Amerika

Off Topic
341

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Most Australians would find it extremely shocking that you could walk into a sporting goods section of a common DEPARTMENT STORE in the USA and be able to buy a firearm! [/quote]

Then likely Australians would be absolutely flabbergasted if they were to visit Manila, where I once counted four different gun stores in a single indoor shopping mall.

I haven’t been to the Philippines in a while, so maybe things have changed, but then it was kind of like Texas: if one is a man, then one is expected to smoke, drink, and pack heat.

NTTAWWT.

(Not that there’s anything wrong with Texas)

342

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
rainjack wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Health is rarely a concern; profit is. Who do you stand to make more money off of: a healthy, confident person or an insecure, fat, sickly person?

Consider how much fast food companies make, and the “weight loss” market, not to mention healthcare, OTC medicine, and everything else that is much easier to sell to the insecure (everything).

As the 30 - 45 market ages, you will see a much higher demand for life extension protocols. This means more hgh, more test, more of what many of us are already using.

This is the generation that will not die. Men will want to look as young and verile as they possibly can. You are already seeing that with Sly, and others that have found the fountain of youth that is hgh.

Doctors will want to cash in on this, and if they can get big pharma to get in the FDA’s ear, you will see our land once again flowing with the milk and honey that is AAS.

Just be patient, and find a decent domestic source.

What do you think the criteria should be for prescription? I think candidates should be based on age, psychological fitness, likely commitment & discipline, years training and personal history/reasons for need or want of AAS.

I see this as a whole new specialist field that could emerge if AAS became legally available to men by prescription for health / muscular & strength enhancement / life extension. What would it be called? Androgenology ?(lame, but just an example)

It would be very profitable and lucrative - we could have new specialist clinics popping up everywhere.

I don’t think this field is for any GP, however. Most of the ones I’ve talked to know dick all about steroids. If a GP wanted to become qualified to prescribe and administer AAS, I think it should take a few months study and training in order to obtain a specialist license.[/quote]

What’s the criteria for prescribing birth control pills to teenaged girls? There is none. That’s the way it should be for life extension protocols for men.

343

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
You raise an excellent point here bringing up birth control pills, which are, after all, steroids. If it is legal for a doctor to prescribe gynecogenic, catabolic steroids (whose adverse side effects are well-documented) for a 16-year-old girl, then it should be legal for the same doctor to prescribe androgenic and anabolic steroids for a 26-year-old man. Equal treatment under the law, and all.[/quote]

I agree, although I’d like to know why an OBGYN would be prescribing anything for a 26-year-old man. :wink:

344

[quote]sic wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
You raise an excellent point here bringing up birth control pills, which are, after all, steroids. If it is legal for a doctor to prescribe gynecogenic, catabolic steroids (whose adverse side effects are well-documented) for a 16-year-old girl, then it should be legal for the same doctor to prescribe androgenic and anabolic steroids for a 26-year-old man. Equal treatment under the law, and all.

I agree, although I’d like to know why an OBGYN would be prescribing anything for a 26-year-old man. ;)[/quote]

Ha! Fine.

“…then it should be legal for another doctor to prescribe androgenic and anabolic steroids for a 26-year-old man.”

Happy now? :wink:

345

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
There are speed cameras everywhere, which are more revenue raisers than anything else. Every day people lose their licences due to demerit points like dead flies dropping off a wall.
[/quote]

these are really interesting, to me at least because we don’t have them to this degree in the US.

this one is my favorite

this one is just insulting

one from the UK (i’m changing my favorite to this one)

wow UK. just wow.

teenagers love techno!

In summary, I think the UK may actually top Australia in the graphic PSA category.

346

[quote]Professor X wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
It has very little to do with legislation and a lot more to do with a broad strategy of treatment that maintains a quantity of life without regard for the quality.

Steriods and hgh are allready produced and prescribed legaly, it’s just not very popular.

On insurance- Do you see a value in something that you don’t use very much? I don’t. Do you want to pay for expanded coverage that includes more prescription coverage and increased number and type of doctor visits if you don’t use prescriptions or frequently visit a multitude of doctors?
I don’t. I doubt most other people would either.

Also, knowing that healthy people cost less to care for, insurance companies do take an interest in your health. The previously mentioned health and wellness centers are part of most premium plans.(see link)

I know that these statements seem incongruous, but think about it- If you don’t care about your health and just want to pop pills till you die, you’re covered. You’ll just pay more.
If you are concerened with your health and want to play an active role in it, your covered too. You’ll just have to pay more, for a place like this-

I like the latter more than the former, but since I have a choice, I’ll choose to be mindfull and active in my own health for free.

No offense, but our health care system sucks ass. Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say. There are millions of Americans who are NOT covered by insurance. Hell, I just left the military (where we had full coverage) and am finding it hard to get coverage simply because of my body weight…AND I’M HEALTHY. If anything needs a complete overhaul, it is the ridiculous way we currently do business and the amount of power we have given to insurance companies.[/quote]

Do you need insurance to cover the health needs of your pets?

A: No, because the services are priced based on the consumer market, not the insurance market. If consumers have to pay for a service that service must be priced in accordance with the market or no one will buy the service.

So the reason healthcare is so expensive is because the majority of people do have insurance and insurance has driven up the cost of the services because they have the money to pay.

347

Pay cash.
It’s amazing what happens to the price when you don’t occupy 2 office personell for a couple of hours in an attempt to get paid.

Its just cash paid for services rendered.

348

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Do you need insurance to cover the health needs of your pets?

A: No, because the services are priced based on the consumer market, not the insurance market. If consumers have to pay for a service that service must be priced in accordance with the market or no one will buy the service.

So the reason healthcare is so expensive is because the majority of people do have insurance and insurance has driven up the cost of the services because they have the money to pay.
[/quote]

First, I really doubt that the majority of people have health insurance. I don’t have any statistics though.

Second, your assertion that medical care costs are high because of insurance is incorrect.
It’s sort of a chicken or the egg thing, but in this case the chicken (high insurance costs) most definitely came before the egg (insurance).

I’d also like to know why you think there’s a difference between the “consumer market” and the “insurance market”

349

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Yea I know, but American Psycho, man. American Psycho.

Do you like Phil Collins? I’ve been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke.[/quote]

I’m not even going to try to top Zap’s response, lolol.

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
What part do the insurance companies play in the legislature, though? I’ll agree that it’s beneficial to big pharma to keep sick people just sick enough, but there’s obviously a difference of interests there with big insura. I’m sure they think there’s a lot of money in keeping people healthy.

Are we talking life insurance or medical insurance?

It doesn’t matter. The truth is that I just wanted to say the phrase big insura.[/quote]

And this was just pure gold.

350

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

JohnnyBlaze wrote: a lot of illusion-shattering details about the state of liberty in Australia.

[/quote]

Well, I suppose thats one way to describe what JB wrote.

351

Did anybody check out those videos I posted? They’re pretty sweet if you’ve never seen them before. Especially the first UK one

352

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Do you need insurance to cover the health needs of your pets?

A: No, because the services are priced based on the consumer market, not the insurance market. If consumers have to pay for a service that service must be priced in accordance with the market or no one will buy the service.

So the reason healthcare is so expensive is because the majority of people do have insurance and insurance has driven up the cost of the services because they have the money to pay.

First, I really doubt that the majority of people have health insurance. I don’t have any statistics though.

Second, your assertion that medical care costs are high because of insurance is incorrect.
It’s sort of a chicken or the egg thing, but in this case the chicken (high insurance costs) most definitely came before the egg (insurance).

I’d also like to know why you think there’s a difference between the “consumer market” and the “insurance market”
[/quote]

You don’t seem to understand. Why does it cost less to visit the dentist or vet then a medical doctor? Because the insurance pays much less for those services even though those doctors went to school just as long as medical doctors.

Consumer market is where people pay directly for the services they use as opposed to a rich insurance companying paying the bill. If healthcare did not have big insurance payors people would have to pay for services themselves. And in order for these services to stay in business they would have to lower their prices to a competitive level or no one would buy their service. This is basic economics, look it up.

353

If there wasn’t someone paying the high costs there wouldn’t be someone providing the goods. You take it as a given that the goods will be there. Like I said, the insurance companies formed in response to the high costs, not the other way around. You’ve horribly misunderstood basic economics. You see there’s a supply curve and a demand curve. You’ve forgotten entirely about one of those two and don’t understand what the other is made up of.

354

Heh, heh…I like a guy who can stir up the pot.

Hope all is well Prof.

355

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
If there wasn’t someone paying the high costs there wouldn’t be someone providing the goods. You take it as a given that the goods will be there. Like I said, the insurance companies formed in response to the high costs, not the other way around. You’ve horribly misunderstood basic economics. You see there’s a supply curve and a demand curve. You’ve forgotten entirely about one of those two and don’t understand what the other is made up of. [/quote]

You still don’t get it Bro. It is called competition.

If you have a service you are trying to sell and someone comes and sells that same service for less, people start to use the cheaper service instead of yours. Then at some point you are out of business. This is called the market rate.

In healthcare there is no limit on price and hospitals and other service providers set their price based on RVU’s (Relative Value Units). And the thing is that there is no standard for RVU’s. Each service can and does make up what they feel they should change with little rationale behind it. The only guideline is that you cannot control the market by working with competitors to control the price.

Most services don’t care if their price is higher than the competition because it is only the insurance company that pays the bill. Insurance companies try and contract with hospitals and services to control the price, but it doesn’t help that much.

Now if the consumer of these services had to pay for them directly they would go to the cheapest place and soon prices would drop due to competition. Basic!

And no, insurance did not come into play because of the high healthcare costs. People have been paying for health care themselves for thousands of years. And services provided in socialized systems today do not cost anything close to the cost of a market system.

So the bottom line is that services are priced based on what the market will allow and with insurance paying for it the cost will always be high.

The one thing in your post that is correct is that the high cost is partially related to the potential for making big money and venture capitol new technology. Because there is potential to make big money, companies put big money into R&D. So that is why the US is the leader in new and innovative medical technology. If there was no chance for a big payout, new technology would be very slow in coming.

But the problem is that people in the US expect the latest and best healthcare technology and yet want it affordable. Well, that just isn’t going to happen. Because if we had a one payor government system, which would pay much less than the free market, there would not be new cutting edge medical technology. Or not very much, because there would be no profit in it and no reasons to put a lot of money in R&D when they would never get it back.

So we cannot have a government run healthcare system and still maintain the high level of cutting edge healthcare.

Ok, School is out young man. Now drop your sisters leg and go eat something.

356

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
You still don’t get it Bro. It is called competition.

If you have a service you are trying to sell and someone comes and sells that same service for less, people start to use the cheaper service instead of yours. Then at some point you are out of business. This is called the market rate.

In healthcare there is no limit on price and hospitals and other service providers set their price based on RVU’s (Relative Value Units). And the thing is that there is no standard for RVU’s. Each service can and does make up what they feel they should change with little rationale behind it. The only guideline is that you cannot control the market by working with competitors to control the price. [/quote]

This is false. In my practice, my prices for services are set by insurance companies. I am not sure where you are getting your info.

[quote]

Now if the consumer of these services had to pay for them directly they would go to the cheapest place and soon prices would drop due to competition. Basic![/quote]

Again, this is bullshit. In practices that avoid insurance companies and accept “fee for service”, the doctors usually charge higher fees. Anyone who truly understands how much control these insurance companies have would probably go ahead and accept the higher fees because insurance companies are attempting to not only control price but the quality of the services.

I may diagnose a patient as needing a service that may cost more. Even though the cost is higher, I may truly believe it is the better option…however, the insurance company won’t pay for that service because they have already deemed all issues even similar as needing a certain type of restoration. They won’t pay for any other options.

Why do you think so many GP’s are leaving the medical field? This isn’t Mc Donald’s. You are paying for quality in health care, not just a simple service. With insurance companies in control, you can be sure that quality will based on that of the lowest bidder.

357

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
You still don’t get it Bro. It is called competition.

If you have a service you are trying to sell and someone comes and sells that same service for less, people start to use the cheaper service instead of yours. Then at some point you are out of business. This is called the market rate.

In healthcare there is no limit on price and hospitals and other service providers set their price based on RVU’s (Relative Value Units). And the thing is that there is no standard for RVU’s. Each service can and does make up what they feel they should change with little rationale behind it. The only guideline is that you cannot control the market by working with competitors to control the price.

Most services don’t care if their price is higher than the competition because it is only the insurance company that pays the bill. Insurance companies try and contract with hospitals and services to control the price, but it doesn’t help that much.

Now if the consumer of these services had to pay for them directly they would go to the cheapest place and soon prices would drop due to competition. Basic!

And no, insurance did not come into play because of the high healthcare costs. People have been paying for health care themselves for thousands of years. And services provided in socialized systems today do not cost anything close to the cost of a market system.

So the bottom line is that services are priced based on what the market will allow and with insurance paying for it the cost will always be high.

The one thing in your post that is correct is that the high cost is partially related to the potential for making big money and venture capitol new technology. Because there is potential to make big money, companies put big money into R&D. So that is why the US is the leader in new and innovative medical technology. If there was no chance for a big payout, new technology would be very slow in coming.

But the problem is that people in the US expect the latest and best healthcare technology and yet want it affordable. Well, that just isn’t going to happen. Because if we had a one payor government system, which would pay much less than the free market, there would not be new cutting edge medical technology. Or not very much, because there would be no profit in it and no reasons to put a lot of money in R&D when they would never get it back.

So we cannot have a government run healthcare system and still maintain the high level of cutting edge healthcare.

Ok, School is out young man. Now drop your sisters leg and go eat something.
[/quote]

You are correct that if everyone got together and said “OK, we’re not going to pay a lot for healthcare anymore,” that the price would go down. But that completely ignores the fact that the level of healthcare would go down. That’s just economic fact. Your previous post makes it sound as if we can just pay less for the same level of healthcare, which is not going to happen unless there is a change on the supply side of the equation, not the demand side.

The funny thing is that you rebuttal yourself for me in the second part of your post. You completely invalidated your own claims by finally acknowledging what the demand side is made up of.

You want cutting edge healthcare? Deal with the insurance companies cause that shit’s expensive.

358

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You still don’t get it Bro. It is called competition.

If you have a service you are trying to sell and someone comes and sells that same service for less, people start to use the cheaper service instead of yours. Then at some point you are out of business. This is called the market rate.

In healthcare there is no limit on price and hospitals and other service providers set their price based on RVU’s (Relative Value Units). And the thing is that there is no standard for RVU’s. Each service can and does make up what they feel they should change with little rationale behind it. The only guideline is that you cannot control the market by working with competitors to control the price.

This is false. In my practice, my prices for services are set by insurance companies. I am not sure where you are getting your info.

[/quote]

No, it’s true. The price set by the insurance company only applies if you want to be part of their provider network. If you don’t you can set whatever price you want. But if you want the extra volume that an insurance company can provide, then you have to play ball and except their rate.

Your comment is accurate but irrelevant in terms of consumer economics. When you join and insurance network you are voluntarily agreeing to their rates. But if there were no insurance companies your rates would voluntary be lower due to what people could afford because if they weren’t, and a competitor had lower rates, you would loose business. That is why you joined an insurance company, because they offer consumers lowers rates than you charge normally. If this was not the case than people would just come to you without insurance and pay your normal rate.

But because the insurance plan is cheaper for people they use network dentists and not you. So you have to become part of the network to stay in business. (I’m not saying this is fair or the best way to do it, I’m just saying that this is the way it is)

I agree. Quality is sacrificed sometimes for cost. No question. It is a problem with the current system.

I agree to some extent. However, quality is not that expensive. Vet’s go to school as long or longer than most medical doctors and dentists and yet their services cost much less than medical services. It is because there is not much pet health insurance driving up the prices.

But if you were paid by the government in a single payor system, you think you would get paid more that in the current system? Not on your life.

359

The healthcare system in America does not sound like a good situation.

You guys should have a universal health insurance program which is taxpayer funded, just like what we have in Australia. Canada and the UK also have comprehensive free healthcare systems. And they work.

America has to switch to the philosophy that healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

360

Do you actually know what all goes in to being a medical doctor vs. being a vet? I don’t, but I’m willing to bet that your measure (length of school) only covers a little bit of it. I’m not talking just how much knowledge they need and how long it takes to get it either (I’ll bet it’s different though). I’m talking about that plus equipment, staff, etc.

I’ve never known anyone with a pet that went in for major surgery either. Usually if it gets bad enough they just put them down. That’s where insurance really pays off.