FDA May Ease Prescription-Drug Rules

[mulberryman]

How exactly does that work, doesn't bacteria exposed to one antibiotic only become resistant to that kind of antibiotic. There's hundreds of different antibiotics available, so wouldn't greater access to different types of antibiotics prove beneficial since not every kind of bacteria is going to be exposed to every kind of antibiotic all at the same time. If so, consider the FDA allows one kind of antibiotic, say erythromycin, it seems like a good choice, used more for milder infections, well tolerated by many with few side effects, but only erythromycin, wouldn't that make for alot more erythromycin-resistant bacteria of all kinds, whereas more of all antibiotics being available would mean that there'd be less of each kind of bacteria resistant to each type of antibiotic?

 

[TheDEA.org]

capitalism = extortion and prohibition

Actually, the drug war mentality is socialist, not capitalist. The big wise noble government decides what's best for us all and forces us to live accordingly. Not exactly free-market capitalism. The Wall Street Journal regularly publishes editorials arguing that prohibition should be ended.


Antibiotics should never be sold without a medical evaluation of the patient. Most people can't tell the difference between bacterial and viral infections, and careless/excessive use of antibiotics promotes the development of deadly antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Insulin doesn't require a prescription in the US. (A rare exception; you don't want diabetics to drop dead if they can't produce a prescription at the drop of a hat.)

One very useful class of drugs to make over-the-counter would be common birth control drugs.

 

[qwe]

Actually, the drug war mentality is socialist, not capitalist. The big wise noble government decides what's best for us all and forces us to live accordingly

what you're talking about with the 'big wise noble government' is authoritarianism, which often does NOT go along with socialism (see europe)

socialism is the idea that everyone should have the basic necessities of life, ie energy and healthcare, provided for by the gov't if they can't afford them on their own, no matter what. it has nothing to do with authoritarianism

 

[mulberryman]

Antibiotics should never be sold without a medical evaluation of the patient. Most people can't tell the difference between bacterial and viral infections, and careless/excessive use of antibiotics promotes the development of deadly antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Antibiotics are often prescribed to anyone with a sniffle and are easily obtainable without rx online, so your point, which contradicts the rest of your post is moot. As I've posted before, I propose pharmacists should take on more responsibility, and medical skill and knowledge, basically functioning as they revolving script scibbling fool pool corporately approved to spend 2 minutes with the average patient. Pharmacists would be a far more knowledgeable person to reccomend and provide the necessary cure, especially seing as so many doctors here in America today have absolutely no idea what they are doing, often dumber than the people they claim to be treating.

 

[bingalpaws]

Actually, the drug war mentality is socialist, not capitalist. The big wise noble government decides what's best for us all and forces us to live accordingly. Not exactly free-market capitalism. The Wall Street Journal regularly publishes editorials arguing that prohibition should be ended.

Couldn't have put it better myself

 

[Footloose]

what you're talking about with the 'big wise noble government' is authoritarianism, which often does NOT go along with socialism (see europe)

socialism is the idea that everyone should have the basic necessities of life, ie energy and healthcare, provided for by the gov't if they can't afford them on their own, no matter what. it has nothing to do with authoritarianism

This made me LOL.

Socialism is inherently authoritarian because it gives bobby, who can't afford health care, a right to someone elses money, based on the simple fact that bobby can't afford it. Just because bobby can't afford it, does not give him a right to someone elses money to pay for his health care. get it?

 

[chicpoena]

Oh, no doubt, but its not too likely, greed is stil the prevalent way of life in our society today. But for medicine that saves lives, capitalism = extortion and prohibition = genocide.

I totally agree. Limiting access to life-saving medicine kills people. Its the genocide of poor people. Many people in America have to choose between paying for food, their heating bill, transportation or health care. By reducing the requirement for a doctor's prescription you're saving poor people $120. The US Health Care system is already overloaded to the breaking point and this legislation would help reduce the pressure on over worked doctors and allow the healthier people to take care of themselves.

On the upside, it would increase the prestige of the pharmacists in the US. People would actually need them to do more than just count pills. I'm all for it!

(I can only imagine how the AMA lobbyists are scrambling)

 

[mulberryman]

This made me LOL.

Socialism is inherently authoritarian because it gives bobby, who can't afford health care, a right to someone elses money, based on the simple fact that bobby can't afford it. Just because bobby can't afford it, does not give him a right to someone elses money to pay for his health care. get it?

So, Bobby deserves to die then. His inabllity to afford treatment proves he is not worthy of life in our society. Am I getting it yet? ... ... ...




I can argue that capitalism is inherently authoritarian because it gives the wealthiest few the privelidge to decide who is allowed to live and who is not, the ultimate epitome of cold and heartless authoritarianism which will eventually have no place in advanced future society(ies).

 

[bingalpaws]

Mulberryman, you are very, very clearly anti-capitalism.

If you don't mind, could you explain what you are, exactly?

 

[mulberryman]

I'm not anti-capitalism at all, though check back with me in 400 years. I suppose that if I we were debating policy that long ago, I might've agreed with you that there's no reason we cannot still have a king presiding over our authorities, either.

 

[mulberryman]

There is a surprisingly powerful stimulant sold OTC although it takes some hardware hacking to get to it.

Oh and there need not be such brutal methods involved with the stim I believe you speak of. Its every bit as eye-opening as amphetamine, and used as directed it makes a swell all-day lollipop.

 

[bingalpaws]

I'm not anti-capitalism at all, though check back with me in 400 years. I suppose that if I we were debating policy that long ago, I might've agreed with you that there's no reason we cannot still have a king presiding over our authorities, either.

If you're not anti capitalism how come you spew anti-corporate / anti-capitalist stuff in like half of your posts?

And I've got no idea what you're trying to get across in your second half of hte post, you're talking about 400 years in teh future, and in the past .......

 

[mulberryman]

Open your mind, man. Don't you think its possible we may both still be around to see the end of disease and necessity. I'm already scheduling my preplanned euthanasism foreparty in 30219 AD. :D

 

[bingalpaws]

no comment on why, if you're not anti-capitalist, you bash capitalism with ridiculous frequency, bash corporations, etc?

 

[Footloose]

So, Bobby deserves to die then. His inabllity to afford treatment proves he is not worthy of life in our society. Am I getting it yet? ... ... ...




I can argue that capitalism is inherently authoritarian because it gives the wealthiest few the privelidge to decide who is allowed to live and who is not, the ultimate epitome of cold and heartless authoritarianism which will eventually have no place in advanced future society(ies).

You are an idiot. I neither said or implied that anywhere. What capitalism is about, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that ones misfortunes don't give him the right to rip someone else off, whether through an authoritarian redistribution device or through basic level street crime. They are the same thing in principle.

There are countless options bobby has for gaining healthcare. Applying for aid through private charities can be done virtually everywhere.

And capitalism doesn't give the mega rich the power to decide who lives and who doesn't. The modern United States government is damn near the opposite of capitalism, so i think you need to educate yourself before you go making ignorant claims

 

[mulberryman]

In a perfect world, none of would have a right to anything we cannot procure and protect for ourselves. But we don't live in a perfect world, and people are dying.

So, go ahead keep spouting how the sensible views of the masses are all evil communist BS. For the record I'm not against capitalism, its still serving a purpose. I just aspire that one day, God willing, we will no longer need it, and its up to us to make that day possible, though admittedly, its still a long way off. I mean we've have'nt even conquered disease yet.

So go ahead and pretend that anyone can go into a church and get a heart transplant, for all I care. I'm done, you've obviously proved you cannot argue your point without stooping to calling me an idiot and Communist boogeyman. Oooohwooowooh, scaaary Communist alert, lol, when I'm talking about a day where we have no need for capitalism, and we won't have Communism either. In fact, I'm not sure we'll even have ism's. But hey I know when to quit trying to beat a dead horse into drinking water that you can't even lead it to. At least I'm not calling anyone an idiot. Peace.

 

[mulberryman]

...oh, and in case you're wondering, I'm not talking about Jesus coming back either. I'm talking about making all that stuff thats supposedly supposed to happen (minus all that rapture and healthfire BS, of course) when Jesus or whomever does, but by purely human, natural, and scientific means. So with that, feel free to open your minds whenever you may like.

Edit: Oh, and one more thing. Corporations are government entities, they always have been and have never actually been "persons" regardless of how the federal government choses to interpret the 14'th Ammendment. Freeing the slaves, indeed. 8( There's a reason we Ron Paul supporters' bumper stickers look like this:

Peace.

 

[bingalpaws]

For the record I'm not against capitalism, its still serving a purpose.

Funny, because I could've sworn it was your username that posted:
"capitalism = extortion and prohibition = genocide"

I just aspire that one day, God willing, we will no longer need it, and its up to us to make that day possible, though admittedly, its still a long way off. I mean we've have'nt even conquered disease yet.

We're not even close to conquering disease yet... so are you seriously telling us that your arguments are based on your futuristic, uptopian ideas? It would've been nice to know right off the bat if your policy/government ideas are based on fucking fantasyland!

So go ahead and pretend that anyone can go into a church and get a heart transplant, for all I care.

8)

I'm done, you've obviously proved you cannot argue your point without stooping to calling me an idiot and Communist boogeyman.

Uhh... he argued you very clearly and rationally, you skip around points people make and write long, incoherent responses. I can't think of one single clear, concise point you've made.

Oooohwooowooh, scaaary Communist alert, lol, when I'm talking about a day where we have no need for capitalism, and we won't have Communism either.

Again, it would've been nice to know you were talking about fantasy land.

At least I'm not calling anyone an idiot. Peace.

You're not in a position to call anyone an idiot, so don't be too proud you refrained.

Edit: Oh, and one more thing. Corporations are government entities, they always have been and have never actually been "persons" regardless of how the federal government choses to interpret the 14'th Ammendment.

lol, you're clueless. How is a corporation a government entity again? Laugh out fucking loud. A corporation is just another form of holding a business, I almost started a corporation for a small business I had a couple years ago. You speak as if you're 15

 

[mulberryman]

Or perhaps like I'm 150.


Look, the real pickle of this is that I'm a self-employed white American male of reasonable comfortable means in his 30s. If anything, I should be arguing your point. I don't have healthcare, and I don't even want it. The social safety nets we have in our advance egalitarian society (which are now failing due to the sapping of funding for our recent unrealistic and imperialist military pursuits) I view as real commendable trbute to American compassion. I view paying taxes as a way of contributing to society as a whole, and guess what? If I didn't want to pay as much as I do, I certainly could do so. This whole point that the government providing assistance to poor people as being somehow tantamount to theft or extortion is flawed at its very core.

Corporations can be privaty owned but they are designated as separate entities that have all the same rights as a person. By law, a corporation cannot bestow compassion on its fellow human beings, and countless laws have now been passed to protect the idea the corporation above all, to the point where the real power in Washington is now in corporately owned lobbyists, and not in the members of congress itself elected to serve the people. It is democracy of the wealthiest. And please understand, that I'm not talking about Joe Blow's Tire Sales of Yuma, AZ, here. But don't take my word for it, educate yourself. Reread the history of this county (Wikipedia's a good source). The Republican Party passed the 14th Ammendment knowing full well that it had this abuse potential. The system in its present day form is the cumulation of their agenda. Today the vast majority of Americans are slaves to the corporation, the fact that they recieve a wage is irrelivent, and fundamentally there is little difference between the Ameica of today and the Soviet Union. I talk about utopian ideas, yes, hey maybe I get carried away. But I just don't see any compassion in the heart of this counrty, and how could I, or how could anybody, the heart of this country is now owned by the few elite that own the biggest corporations, and even thier individual compassion is irrevelvant. The law is simple, a corporation can only provide for itself, it has no heart. They control the government, the banking and monetary system, virtually every aspect of our lives.

We need a revolution. Though it is unlikely, and in the even that we cannot achieve one, the least we can hope for is a system that provides for equality, compassion and love for all.

Go ahead, call me a hippy, call me uneducated, call me a dreamer. (I'm not the only one ) We need evolution. We have to stop always doing what we're told, and start litening to our hearts. When we don't care for others, we don't care for our species, and as a result we don't care for ourselves. The evidence is all around us, we have become a population of fat and lazy disinterested clock punching cogs in a great machine that serves no real purpose beyond maintaining endless droning complacency, and a growing trends toward aggression. Heartless automotons who's professional goal is to outperform, outsell, or outwit their competitiors, whilst all the while daydreaming of improving their latest kill rates in their latest digitals distractions they'll likely spend way to much time on.

Now, I'm done. Honestly, I can't believe I wasted a whole botle of phentermine trying on this pointless pursuit, which you'll likely just tear apart and say I have no idea what I'm talking about or something. Honestly I don't really care. If America continues to fail to live up to its promise that all men are truly created equal then enough reasonable people will just ..bundle up and head north I guess, he maybe we'll eventually have the last laugh after all when we're growing mangos in Edmonton and much of our former homelands are unihabitable desert. But as I'm sure you'll all probably point out the corporate disease is in no way limited to the United States.

I guess I just expected better. I do like to dream big, and you know mayber that cure to the next disease or the next clean-burning renewable fuel source is right around the next corner. I just hope that the genius minority university student from the inner city to discover it doesn't go and get appendicitis or something, cause its not like the hospitals aren't hemmoraging funds right now and won't turn people away claiming to be in pain but maybe they don't look so bad since they can't pay anf they fit certain descriptions, oh no, that never happens... Its not like our ER's aren't so backed up already that it takes 5 hours to see soomeone for 5 minutes, who might not even be a doctor. And don't tell me that your last visit to St Vincent the Wonderbread Child Hospital in Golden Fox Hill Grove or Costa de la Crescent Moon or something isn't like that, cause of course its not. Try getting medical attention in Detroit or Chicago's lovely south side, oh wait you'll probably be a nice clean cut white guy, better get him to triage, stat.

I could go on and on, but I don't think it matters. I don't think this post is really gonna make a heap dirt on a hill of beans of different in you guys' minds. Oh, well, I am a dreamer... But I'm not the only one

 

[qwe]

This made me LOL.

Socialism is inherently authoritarian because it gives bobby, who can't afford health care, a right to someone elses money, based on the simple fact that bobby can't afford it. Just because bobby can't afford it, does not give him a right to someone elses money to pay for his health care. get it?

you act as if socialism is incompatible with capitalism

our nation (more importantly, our world) easily has the capability to keep everyone alive, fed, and warm. ensuring this is not counter-capitalism, and it's not authoritarian. it's just humane. and it is fully compatible with any freedom listed in the constitution

in essence, your argument assumes that if the government spends money on something you don't like, it's theft. would you rather have your government not have any money? maybe it should be dissolved. then there'd be neither check nor balance on your beloved capitalism and we'll see how the world fares then