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

And these are people who are already licensed

In the US we have medical tourism where people go out of area or even out of country for expensive surgeries that are not covered by insurance. I myself ended up going that route in 2009 when I needed a procedure not covered by insurance.

I'll be the first to say our system is deranged, I'm just not sure how people will take to dying when richer people live. It's be the same think if we had mass starvation happening - the public wouldn't tolerate it.

In the end we have hospitals in the middle. We are forced by law to provide care to everyone regardless of ability to pay but the drug companies and equipment companies and construction companies and other vendors change us what the market allowed.

We're being squeezed and it's killing us.

What are your thoughts on a possible solution?

Well one, a really good look at regulations

We're working to prepare for a regulation called USP800 which tells us we have to protect staff against hazardous drugs they manipulate during patent care. Sounds good, right?

Problem is we are required to treat teratogens the same way we treat carcinogens.

In other words a 60yo male nurse has to dress up in personal protective equipment to give an 80yo guy a drug that can cause birth defects in gestating women.

It's kinda loony

I understand giving women of childbearing interest the protections, and we shouldn't hold those needs against them, but to require it for everyone seems silly. One size fits all regulations are a problem. Just tell us what ends we need to meet and leave us to meet those ends in our own way, then audit us to make sure we meet them.

You want drugs made in a really clean room? Tell us how clean and how often we need to test. Then let us figure out the best way to make the room that clean. And then audit us.

It's real that 25% of health care dollars go to insurance administration. Here some regulation could be helpful in standardizing that process. I'm a fan of paying providers for outcomes. Pay us the cost of basically doing the business and any margin comes only if we provide good outcomes. A lot simpler to administer I would think.

But the biggest questions we as a society need to ask is do we regulate quality and do we regulate access? In other words, do we ensure health care is given at or above a certain level by licensure and audits? And do we say people have a right to it?

Answer those two questions and the options drill down a lot.