Originally posted by flyUnityof course. Insurance would probably only pay for it under prescription, but what is this fear of letting people make their own choices? If you know what drug makes you feel better, there should be no need to see a doctor.
ok do you think that prescription drugs should be available to anyone who wants it?
I hate having a swab stuck down my throat. If I know I have strep, just let me buy strep medicine.
Originally posted by CoconutThat's fine. provided you actually DO have strep.
of course. Insurance would probably only pay for it under prescription, but what is this fear of letting people make their own choices? If you know what drug makes you feel better, there should be no need to see a doctor.
I hate having a swab stuck down my throat. If I know I have strep, just let me buy strep medicine.
Originally posted by CoconutNow, there has to be an underlying cause for this Strep. Any thoughts?
and I've 'guessed' right every time. The one time I told them I had it, and they said "negative," they called back on the 24 hour test to say I was really positive.
Okay, now, let us all understand something else. You might be a sensible person able to self diagnose your own ailments, but how many other people can? You also have to understand that should a patient make a mistake with their own diagnosis the results are potentially fatal. Many people who suffer chronic ill health are also poor and have low education. I agree that doctors should have to consult with their patients, but I also agree that potentially harmful drugs should be controlled.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOkay. So you think the government should make people's decisions when the wrong decision could be fatal. Guess there is no changing your mind on that one. Education; not regulation.
Now, there has to be an underlying cause for this Strep. Any thoughts?
Okay, now, let us all understand something else. You might be a sensible person able to self diagnose your own ailments, but how many other people can? You also have to understand that should a patient make a mistake with their own diagnosis the results are potentially fatal. ...[text shortened]... nsult with their patients, but I also agree that potentially harmful drugs should be controlled.
Originally posted by CoconutNo, I think trained, qualified doctors should only have access to drugs that can kill. You, I have no doubt, would be the first one screaming for regulation if it was your wife, daughter, son or parent that was killed by these drugs. If I felt that the government should have total monopoly over decisions that may be life or death then no-one would be allowed to drive or do any dangerous sports. I do believe though that there are so many stupid people out there in the world trying to kill each other it's the role of government to make it as difficult as possible for them.
Okay. So you think the government should make people's decisions when the wrong decision could be fatal. Guess there is no changing your mind on that one. Education; not regulation.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWelll duhhhhh, with rape and murder there is a victim and a perpetrator, therefore there is a crime.
Well, the same could be said of rape, or murder. If they were legal there'd be less crime too - is that a path you'd like to follow too?
A person of there own free will choosing to smoke dope...?
The second time I've had to explain such a basic principle - to you, for there to be a crime there needs to be two parties.
There are as many ways of harming your own life as there are people, leading a sedantry life would have to be one of the more common - should we regulate against that. Or we could make people responsible for their own poor health choices?
As for my actions effecting others and some BS about islands, we know that Captain freaking obviousinnz, that is why I choose to associate with my employer or the representative of the local supermarket. It is also why I choose not to associate with "Mans effect on the climate scaremongers" and other drugged out losers.
Despite the illegality of drugs I would put money on 95% of those on RHP not having to make more than 3 or 4 phone calls to some one who knows someone who can get then affordable drugs. So the law stopping people from doing drugs is pretty flimsy.
1 edit
Originally posted by CoconutQuestion, Do you think the goverment should regulate guns?
Okay. So you think the government should make people's decisions when the wrong decision could be fatal. Guess there is no changing your mind on that one. Education; not regulation.
Edit: asking ATY too
Originally posted by flyUnityCertainly not. Guns are what gives the government and CRIMINALS power over others. Everyone should own a gun. If everyone on the sept 11 flights had guns, there would have been no downed trade towers. If everyone in columbine had a gun, there would be no 12 victims. Because guns are banned in these places, anyone who gets one there against the law is in complete control.
Question, Do you think the goverment should regulate guns?
Edit: asking ATY too