- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,487
- Reaction score
- 31
This is partly due to the innovations that Maggie Thatcher started, mayhaps?"That's socialised medicine for you!"
(Or something similar, I imagine. )
Read the article, the headline is completely wrong.
...but this is the Daily Mail, so it's perfectly normal for them.
About 50% of the US population (studies vary from 47-55%) are on prescription drugs at any one time. That's 156Million. 100K sounds like a lot but that's about .05% of all people taking drugs. Which means the drug doesn't kill 99.95% of people.130,000 sounds pretty terrible and maybe it is, but in the US 100,000 people die every year from complications with prescription drugs. They'd be better off smoking pot which kills far less people.
As in pot doesn't heal every condition.
It probably does something but IMO neither side helps in this question.
They'd be better off smoking pot which kills far less people.
Other than pain relief and boredom, I'm not aware of it actually healing anything.
Happy to be corrected though.
As the doctor pointed out, in this case the extra 14 months of life came at considerable cost to the taxpayer (or, in a private enterprise driven system what would have been a considerable cost to the patient, the family or to the payers of insurance - or, most likely all three). It is always a difficult balance to find decide how much of the finite resources should be used to extend the life of a retired person in poor shape and how much should be invested in a young person in acute distress but with potentially decades of productive life ahead. 130,000 sounds pretty terrible and maybe it is, but in the US 100,000 people die every year from complications with prescription drugs.
Remember retirement age was originally setup by industry. They set the age a couple of years beyond the typical lifespan of their employees.Probably save a ton of money if people stopped living past 30. Which is why I posted that scene from Logan's Run, ultimate government health care in motion.
So increasing one's chances of lung cancer is a better way?
It heals the bottom line of those companies that make drugs that fight lung cancer.
No, not really. Most people are productive well past 30 and decades of experience is valuable in itself. Killing everyone at thirty would be a huge cost to society rather than a benefit. Most 30 year olds are more than self supporting.Probably save a ton of money if people stopped living past 30. Which is why I posted that scene from Logan's Run, ultimate government health care in motion.
one's 30's and 40's are the prime of life. for some people at least that would be a stupid time to leave this 'Veil of Tears' (to use my father's expression)No, not really. Most people are productive well past 30 and decades of experience is valuable in itself. Killing everyone at thirty would be a huge cost to society rather than a benefit. Most 30 year olds are more than self supporting.