as there are less resources being made (economy goes down the tubes) and but the demand is static, you have someone who is not responsible for making the resource, spending the resource.

leading to the person without food getting the medicine for free, and the person with food and the person with medicine die.

now there is less man power in the whole system, so less resources are being made

making the problem worse.

Government regulation raises cost as you bar low quality stuff from being offered, for better or worse

So now someone who could get something done at a place where maybe the doc is not certified but he had a 50/50 chance of coming out alright now has 0 chance of coming out alright because the government removed that option.

so now we come to the need of government assistance, since the government just fucked with the market, things are now worse off

because most people would prefer 50% of living vs 0% chance

So, we need to take resources from people who are good at making resources, and provide them to people not good a producing resources.

which is all fine and well so long as the people producing resources make enough to cover the people not making resources

but that doesn't always happen

some times nature says fuck you and takes a bunch of useful people out, some times people say fuck you and take a whole bunch of useful people out, and sometimes society says fuck you and doesn't make enough new useful people and all the current useful people get old

welcome to life, shit is always changing

Hmm, so you think licensing of health care professionals is the problem?

there is a difference between believing something is a problem and it not being a solution

training people is fine, encouraging people to go to licensed professionals is fine, making it illegal to offer unlicensed service (assuming the fact your are unlicensed is disclosed, and things are not based off a lie) is not a solution

so, where are we? ah yes, the government has removed an option from the market, but needs to make it up in order to justify why 0% chance of life is better than 50% chance. But, history tells us, that things will change and there will be a point down the line where shit will change, and the government won't be able to provide for these people, and there will suddenly be more of them. This gets back to my "it is not a solution" statement. Here the government has not actually helped, it only kicked the can down the line.

We had that in the late 1800's. People died. That's why we got state licensure and agencies like the FDA to ensure the food and drug supply was safe.

and people still die because they can't afford it

you will not stop people from dying

For some reason, people didn't like cough syrup with ethylene glycol in the 1930's

cigs are not illegal (yet). How many people do you know smoke now vs even only as far back as the 90s?

About 20% of Americans still smoke

More in some areas than others

Hmmm

Wow, that paints a mindbending image

pretty impressive for an addictive drug that isn't illegal and a product that kills people

more impressive that in what, 40 years that amount has dropped in half?

what about the percent of young people smoking? give that this is addictive, its the number of new smokers that is really telling if people like this stuff or not.

Nicotine is the most addictive substance in the environment

More than cocaine. More than opioids. More than anything.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/index.htm

Heck, even more than politics!

Debatable.

lol

hmm, seems like even though its super addictive, people seem real eager to stop, and less eager that in the past to start. Particularly young people once it became clear that using it is very detrimental to your health.

the government cause that?

i mean, i know the government gets a lot of money from taxing addicted people.

good way to help them right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH4MkHcG8n0

Funny thing about licensed medical work, American doctors are border hopping to unlicensed practices that other Americans (and some Canadians) go to because it's more financially beneficial to both parties