With $76B surplus, California proposes rebates for millions

Yeah, uncle Joe passed the reverse hat around and suddenly California is rolling in dough to spread around.

 

Your premise is that regulation equals 'in charge'.

False premise, as I pointed out that much under the sun is regulated, and is not in charge of me.

 

You are not addressing what I actually said. Only you are in charge of you. The government is in charge of your doctor and the pharm salesperson with the rolling suitcase giving him a free pen.

 

My premise, that regulation does not equal 'in charge' applies to them, as well. Your premise is false.

 

You are incorrect. You said:

100% of what your doctor does is under strict government control. Do you believe that only a drug can treat, diagnose, prevent, or cure diseases?

 

Really? I kept reading how broke California was? What changed?

 

Broke is zero. If CA balanced the budget and received a gift of $580 billion, it would then be broke.

 

100%?
Wrong. Does the government tell my doctor what to wear?
Does the government tell my doctor whom to hire?
Does the government tell my doctor where to lease his offices from?
Does the government tell my doctor which supplies he must purchase from?
Does the government tell my doctor what hours he must work?
Does the government dictate when he can take a vacation?
Does the government dictate which remedies to prescribe?
Can my doctor recommend acupuncture, or not, if he wanted to?
Can my doctor recommend a nutritional supplement, or not, if he wanted to?


Many industries are regulated. The auto industry is regulated, Airlines are regulated. Milk is regulated. My house is regulated. The city streets are regulated, the lights are regulated, just about everything is regulated, but
does that mean I am not free?

Those they regulate still are private, they operate their own hours, invest their own money, etc.

I think you have a confusion as to what 'regulation' means.

 

So how can they have this surplus?

 

Only 3 of your questions are related to providing care.

The gov absolutely dictates which pharm products to prescribe. While your doctor may recommend a nutritional supplement, he/she is prohibited by law from representing it is meant to treat, diagnose, prevent, or cure a disease. Only pharm products have the authority to make such claims.

Odd that you would bring up milk regulations. Do you remember the 4 food groups? Why did dairy get its own group? Why do they get their own commercials? (Got milk!)

 

There is deficit and there is debt. The debt is still there.

 

Doctors have a wide latitude on which products to prescribe. For one particular condition, my doctor is trying several different drugs, seeing which one works. Give me a break. Some get into wholistic stuff, ask Dr Brownstein

They re regulated, but are not employed by, the government. Now, some are, but many are not. The distinction is important, employer control, versus regulatory control, are not the same thing.

 

Since the ACA, a much larger portion of their pay comes from the government, so they are more of a government employee than ever. That is not the issue for me. My issue is our declining health and government working with food and drug companies to ensure they profit from making Americans sick. The vast majority of illness is the result of consuming these products.

 

No, the vast majority of illness, is.......okay..... what, you are an authority on illness now? I'd say it is reasonable to assume some illness, maybe a lot, perhaps, is due to diet and poor lifestyle choices, but that isn't the result of taking medicine, that is the result of eating junk food and not exercising, it is due to personal life style choices. But not all illness, many illness is, who the **** knows? And as to cause, Pharma is just capitalizing on it, so we have a downward feedback spiraling loop. I don't buy your thesis that pharma is the cause of it, they are just capitalizing on it. No, they are not going out of their way to get people on health foods, natch, but they are not buying stock in junk food companies ( or I hope they aren't, that would be messed up if they are ).

That issue is really a separate issue. It has a lot to do with the lobbying structure, the political system. A medicare system could be structured without all of that, in theory and improved to be focused on wellness and wholeness, etc. now then.......

There's a difference between a government run hospital (as exists in Britain ) and a government sponsored health care program consisting of a consortium of private clinics among which have a percentage of their clients on medicare. I mean......

Are you saying Boeing execs are government employees?

Give me a frickin' break.

 

I don't have to be an expert when the data is available for all to see. I never said pharm products are causing illness, but the are used to mask symptoms so the patient can comfortably continue their unhealthy lifestyle. They do come with side effects and more pharm products are prescribed.

You and I agree on the lobbying structure being a problem. That is why food giants and pharm companies enjoy record profits from poisoning us. No politician will stand up to these powerful companies.

For myself, I exercise and eat a healthy diet. I raised 5 kids on healthy foods and never had a soft drink in my fridge. I hate being forced to poison my fellow Americans. I would love to introduce them to a healthy lifestyle that is far better than any food tastes. What if those who need healthcare subsidies were required to maintain a healthy weight and exercise regularly?

 

The gap between the haves and have nots right before your eyes.

A small apartment in Seattle is over $2000 a month. With a $15 per hour full-time job, you make just enough each year to pay rent.

 

You wrote:
My issue is our declining health and government working with food and drug companies to ensure they profit from making Americans sick. The vast majority of illness is the result of consuming these products.

How else can I interpret that but to conclude you are accusing pharma (colluding with the gov ) of causality ? That's how it reads, at least in part.

Sure, that's all fine, but to deny health care to people because the system isn't as perfect as you want it to be isn't right, either.

Get health care to people, and improve the system from there. Your all or nothing approach will result in nothing forever.

 

Then why not pay off some of the debt and spare themselves millions in interest?

 

Why not stop spending like thieves with stolen credit cards?