4 ms·

This is why my individualism, and Self Ownership come it to play as I feel that should be my choice if I want to take the risk, it should be up to me if the pa

by syshum 9y ago

This is why my individualism, and Self Ownership come it to play as I feel that should be my choice if I want to take the risk, it should be up to me if the pain is server enough to warrant opioids or not as I am the one experiencing the pain. Every person reacts differently to procedures and to pain, some people having their wisdom teeth removed may not be painful, others it might be terrible pain. It should be up to the individual as a adult to make those choices for themselves I am sure that will be an unpopular opinion given the state of society is that no one should be treated as adults and that governments or "others" should tell people have to live ... At multiple times in my life I have been given hydrocodone, I have almost never used the entire prescription, but when I needed them I would glad to have them. The idea that a 3rd party can tell me "ohh your pain is not that bad just live with it" when there is a easy solution to allow me not to live it it, well I find that morally reprehensible

fastball 9y ago
If you're paying for it, I agree with you. But that's not the case in Germany, as they have a single payer healthcare system. That "easy solution" costs other people money.
- syshum 9y ago
  Which is why I also oppose single payer, but that is a whole other topic. The fact that Single Payer is used to make those justifications is one of my primary reasons to oppose it
  - pkilgore 9y ago
    Hows that? It's my understanding that in a single payer system you are still allowed to pay for whatever you want or buy supplemental insurance to cover types of care the baseline single payer system will not.
    - ams6110 9y ago
      I don't think this is the popular understanding of "single payer" by its advocates in the USA. They think it means "I get any medical care I want, any time, with no waiting, for free."
      - eropple 9y ago
        This is a disingenuous characterization of single-payer advocacy in this country. Nobody-but-nobody claims scarcity doesn't exist; the single-payer argument is to deny that the fitness function for who-doesn't-die-from-preventable-disease should be the person with a bigger bank account.
      - pkilgore 9y ago
        That's a patently ridiculous straw man. No single payer system in the world operates that way.
    - syshum 9y ago
      Easy, once there is even a "baseline" of health services that becomes a platform to start restricting and taxing other things deemed to effect health. Things like smoking, Soft Drinks, high fat or high sugar foods, exercise mandates, and a variety of other public policies around "health" become justified because of public funding for healthcare. Now I am sure most people including you are going to agree with these public policies but again I am an individualist and believe in personal choice and freedom rare in today world of Nanny State's and collectivism
      - fastball 9y ago
        Smoking is not illegal in most places, and realistically there is an argument that it should be (at least in public) because you don't have a right to expose other people to your habit. I don't know a single country that has socialized medicine that has illegalized high fat/sugar products or has mandated exercise. If you could point me towards instances where single payer healthcare is being used to outlaw/force such things, I would much appreciate it.
- tpush 9y ago
  Slight correction: Germany does not have single-payer healthcare.
  - germanier 9y ago
    But the public health insurance system (which covers 90% of the population) makes joint decisions (through broad guidelines) on what is covered. An economic assessment is always part of the decision. Representatives of doctors are heavily involved in the process as well. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss is the name of that body.
- rsynnott 9y ago
  Opioid painkillers aren’t necessarily particularly expensive. They are considerably more dangerous than NSAIDs, though, hence the reluctance to prescribe them where not absolutely necessary. It’s not a money thing.
rscho 9y ago
On an individual basis, good for you that you can handle yourself. You are indeed a victim of the majority. However, making opiates freely available would be catastrophic for society to a point that would dwarf the current epidemic. In other words, it is a shame that the system can't do better for you, but your point of view is selfish.
- syshum 9y ago
  I disagree, having studied this topic for more than a decade most of the current epidemic problems, including the death toll can be more accurately attributed to prohibitionist policies as the "War on Drugs" than to any legal availability. On the topic of Society in General, the US War on Drugs has lead to an inordinate amount of abuse, loss of freedom, and the elimination or reduction of most constitutional protection. treating Addiction as a Crime is what is bad for society
Karnickel 9y ago
> it should be up to me if the pain is server enough to warrant opioids It is! You do get the drugs you need. If you actually ARE in pain. But this woman, as predicted by her doctor, was not. If you read the article, she did not have the pain, it was only fear of it. Society does have to pay the price in the end if people are given what they want. See the problem of over-subscription of anything from pain killers (in the US) to antibiotics. Not least, those drugs show up in ground water and in drinking water supplies, and water companies can't really filter that stuff out. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pharmaceuticals-in-the-water/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pharmaceuticals-i... https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/drugs-in-our-drinking-water#1 https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/drugs-in-our-dr... If you think "the levels are low - that is save", there is no scientific basis for such a statement. We have no clue what low-level exposure to drug cocktails does.

by syshum 9y ago

fastball 9y ago

If you're paying for it, I agree with you. But that's not the case in Germany, as they have a single payer healthcare system. That "easy solution" costs other people money.

syshum 9y ago
Which is why I also oppose single payer, but that is a whole other topic. The fact that Single Payer is used to make those justifications is one of my primary reasons to oppose it
- pkilgore 9y ago
  Hows that? It's my understanding that in a single payer system you are still allowed to pay for whatever you want or buy supplemental insurance to cover types of care the baseline single payer system will not.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    I don't think this is the popular understanding of "single payer" by its advocates in the USA. They think it means "I get any medical care I want, any time, with no waiting, for free."
    - eropple 9y ago
      This is a disingenuous characterization of single-payer advocacy in this country. Nobody-but-nobody claims scarcity doesn't exist; the single-payer argument is to deny that the fitness function for who-doesn't-die-from-preventable-disease should be the person with a bigger bank account.
    - pkilgore 9y ago
      That's a patently ridiculous straw man. No single payer system in the world operates that way.
  - syshum 9y ago
    Easy, once there is even a "baseline" of health services that becomes a platform to start restricting and taxing other things deemed to effect health. Things like smoking, Soft Drinks, high fat or high sugar foods, exercise mandates, and a variety of other public policies around "health" become justified because of public funding for healthcare. Now I am sure most people including you are going to agree with these public policies but again I am an individualist and believe in personal choice and freedom rare in today world of Nanny State's and collectivism
    - fastball 9y ago
      Smoking is not illegal in most places, and realistically there is an argument that it should be (at least in public) because you don't have a right to expose other people to your habit. I don't know a single country that has socialized medicine that has illegalized high fat/sugar products or has mandated exercise. If you could point me towards instances where single payer healthcare is being used to outlaw/force such things, I would much appreciate it.
tpush 9y ago
Slight correction: Germany does not have single-payer healthcare.
- germanier 9y ago
  But the public health insurance system (which covers 90% of the population) makes joint decisions (through broad guidelines) on what is covered. An economic assessment is always part of the decision. Representatives of doctors are heavily involved in the process as well. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss is the name of that body.
rsynnott 9y ago
Opioid painkillers aren’t necessarily particularly expensive. They are considerably more dangerous than NSAIDs, though, hence the reluctance to prescribe them where not absolutely necessary. It’s not a money thing.

rscho 9y ago

On an individual basis, good for you that you can handle yourself. You are indeed a victim of the majority. However, making opiates freely available would be catastrophic for society to a point that would dwarf the current epidemic. In other words, it is a shame that the system can't do better for you, but your point of view is selfish.

syshum 9y ago
I disagree, having studied this topic for more than a decade most of the current epidemic problems, including the death toll can be more accurately attributed to prohibitionist policies as the "War on Drugs" than to any legal availability. On the topic of Society in General, the US War on Drugs has lead to an inordinate amount of abuse, loss of freedom, and the elimination or reduction of most constitutional protection. treating Addiction as a Crime is what is bad for society

Karnickel 9y ago

> it should be up to me if the pain is server enough to warrant opioids It is! You do get the drugs you need. If you actually ARE in pain. But this woman, as predicted by her doctor, was not. If you read the article, she did not have the pain, it was only fear of it. Society does have to pay the price in the end if people are given what they want. See the problem of over-subscription of anything from pain killers (in the US) to antibiotics. Not least, those drugs show up in ground water and in drinking water supplies, and water companies can't really filter that stuff out. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pharmaceuticals-in-the-water/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pharmaceuticals-i... https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/drugs-in-our-drinking-water#1 https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/drugs-in-our-dr... If you think "the levels are low - that is save", there is no scientific basis for such a statement. We have no clue what low-level exposure to drug cocktails does.