Comprehensive universal health care & funding for it ~ (my preferences 1~7) ~ (alternatives see Note1-3).
~ the current patchwork of health care delivery systems in the usa; denigrates the poor, the weak & the confused.....
1) roll Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, long-term nursing, veterans' & private health~dental~mental care into "one payer system". lnk ~ physicians for
~ Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains private.
2) all providers would remain private.
3) all providers (private) administrative / processing claims costs could share in "universal"..national economies of scale.
2) cover everyone ~ from womb to tomb & everyone in-between...preferably USA citizens only, tho.
3) i'm thinking if people didn't have to file bankruptcy due to catastrophic health problems is a good thing. (reducing family stress & tort $)
~ Our nation cannot have individuals capable of contributing be forced into bankruptcy, and thereby devastating their families both immediate and generations to follow from such health events. (ref: understand2008). lnk ~ Understand2008
4) i'm thinking people wouldn't be so quick to sue doctors;
~ if we knew we wouldn't go bankrupt trying to deal with errors/results of poor judgements (assuming the doctor is competent). (reduction in tort $)
5) reduce the non-medical educational requirements of training MDs, DOs, PAs & nurses. (reduction in training $)
6) Elective care and cosmetic surgery type care would be covered by private insurance.
7) fund this comprehensive universal health care by:
(It is time to treat addiction for what it is, a medical issue for most people, not a criminal one.)
~ legalizing, taxing & managing "ALL" drugs (similar to prescription drugs, cigarettes & alcohol.)
~ lnk ~ $ cost of "war on drug " in america (for enforcement only).....approx. $ 43 billion / year (+ inflation) ....forever, ugh.....
~ (as a bonus) take the victims outta the game....(reducing strains on incarceration $ and local enforcement $) lnk ~ prisons
~ take the dealers (drug dealers) outta the game....(drug lords couldn't compete with business interests, e.g... aspirin)
~ take the jihadists (international terrorism) outta the game.....drug prohibition ensures that foreign producers, including jihadists, will prosper.
~ reduce the violence in our country.
~ heck, it might even bring back the family farm.
Note1: alternative funding sources / suggestions by unity08 comments:
~ taxing church(s)/ tv evangelist(s) lnk ~ taxing religion
~ co-pay(s) (hopefully someone would think twice about wanting health services).
~ tax unhealthy behavior (ie...drugs)
~ UNtax healthy behavior
~ make a distinction between "hard" drugs vs "soft" drugs
~ tax M&A (mergers & acquisitions) wall street tycoon deals.
~ lottery (as a possible funding source)
~ tax oil
~ tax short-term stock trades
~ tax K-steet lobbyists
~ enrollee contributions, income taxes, payroll taxes and so-called "sin taxes." ~ lnk ~ report to the president & congress
~ establish an employer & employee healthcare payroll tax of 4.75% each (includes the 1.45% payroll money already being paid for Medicare). lnk ~ HR #676
~ lnk ~ Connecticut coalition for universal health care
~ lnk ~ the green party
~ lnk ~ the labor party
Note2: ~ another view / take on "comprehensive" universal health care & funding for it:
The Citizens' Health Care Working Group lnk ~ report to the president (funded by congress in 2024)
The Working Group sent its Final Recommendations to Congress and the President on September 29, 2024.
These recommendations are based on input received from many sources:
suggests universal health coverage be funded through shared responsibility and through revenue sources including:
enrollee contributions, income taxes, payroll taxes and so-called "sin taxes."
(Congress passed the bill creating the Citizens' Health Care Working Group in late 2024. Congress approved $5.5 million to fund the group's work, which began in February of last year. The group consisted of 14 members representing consumers, the disabled, business and labor, and health care providers.)
Note3: ~ check out Conyers & Kucinich's H.R. # 676 Universal health care bill; up before congress now (07/2007).
lnk ~ HR #676
H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act: Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health programs; establish an employer and employee healthcare payroll tax of 4.75% each (this includes the 1.45% payroll money already being paid for Medicare); establish a 5% health tax on the wealthiest 5% of income earners; establish a 10% health tax on the wealthiest 1% of income earners; levy a 1/4 of 1% tax on stock transfers; repeal the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest income earners.
Note4: ~ Drug addiction as a public health issue..........( an issue as ancient as religion, itself)
It is time to treat addiction for what it is, a medical problem, not a criminal one.
If drugs were legalized, drug addiction and abuse would become a health issue, and public health would be enhanced. For one, cleaner drugs would lead to improved health. the illegality of recreational drugs may be hindering the ability of companies to discover and market drugs that could be used for recreation but could also be effective as medical treatments.
Comprehensive universal health care & funding for it ~ (my preferences)
1) roll Medicare, Medicaid, long-term nursing & private health care into "one payer system".
2) all providers would remain private.
3) all providers (private) administrative / processing claims costs could share in "universal"..economies of scale.
2) cover everyone ~ young, old & everyone in-between...preferably USA citizens only, tho.
3) i'm thinking if people didn't have to file bankruptcy due to catastrophic health problems is a good thing. (reduction in tort $)
4) i'm thinking people wouldn't be so quick to sue doctors;
if we knew we wouldn't go bankrupt trying to deal with errors/results of poor judgements (assuming the doctor is competent). (reduction in tort $)
5) reduce the non-medical educational requirements of training an MD or DO.
6) fund this comprehensive universal health care by:
legalizing, taxing & managing all drugs (similar to prescription drugs, cigarettes & alcohol.)
~ (as a bonus) take the criminals outta the game....(reducing incarceration $ & local police $)
~ heck, it might even bring back the family farm.
note: ~ Drug addiction as a public health issue..........
If drugs were legalized, drug addiction and abuse would become a health issue, and public health would be enhanced. For one, cleaner drugs would lead to improved health. the illegality of recreational drugs may be hindering the ability of companies to discover and market drugs that could be used for recreation but could also be effective as medical treatments.
(note: check out Kucinich's H.R. # 676 Universal health care bill; up before congress now (07/2007).
As a constituent of Conyers I can say that I am not a fan of this plan. Reach into your own pocket to pay for other people's healthcare, not mine. Bottom line, there is nothing charitable about giving away someone else's money.
Since i suggested funding this "charity" with taxes on illegal drugs........
i'm reaching into your pocket ?.......hmmmm.
I couldn't disagree with you more. In fact, that's one of the reasons I decided to join Unity08. I saw Mr. Watterson on Hardball yesterday and, for once, saw a glimmer of hope.
I saw Michael Moore on Hardball the night before and learned about HR 676, currently proposed, and I think it's a great plan.
My health insurance which is "provided" by my employer used to cost $622.00 a month. (It was just increased to $711). I earned a little under $20,000 last year and will probably earn approximately the same this year. This monthly expense by far exceeds any other monthly expense I have. I earn too much to apply for Medicaid, yet I earn too little to be able to afford my employer health plan, so I've had to drop it.
I'm 54 years old and have chronic pancreatitis, which I developed out of the blue in February of 2024. (I have none of the risk factors known to cause this disease.) I've been hospitalized three times (first time in PA and the last two in Colorado) since then. While being hospitalized the first time in PA where I lived, my daughter flew out and insisted I return home to live with her, and I agreed.
Of my last two hospitalizations in Colorado last year, my $622-a-month insurance paid some of the hospital bill. What it did NOT pay (for a total of FIVE days) was almost $9,000. The hospital asked me to take out a loan. When I wasn't approved for that, they asked for additional information to see if I would qualify for simply what I could afford (in their eyes) to pay. They then lowered the amount owed by me to $70.00 total. (All the other associated bills are now in collection, and I've literally turned off my telephone because I can't turn off my voicemail and simply don't want to hear it any more. I can't afford to pay any more, though if I were to drop my recently increased health insurance premium (now $711 per month), I could probably turn my phone back on because with $711 more in my pocket, I could afford to pay what my insurance REFUSED TO PAY.
Pancreatitis causes all sorts of additional medical problems, one of them involving the lungs. I was on oxygen all three times I was hospitalized. On my last discharge, I was ordered to have home oxygen, which my insurance refused to pay for. This was ordered because on discharge my O2 saturation was 67%. It was COD oxygen, and I literally had enough dollars in my wallet to buy either the oxygen or the prescriptions I was given on discharge. I chose the prescriptions.
In March of this year, I had to have blood work and a followup chest x-ray performed. This totaled more than $200, and my $622-a-month insurance refused to pay for it. I got a collection letter from the hospital and decided to call them, remembering how they had helped me last year. They encouraged me to apply for the CICP (Colorado Indigent Care Program). I did, and I was approved. My $200-plus bill was reduced to $35.00. Colorado taxpayers are now paying for my "indigent" care because the bulk of my income is paying for insurance companies to get richer. For my entire adult life, I've always worked more than one job in order to raise my daughter alone. I've never once requested or received aid from the government.
(CONTINUED)
As I write this, I'm in the midst of another attack and know I should be hospitalized. Under the CICP program, if I am hospitalized, the hospital room, regardless of length of stay, won't cost any more than $560 total. However, I would still have all the physician, imaging and other ancillary bills that my great "insurance" probably won't pay for. After my last discharge, I decided to just try to mimic the hospital's treatment and que sera, sera. For the first time, I can feel that I need oxygen, but I'm like a mouse in a wheel, running faster and faster forward but declining backwards, and I simply refuse to incur any further bills that I can't afford. I also feel a great deal of guilt because I'm asking fellow Colorado taxpayers to pay for MY care, regardless of how much I appreciate what the hospital has done for me.
I haven't had enough money to pay for dental care, as well. I have more fingers on both hands than I do teeth in my mouth. I have severe periodontal disease and have recently learned that a study has connected periodontal disease to pancreatic cancer in men. I actually emailed the Harvard researcher in January of this year to inquire if she intends to do a study on women. I would offer to promote myself from mouse on wheel to guinea pig if it were free and the occasion arose. Right now, I'm getting sicker and sicker, and for the last couple of months there has been a palpable lump in my abdomen in the area of my pancreatic pain that seems to be growing.
There might not be enough time for HR 676 to work for me. But I urge each of you to whom this issue is important to write to your congressperson with copies to John Conyers. Considering I have a Republican congresswoman, I also sent a copy to Michael Moore, so that she knows both Conyers and Moore are aware that I wrote to her (just in case it would make a difference).
Back years ago when I was younger and healthier and began to see the decline in medical care from insurance companies, I thought that although I believed in capitalism, if one's ability to live or die depended strictly on the number of dollars in that person's wallet, then that is THE most immoral thing about America.
They can raise my taxes all they want. If they raise taxes by $6,000 on this $20,000-a-year wage earner to pay for medical care with no deductibles or copays, I will be saving a LOT of money.
I appreciate and respect your view, but there are others of us out here who may just simply die without some change in the system. I believe it's time to remove the insurance companies from healthcare. As Michael Moore pointed out, nobody finds out if someone's insurance payment is up to date when it's on fire or when someone is mugged. The firemen and policemen just do their jobs.
The whole mindset regarding healthcare must change in this country.
(I apologize for the length of this post. It was my first one here, and this issue is critically important to me.)
Most people do not realize the costs incurred by those with medical problems. One learns fast when one falls into the forbidden zone.
Drugs were made illegal because society got sick of stepping over human garbage lying in their own excrement and who arose only to commit crimes in order to buy more drugs. Even cheap drugs cost something, and a hardcore addict cannot sustain any employment. If you give them the drugs for free, you have to also give them food, clothing, shelter, and health care. Seattle recently embarked on a plan to give housing to alcoholics. Freed from their need to find food and shelter, they were able to devote more efforts toward drinking. The ambulance calls and visits to emergency room skyrocketed. Heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines are never going to be legalized any time soon, so stop praying to this false god of prosperity from taxes on vice (which raise prices and the need to commit more crimes). Drugs are a scourge and deserve to be prohibited. They will always bring more harm to society than any benefits.
The under- and un-insured are already sticking their hands into our pockets. They line up at the emergency rooms which are forced to provide services that taxpayers are forced to underwrite. If we did not pay this extortion, the hospitals would close and we would have no services ourselves. If we changed the law to allow emergency rooms to turn away those without funds, the consequences would be unacceptable to all but the hardest of hearts among us. If that illegal immigrant's child, for example, doesn't get antibiotics for his sore throat, the little cherub might contract rheumatic fever and come back with an even more severe illness. You can imagine what the media would do with that lifeless body. So, as unpleasant as it may seem, public health issues will always require government intervention. That is less of a problem than the corrupt political opportunists who run the government.
Gary A. Belaga, M.D.
about ~ Drugs are a scourge and deserve to be prohibited.
does your comment refer to commonly accepted "legal" drugs, also.
i'm thinking most have their drug of choice.....some more socially acceptable than others....
"Drugs were made illegal because society got sick of stepping over human garbage lying in their own excrement and who arose only to commit crimes in order to buy more drugs."
Well thank god making it illegal solved the drug problem [insert rolleyes emoticon here.......]
There's a right in this country to freedom, not a right to not be bothered by other human beings.
A Democrat seeks complex solution to simple problems
A Republican seeks simple solutions to complex problems
A reasonable person seeks simple solutions for solvable problems
Gary,
No offense but you should go study history a little bit more about why drugs were made illegal. In fact drugs were not make illegal for any of the reasons you listed above. Drugs were made illegal based on mass propaganda and specially targeted at the specific ethnic groups (E.G. Chinese and Blacks). In both of these cases a huge smear campaign was waged at these groups of people, these smear campaigns included: 1) Posters and "medical" documents stating that if a black man where to take cocaine he would become so enraged and out of control that he would rape white woman, & 2) The Chinese would lure white women to their opium dens and seduce them. Basically, drugs were outlawed through hysteria and racism.
Another point, we lose ALL ability to regulate once we ban it. For instance- Morphine is a RX drug, it is also a derivative of opium (so is heroin), however, at least we are able to (some degree) track and keep an eye on RX opium. We are can track how it is prescribe too, how many times a doctor prescribes it, etc. Heroin on the other hand is illiegal, yet it is 10x more prevelent on our streets that medical grade morphine.
One more point. The swiss have conducted many, many, tests on "illegal" drugs,probably more than any other country. While not all of them have succeeded (their heroin park comes to mind) they have made a few break throughs in other areas. They have successfully taken hard core heroin addicts and reintroduced them to society.
-----------
Concerning National health care:
While I , like allot of Americans, am not happy with our currently health care plan, I do not think federalizing it would make it any better.
The same politicians that drove most of us to the web site would be the ones in charge of running, or least setting, this program. I think it would do more harm than good. However, I do believe something MUST be done about our health care systems. I believe the problems lies in the un-regulation (to some degree) of the insurance companies and doctors are the root of the problem.
Doctors and dentist are at fault when they charge EXTREME prices for the most simple procedures (E.G. over $100 dollars for an office visit which lasted 10 min). Federalizing health care and not fixing this problem would make the program doomed from the start. This also plays into the percentages and how much insurance companies can commit to paying. Looking at it realistically, if you had to give someone health care coverage and knew that range you could be changed for procedure x is somewhere between 50 and 500 dollars, how would you know what to charge them. When the business owner has to account for a such a HUGE degree of rates, what are they to do? They can't simply say we cover all of it, they would go bankrupt. They are held hostage to the doctors pricing schemes as much as we are (Not trying to paint a nice and pretty picture of the insurance companies, I think in some instance they are worse than doctors)
I believe in limiting the amount doctors,dentist and hospitals can charge for: procedures, time, medicine, hospital beds etc would be a good start. I also think we need to ensure that hospitals do not double bill insurance companies, which also drives the price up. I would also be for all medical companies (insurance and hospitals) should be forced to release detailed finical figures, How many claims were submitted, how may claims denied, total profit, total salary of Executives, etc (Not much different from other public companies).
/rant..for now.
There is no doubt that race and social issues play a role as to what drugs are acceptable. Alcohol is the most widely abused agent. Cannabis and prescription drugs aren't far behind. The former is gaining in legal status as some States are expanding its availability while its medicinal value is being explored. Heroin is probably a very good drug which physicians could use effectively and to considerable advantage, but indiscriminate use of any of these agents by addicts is the scourge. Legalizing them for such a purpose would be a grievous mistake.
Gary A. Belaga, M.D.
so as our population continues to grow, the answer to this "scourge of addiction" continues to be "stay the course":
build more prisons
hire more police
hire more judges & lawyers
keep the dealers in business
and keep the "spice" flowing........... out of the public eye....
And I'm not saying throw them in jail, unless they are violent. It could work as such; even if an addict uses up all his/her "strikes" (for government help) he/she could still revise some sort of help from Charitable Organizations. Something similar to donating money to help fight cancer, or aids. If drugs were legalized to fund health care, some of that money could be used as staring "seed" money as well. After that funds would be base collected donations. True, society would have to make a few changes for it to work (or maybe life is not that perfect), but then again, Changing the inner working of a Health care system is a slow process.
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
And I'm not saying throw them in jail, unless they are violent. It could work as such; even if an addict uses up all his/her "strikes" (for government help) he/she could still revise some sort of help from Charitable Organizations. Something similar to donating money to help fight cancer, or aids. If drugs were legalized to fund health care, some of that money could be used as staring "seed" money as well. After that funds would be base collected donations. True, society would have to make a few changes for it to work (or maybe life is not that perfect), but then again, Changing the inner working of a Health care system is a slow process.
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
There will be no illegal drugs once cash is retired, as it surely shall be. I refer you to THE ECONOMIST (2-17-07). The cashless revolution is upon us and no drug dealing can occur when there is no anonymous cash.
Gary A. Belaga, M.D.
about ~ no drug dealing can occur when there is no anonymous cash.
very creative, indeed.
i'm thinking barter was around before money .....
not to mention, if i want drugs ; i'll be able to find the "paypal" out of the public eye.
by-the-by check out the Economist take on "legalization of drugs"; i'm thinking they're for it.
thanks for the discourse ~
There are many thoughtful and honest experts who have concluded that drugs ought to be legalized, but their opinions were framed by the abject failure of the drug war due to corruption within all levels of law enforcement and of government. But now, for the first time in history, technology can make drug trafficking impossible, even with corrupt police and politicians conspiring to abet it. Given such a new perspective, I doubt than any expert would continue to endorse legalization of drug abuse.
Gary A. Belaga, M.D.
drug trafficking impossible ?
drugs are as ancient as religion itself, suspress all you like;
i'm thinking you underestimate the spirit / will of a human being & what they're capable of.
Khlect, you're quoting from the econ0mist as though it were a beacon of truth. It's not.
Economics is a dynamic and evolving field but it is also one which always seems to underestimate or miscalculate the will of a single individual and the wills of many single individuals. People will get their hands on drugs. Just because the USA gets rid of cash doesn't mean the rest of the world will. Additionally, people can abrter. That seems ridiculous but some people really really really like drugs. More people really like power. Coins and paper are not the problem, the desires of the population are the "problem". If, therefore, you want to solve this problem, you will ened to address people's wants and needs, not the means with which they acheive them.
shadismount@hotmail.com
I'm prescribed to Adderall, and let me tell you I need it. Without I'm a mess, I would always loose my train of thought and I never completed a task. That’s the problem with drugs; it's all based on what society accepts as a worth while drug. I believe on some level all drugs have potential to be worth while.
If we do end the "War on Drugs" (I for one think we should) that does not mean we will be left with a society of looser addicts. Most people are intelligent enough to see the dangers of drug abuse, so they won't willy-nilly poison their own bodies just because the can. If some one wants to use a drug for recreational use, they should have that right. We can then tax that drug and use the money that is generated from that for some form of Heath care.
If you sit down and think about it, allot of the drugs we use in medicine are off-shoots of the very same drugs we made illegal
Ex: Adderall is derived of Speed
Oxy Cotton is derived of Heroin
All anti-depressants are nothing more than tame/controlled mind altering drugs; MDMA (ectasy) was original created by the Russians as an anti-depressant
It's kind of like the government is a drug dealer saying, "Don’t buy their drugs, buy my drugs". So you have to ask yourself, is this "War on Drugs" just a convoluted scheme to make money. Don't fool yourself, the right people could make millions.
I do realize that the last statement I made about the government being a drug deal is way out there, I do believe public safety is their main concern. But it does make you think.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
There is documented evidence of the government dealing drugs(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Alliance but the book is better). Your statement is completely factual and when 50 percent of those currently incarcerated are in prison because of marijuana related crimes it's clear: the law needs to change. But I am off-topic.
Regardless of any purported "cashless revolution", the issue here remains healthcare. As on several other forums. Why haven't they been merged?
shadismount@hotmail.com
I've posted this before and I really just want to get some other dieas. We don't have a single forum on medical care so I'm posting this on everyone that I think applies.
It's clear, everyone wants everyone to have an equal level of helthcare that is of the highest quality possible. We won't achieve this through the legislature because their are too many people who believe that government control in this area is detrimental to our civil liberties. I happen to agree to a certain extent but we can't live in the richest society int he world and let people die not because we are unable to save them, but because we are afraid to save them.
So what' my solution?
Whether you like it or not, medical care in the USA is a series of private industries. You don't change that with soem good ideas and a pen and paper. You chagne that with dollars. If a cooperative were to be set up with a willing government who's healthcare industry has been socialized we could starve out HMO's nationwide.
I ahve not yet worked out the details but my plan flows something like this: after talks with the partner nation, people would begin to pay into a policy sponsored by the foreign government much as the currently would with an HMO. But instead of a company, driven exclusively by profit, that rejects and denies you would have a system that could readily accept the weak and the injured. Finding a client nation would be difficult but once accomplished the benefits would be undeniable. If the co-op was prooven sucessful, people would leave HMO's by the hundreds. moreover, to all ye naysayers out there who not only think a socialist system is doome dto failure but will not even allow it the oppurtunity to prove itself, you won't ahve to participate.
But this still isn't nationalized healthcare, is it?
No it is not but once this antion is running on another nation's socialist healthcare system, it would become impossible for democrats, republicans and centrists alike to dney the benefits of a nation-wide government-sponsored healthcare system. If scoialism is wrong, then the failure of my idea will prove it. If it works, than our capitalist system will ensure it becomes not only legalized but nationalized. But more important than all of this, it is a unifier: our party's support for this system would only go as far as the system does. It would nto divide because it does not try to put all Americans in a single bubble. Think of it as a gated community: the gate opens and closes perhaps not easily, but easily enough.
It's not perfect, but its practical and definitely achievable.
****As Zappafan has pointed out, getting a client nation will be the hardest thing to manage. Any solutions on thsi topic would be wonderful.*****
shadismount@hotmail.com
If we stop wasting BILLIONS of our tax dollars on a never ending "War on Drugs", we can have heath care with out icreasing taxes to a insane level. If we do try to help drug addicts through medical care (which we should), we give them "three strikes". After the third time you relaspe, we simply say, "sorry we tried to help, your on your own now." For the simple reason of we can keep spending heath care dollars on them.
If the decide to keep using after that, it's they're problem.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
I have to care for drug addicts on a regular basis, so I think I might just have a better perspective on the problem than most of the commentators here. There is no hope, at the present time, of medically altering addictive behavior. There is something fundamentally different about people who think that sticking a needle in a vein is a desirable idea. An addict is an addict before he takes his first drug, and he can never stop his craving once it begins. I once watched a group of intoxicated fans pull out a large bag of marijuana and proceed to elaborately sort the particles and leisurely roll a joint in the middle of a Major League Baseball game. They were stunned when the police sucked them up like a vacuum cleaner to cart them off to jail. Such is the clever judgment of people who get high. Drunks think they are sexy, vivacious, and witty as they slur their words, stumble off the bar stool, and disgrace themselves in many other ways. Many experts believe that legalizing drugs takes the profit out of the equation, but then you have to deal with intoxicated misfits who will still wind up in the alleys and gutters. In a cashless world, no addict will be able to buy drugs and no dealer will ever bother to harvest poppies in Afghanistan, process them in labs, and smuggle them into the U.S. An addict cannot rob someone when there is no cash to be had. Stolen merchandise cannot be fenced without anonymous cash, and no foreign currency could ever be used efficiently to replace the volume and availability of dollars we now have. There is no criminal scheme which can defeat the cashless arrangement in order to traffic in drugs. Personal desires of addicts cannot penetrate this armor. Skeptics often smugly pronounce that, "Criminals will always find a way!" But no one has yet been able to describe an even remotely plausible scheme which could work. Simple-minded plans such as bartering, foreign currency, and sexual favors are ill-conceived concepts which will not hold up under sober analysis. Drug trafficking has a sinister impact on health care. If you do not recognize this reality, your lofty and grandiose schemes are all for naught. I say that we can easily eliminate drug trafficking and then go on to design a health care system that will appeal to the majority.
Gary A. Belaga, M.D.
The fact that Marijuana is mix-up with drugs that are life threating is just totally insane. It is completely non-adictive (unless you have an adictive personality to begin with) and completely harmless. Alocholics tend to get violent, when have you ever heard of someone getting stoned and then beating up his family. I'll admit it has propblly happened, but far few times than the alocholic.
About addicts, it does not matter what we do about drugs, addicts of all sorts are here to stay. Just because we legalize drugs does not mean the number of addict will grow. Most people are smart to know that hard drugs will distroy you life.
Plus as an American don't I have the right to put what ever I want into my body. Regardless if it is going to kill me. I am a cigarette addict, and I'll admit at the most once a month yes I do puff on some Marijuana. Does that make me a horrible person? HELL NO!!! It is my right as an AMERICAN.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
To Gary A. Belaga, M.D. - I wonder if you have considered the detrimental effect that the "Kulakization of the Medical profession" through HMO's and other managed care through Insurance companies has and is causing?
Making drugs legal would likely open enormous flood gates of use. Making alcohol illegal did not work and making it legal again has not helped much either.
There has been a tremendous surge in the use of local currencies over the past two decades. Today there are over 2500 different local currency systems operating in countries throughout the world. One of the most prominent is LETS, Local Exchange Trading System, a trading network supported by its own internal currency. Originally started in Vancouver, Canada, there are presently more than 30 LETS systems operating in Canada and over 400 in the United Kingdom. Australia, France, New Zealand and Switzerland have similar systems. Time dollars, Ithaca Hours and PEN exchange are among the most successful systems in the USA.
By local currency system, what are you suggesting? Could you explain in more detail? Sorry if i'm not quite understanding you
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
lnk ~ http://www.letslinkuk.net/practice/theory.htm
Readily available
As a LETS member, YOU create the new local currency, every time you trade. This has many advantages over national money:
Your local currency is a measure - not a commodity, that can be monopolised by a few.
It's always there when you need it - exactly meeting local needs.
YOU (the Community) decide how much is in circulation - rather than the banks, or the government.
You are much less affected by the ups and downs of the market.
You do not have to earn LETS currency before you can spend it.
There's also no fixed repayment time for debits (sometimes called 'commitments') - although some LETS organisers feel that credit control is an issue which we need to pay a lot more attention to in terms of the sustainability of the system.
Interest Free
INTEREST - the use of money as a commodity that can be traded - is a MASSIVE problem! It is the invisible element in all prices (on average 50% of the price of everything we buy is now interest). Power accumulates in very few hands - the rich get richer, and the poor, poorer. People and organisations must struggle to keep up with ever-rising debts. Industry must constantly grow - or go bust. It is the major cause of inflation. It causes rising poverty, starvation, child mortalities, environmental destruction, social unrest, riots, political overthrow and war. It causes major instabilities in the world banking system - and the possibility of a total crash.
So then you are pretty much suggesting each state sets up their own separate system. On first look sounds rather doable. I need respond after I do some reading on that.
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
not necessarily tied to a government of any kind.......
just people with a common interest of/between themselves....however that evolves
ref ~ lnk ~ lnk ~ http://www.letslinkuk.net/practice/theory.htm
That's what I was try to say for the most part.
Thank you for the link
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
All I ask is that you do not group one incident of marijuana use into this comment about addicts as that drug does not belong among the rest of the drugs you are referring to. I have seen alcohol and and its hold on people and that compares in no way to the use of marijuana. As an M.D. you should know the effects of marijuana and its properties and should not group marijuana the same as alcohol or the rest of the drugs you have commented on. On a side note many people become hooked on legal prescribed drugs which they abuse on a day to day basis provided by a doctor. So legal or illegal drugs addicts will be around and they deserve care.
You self-styled experts on marijuana missed the point. I am not preaching about which drugs should or should not be used, I am saying that society can end drug trafficking. If marijuana is viewed as acceptable to enough people, it will become legalized. We already see that trend now. Physicians can prescribe it to their patients, and several States are supporting such arrangements. All mind altering substances can be abused, including marijuana. Society has a right to control its distribution in order to spare itself from the damage such abuse evokes. No one who uses marijuana regularly has ever achieved anything meaningful. You will no doubt scoff and point to the entertainment industry, but none of the leaders in that field ever achieved much after their drug use escalated, as it always does. Drug use condemns the users to a marginal life. ZAPPAFAN has just confessed to a crime for which he could be prosecuted, demonstrating his clarity of thinking. Incidentally, addicts may be always among us, but they won't be using prohibited drugs once the cashless transformation is completed. The treatment to which you claim they have a right has an essential prescription of abstinence. There is no recognized therapy that supports continued use of an abused substance. So if you want to truly provide treatment, you'll make the drugs impossible to secure. Prescription drug abuse is becoming more carefully scrutinized. But its existence does not justify street deals of drugs.
Gary A. Belaga, M.D.
drugs are as ancient as religion.......itself...
and just as ubiquitous ............
You have missed the point. Any substance can be abused mind altering or not. I can go to the store right now and buy ten bags of chips and eat them till I pass out. Does this mean there should be regulations on how many bags of chips I can buy. You can use anything to excess. The point is that we have a choice to use them and Americans like almost every other culture known in history chooses to use drugs. We created the trafficking problem by making it illegal. Our government spends over one hundred billion alone on fighting marijuana. This war which the unity party will put to an end causes far more problems then the drug itself. To my understanding if enforcing the law cause more problems then what the law is supposed to prevent then the law should not be in existence. Society cannot control trafficking because our government continues to ignore society and do whatever it wants. If you look over our history you will see our government tells lie after lie promoting their own ambitions over peoples rights. As a society many places across the country promote medical marijuana yet even today people are being arrested by the federal government for illegal use and sale of a substance that is legal in their area. People are trying but this government wont let them. As for your comment about a marginal life. You need to get out of the office and meet some people that use marijuana. You are very wrong. You will find that many Americans enjoy the substance and have a successful and many times better life as a result of the recreational use of the drug. Drugs can be used without the damaging effects you claim!
CHEERS TO THAT
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Mechanics, techies, sales people: there are plenty of people who are productive members of society who engage in the frequent use of controlled substances.
If you include alcohol abuse, there are plenty of successful alcoholics in the world: executives, economists, lawyers, market traders, academics...
I had a friend who was a "user" and successfully got a graduate degree. The kid was excellent with mathematics and passed difficult classes despite the fact that he was often high or hung over. Some people are able to put in hours of productive work despite drug use.
Drugs don't make your life any better and create unnecessary risks, but they are nearly as bad as the worst abusers portray them. I think many people would be suprised to find out who uses in there life. Personally, I drink and thats it but I've been around drugs and alcohol since high school. People shouldn't start doing this stuff, but the illegality of stuff creates many of the problems.
Is khlect kidding?
I think you are a little out of touch. You have no idea how many people smoke marijuana! Carl Sagan, one of the most accomplished scientists of our time was a regular marijuana user. Bob MArley was a regular marijuana user and created dozens of great songs as well as influenced an entire generation of musicians. Let's see. Who else? Bill Gates (richest person in the world), Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, JFK, several other presidents... the list goes on. "No one who uses marijuana regularly has ever achieived anything meaningful." Ever read the declaration of Independence? Ever see "cosmos" or read any pulitzer-prize winning books? The constitution? Ever listen to "redemption song??"
The drug with the largest negative impact on society is not marijuana or even heroin. It's tobacco. It's legal. Alcohol is also legal and second only to tobacco for it's overall lethality. The health care industry spends more on heart disease and cancer treatment than on drug addiction or managing overdoses. Marijuana use has a negligible impact on health care spending but a huge impact on law enforcement and prison spending.
Trying to legislate human behavior is ignorant and a waste of time and resources. Education is the key. Most people don't smoke. Most people wouldn't shoot heroin or snort cocaine just because it was legal. Money or no money, people will get what they want. Better to regulate it than ban it. You don't need a medical degree to understand this point... just common sense.
This country didn't get into drug restrictions until the 20th century. Before that, them's that had it, did it. In the 1890s "snuff" boxes toted by ordinary little 'ol ladies was as likely to be cocaine as snuff. The free-for-all was brought down by a moralist campaign now famous as the grandfather of all national conspiracies of misinformation. I really did not care one way or the other until the transition in content that really began in the 1960s. But the advent of new chemicals and purifcation/modification natural chemical did change everything. Intervening with meth, crack, x, and the like is a humanatarian nessesity. We just need a different level of detention for users than for traffikers. Say self or NPO financed detox/rehab for users and execution for traffickers.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
How does that in any way make legalizing drug abuse an acceptable choice? Murder is as old as religion itself, should we legalize that? The fact remains that if we legalize hard-core drugs, we will simply be promoting a lifestyle, which leads to increased health problems and increased cost in medical care. You can tax the addicts all you like, but if they use up all of that tax money to pay for their health coverage, you are defeating the purpose of taxing them in the first place.
murder ain't ubiquitious....
prostitution & drugs are.......
these will be around long after you & i are gone....
you are paying for "addicts" healthcare today...........directly or indirectly...now.
If using hard drugs, you can recive medical care and/or rehab three times before your on your own. I know it's a touchy subject, but if you legalize drugs you have to ramp up education about the dangers of hard drugs.
About me admiting to the use of Marijuana once a month means nothing, thats the only drug (besides cigarettes, and my adderall script) I put in my system. Surely once a month dose not limit my clarity of thinking. OK on that one day it does. But besides that one day I'm clean and sober. Everyone has to do something to kick back and relex, nothing wrong with a little fun. Alot of people drink, more often than I smoke. My friends love to drink, does that make them drunks? NO, but they are social drinkers ( on the weekends for the most part). I try to keep my distance from anyone who abuses any substance, as I feel most people try to do. I fully believe that it is not the governments job to tell me what I can put into my body. I feel I am stand up for my right as an American (including all of you).
Maybe if we let each state decide it's own drug laws. In fact I feel states should make all of their own decisions on all of the laws. But I do see the problems that can cause
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Can you not see, ZAPPAFAN, that you present yourself as a dullard from whom advice can never be accepted? The absurdity of your opinions is beyond credulity. You have twice confessed to a crime, and a prosecutor seeing what you have posted could get a search warrant in a heartbeat. Yet you still claim that your drug use has not affected your judgment or your reasoning powers! You envision that after 3 strikes society will just ignore the heap of human refuse lying on the street. Maybe you'll want to put warning signs so people can step over or around the dying corpse. More likely, however, is that the addict will be scooped up and brought to the hospital. As soon as he regains some strength, he'll rip off his bandages and supporting devices in order to flee back the street to seek more drugs. But the taxpaer foots the bill. (Ask me how I know!) Drugs are NOT ubiquitous! They must be smuggled and sold for profit. No addict could ever summon the sustained capacity to grow his own weed, refine his own meth, or manufacture any other drug. He can't hold down a job sweeping a floor! Heroin comes from Muslims delirious with faith who never use the stuff themselves. With other drug enterprises, there is always an overseer supervising addicts who work for them. The slave labor changes, but the methods do not. There is no right conferred by any document that permits anyone to do anything he wishes with drugs, so the courts have ruled. The pursuit of happiness does not apply to everything. Suicide is illegal in all 50 states.
Gary A. Belaga, M.D.
i'm thinking "moral rightousness" is your drug...........of choice
germanicus I'm on your side
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
An excellent source for this information is the book Compromised The Confluence of Iran Contra and White Water by former Air Force Intelligence and later FBI agent Terry Reid. A little hint, the Taliban had pretty much wiped out poppy production in Afghanistan before we invaded, now poppy production (heroin) is at a record highs. CIA: Cocaine in America
I did not know about that, I'll have to check that out
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Addicts won't be running all over the street just be cause drugs are legalized.
Truth be told they are now, and we are already paying for their treatment because most don't have jobs.
So far Khlect, you are the only one whose has said they now have a problem accepting my opinions.
Drugs are ubiquitous, I'm a socially accepted speed addict, I'm prescribed to adderall which is speed. Do you honestly believe that drugs do not have any value? With out my script I can not function, my mind wonders and I can not complete the simplest task.
Can drugs be a danger yes, but they can also provide people a world of good. Most of the drugs used in medical world are shoot-offs of the very drugs we made illegal.
It's kind of like the government is a drug dealer saying, "Don’t buy their drugs, buy my drugs". So you have to ask yourself, is this "War on Drugs" just a convoluted scheme to make money. Don't fool yourself; the right people could make millions.
Look up the book Dark Alliance, it's all about how the Government deals drugs behind our back, Hypocrites
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN DO WITH MY BODY
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Khlect, you are wrong. People will find a way to get drugs the same way people find a way to pay for bribes. They will pay excessively for something they don't intend to use. When their bank statement comes in, it will only look like they are paying for groceries when in fac they are actually buying marijuana.
Zappafan is not a dullard. But your bombast is becoming offensive. Act as snide and contemptuous as you want but please, if you're going to insult someone don't hide behind 3-4 syllable words. Just call them an ass. The level of eloquence with which you propound your ignorance will not disguise it here. Stop being so insulting.
Regardless of how often you write that your experiences have given you a selectively profound understanding of this situation and that we do not understand because we are not you, it will not make it true. I have a friend, whose name escapes, who has told me of an occasion with which his friend had bought drugs with credit cards. No cash. Wrap you mind around that.
shadismount@hotmail.com