Re: [A-List] Re: A-List digest, Vol 1 #342 - 10 msgs

["Annewilliamson" <Annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

Hari Kumar:

In economics, "incentives matter."  These prescription support
programs create the incentive to medicate since the taxpayer
provides easy profits, and the unwitting population becomes
the equivalent of laboratory animals.  There are consequences
to public policy, and mostly those consequences are unintended
on the part of the good-hearted.  We have seen this again and
again throughout history, especially that of the last century.

When you hand over medical care to the state, you make yourself
the property of the state.  Now bureaucrats in DC direct medical
care, not the doctor and not the patient - the two private parties
to the treatment.  How idiotic.  And dangerous.

Now the state is facing retirement support for the "python generation," i.e.
baby boomers, through social security and medicare.  When SS was put
in place, no one in Fedgov anticipated the increased life expectancy that we
enjoy today.  IOWs,  Social Security obligations weren't considered a threat
to the privileged and institutionalized political classes because few were
expected to live long enough to enjoy it -- Fedgov expected the
"beneficiaries"
to largely be six feet under by the time it would have to honor its
obligations.
And so they spent the tax money collected on vote-buying programs, while
largely capturing the post-65 voter ever-fearful of loosing the state
pension.  Today
there is nothing but a bunch of IOUs in the pot that can only be satisfied
by
taxing new workers (govt "produces" nothing, the funds it uses must come
from the population.)

The state is now in a jam - it is about to be exposed as a giant thief since
the
money collected for state pensions has been spent.  What will the state do?

It will not sacrifice young workers from whom it intends to collect money
for
four or five decades into the future.  A young family can not possibly
remain
tax contributors while supporting one anonymous retiree (there were 14
contributors for every beneficiary when the program first began, soon there
will be but two, then one), particularly on the lower wages that
are certain for US workers in the future.

Do you honestly think the political classes will risk their power and
privilege
for some geezer baby boomer's golden years?

Why do you think they are trying now to centralize all data, including
medical?
To "help" you?  Sorry, they want that data - your total savings, your status
in
your working life, your family details (any children?  nearby, interested,
or
even financially capable of sustaining you?), so that they can identify
those
who can be quietly euthenized once they become a liability, a drain upon
instead of
a contributor to the state's coffers.  Signing up for SS for a boomer will
be the
equivalent of signing one's own death certificate.

The state is not your friend, it is not a benevolent institution.

And watch out for those "free" flu shots.

Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hari Kumar" <hari.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 6:04 PM
Subject: [A-List] Re: A-List digest, Vol 1 #342 - 10 msgs


> Message: 4: From: "Annewilliamson" <Annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [A-List] Unhealthy accumulation: hallucinatory advertising
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:49:46 -0500
> Reply-To: a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> This article demonstrates, in part, why free prescriptions for seniors is
not a good idea, nor is the
> global aids fund.   Why?  Both policies are not designed to assist the
afflicted, but to put price
> supports in place for the pharmaceutical industry (which is losing its
patents and facing a price
> freefall.)  Additionally, both policies will deliver to the
pharmaceuticals literally millions of
> ginnie pigs (or however you spell it :-) for whose fate they will remain
unaccountable.  As is,
> American seniors are the most over-medicated group on the planet.  "
> REPLy:
>  I would disagree.
> 1) Comparisons of Cnadian vs USA citizens shows markedly higher drug
over-useage in hte USA;
> 2) Many elderly poor in the USA - are either poor 'cos of drug bills; or
are too poor to pay for drugs.
>
> 3) By no means all drug utilisation is 'over-drugging'.
> The rational usage of medications is not by not supporting free
prescritison for elderly.
> The elimination of profiteering of the companies involves far more than
denial of sick elderly -
> rational prescribing. Not that this is what you are suggesting - but I
think your approach is too
> simplistic.
> Hari Kumar
>
>
>
>