible. 24

Except in epidemiological studies (where are the bodies?) no significant connection between marijuana and lung cancer have been found.

In fact some asthmatics like marijuana for its bronchial dilation properties.

=====

http://www.aan.com/press/index.cfm?fuse ... elease=338

I counter with:

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/a/blucsd030628.htm

An analysis of research studies with long-term, recreational users of marijuana has failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect on the neurocognitive functioning of users. According to researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, the only deleterious side effect found was a minimal malfunction in the domains of learning and forgetting.

The findings were particularly significant considering the movement by several states to make cannabis (marijuana) available as a medicinal drug, and questions regarding its potential toxicity over long-term usage.

Published in the July issue of the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,

====

http://www.aan.com/press/index.cfm?fuse ... elease=578

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) who smoke marijuana are more likely to have emotional and memory problems, according to research published February 13, 2008, in the online edition of Neurology®, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

I'm not even going to bother with a link. Correlation says nothing about the direction of cause and effect. If people who need anti-depressants are attracted to anti-depressants then it is rather unlikely that anti-depressants caused the depression that lead to anti-depressant use.

However, I will concede that punishing people for anti-depressant use can lead to an increase in anti-depressant use.

===

And then we come to the trillion dollar (world wide drug trade) question. Is prohibition working well enough in getting drugs to our children to be worth it? Especially if the nominal reason for prohibition is to reduce a child's access to drugs.

Only you can decide.

====

Here is a fun one:

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/alz ... =100230518

Marijuana isn't known for being a friend to memory; its short-term effects notoriously impair recall. And although the data is conflicting, some studies link cannabis with memory deficits in those who use excessive doses for long periods of time

But new research suggests that one of the active ingredients in marijuana—THC—and similar compounds could possibly prevent or even reverse one of the most devastating memory disorders of all: Alzheimer's disease.

In a paper published in the December 2008 issue of the journal Neurobiology of Aging, researchers found that a compound that affects the same brain receptors as THC reduced brain inflammation and improved memory in older rats. (The rodents were the human equivalent of age 65 to 70.) Although there's debate over the role played by inflammation in Alzheimer's, many researchers believe it's an important part of the process that causes dementia.

"We were shocked and surprised that it worked," says Gary Wenk, Ph.D., one of the study's authors and a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Ohio State University.

Wenk and his colleagues traced the anti-inflammatory effect of the compound (which has the awkward name "WIN-55,212-2") to its activation of cannabinoid receptors on brain cells—the same receptors activated by THC.

Other anti-inflammatory compounds studied in rats and humans like NSAID drugs (ibuprofen, etc.) showed effects on young brains, but unlike WIN-55,212-2 did not improve aged brains.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:43 am

Sigh, lets just agree to disagree, OK? I dont think your studies are any more valid than the ones I listed.
Also, you ignored me, when I said that people with depression here have free access to antidepressants. So why would they have to take illegal drugs?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:56 am

Skipjack wrote:Nope, I would have the same problem with pretty much any US insurer, other than those that have additional international policies.
Unfortunately, these dont want to insure me, because of my preexisting condition.
With the government system in Austria, I am at least insured here. With the US system I would be insured nowhere.

Why not? If you had taken out international insurance you would be covered.

Unfortunately your government stole your money from you preventing you from getting YOUR needs met. But you have to admit it is cheaper. And if it is such a good deal why are you bitching about it?

Why isn't it: I'm happy being stuck in Austria because of my medical care. It is worth it.

See the deal is: Americans don't want their health care dependent on where they pay taxes. It is currently true with States. We would like to take it national. And for those who want international.

If health care is to be considered a common carrier then let it be on an individual basis. If the state is going to subsidize it (through lower taxes) then let the subsidy flow to the individual.

During the transition pre-existing conditions are going to be a problem. That is going to be tough. Transitions are always tough.

=====

I guess your alternative is to make a lot of money so you can pay for what you need out of pocket. It is a tough life. People 100 years ago had it tougher.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:56 am

Skipjack wrote:Sigh, lets just agree to disagree, OK? I dont think your studies are any more valid than the ones I listed.
Also, you ignored me, when I said that people with depression here have free access to antidepressants. So why would they have to take illegal drugs?

Fewer side effects (not counting law enforcement).