• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Inalienable right to buy essential drugs without prescription?

essential drugs constitution human rights

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 xEva

  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 19 November 2014 - 11:41 PM


Here is the question: do we have an inalienable right to buy essential drugs without a prescription?

I believe that the US laws around the issue of access to basic drugs and medicine are geared to protect not an individual, as they are usually presented, but the income of the professional medical guild.

World Health Organization maintains the list of the essential drugs. I believe an adult should be able to buy such drugs at his/her own discretion, without having to pay an additional fee from a medical professional for a 'permission'.

Here in the US the constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness, while the existing laws deny the basic right to maintain one's own health as one sees fit. Who else thinks that this denial of free access to essential drugs, such as, for example, antibiotics, is unconstitutional?

For a long, long time, I was thinking that this situation in the US must be changed. Now the opportunity presented itself to challenge the existing state of affairs. I.e. there is an individual 'caught' forging a prescription for a drug that is sold freely over the counter in most civilized countries. The person was already charged with forgery and there will be the hearing. It is unlikely that it will lead to anything serious for this individual. But that's not the point. This is an opportunity to challenge the existing laws. And who knows, maybe eventually it will lead to a change in the Constitution, so that the right to pursue health will be mentioned in it, as it is in other civilized countries.

Anyone can think of a lawyer or an organization willing to pursue this matter?

Edited by xEva, 19 November 2014 - 11:46 PM.


#2 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,213 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 20 November 2014 - 03:47 AM

Where can be seen the list of the essential drugs?

 

If there are included antibiotics in it, then the antibiotics at least should be prescribed by a doctor, to be avoided development of bacterial tolerance to them.

 

Another group of medications, that must not be sold without a prescription are the opiates containing drugs.

 



#3 xEva

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 20 November 2014 - 04:06 PM

http://www.who.int/m...almedicines/en/ ..and obviously no one is talking about addictive drugs, which are controlled in most countries, including the ones where antibiotics are sold freely.

I don't know how much a visit to a Dr cost in Bulgaria (it is about $100 in the US, plus they often do not prescribe antibiotics without insisting on a test, which is another few hundred $) -- all this just to get the permission to buy a drug. In many countries antibiotics are sold without prescription, and there are no reports coming from those countries about people "developing tolerance".

It's a common misconception that people "develop tolerance" to antibiotics while taking them on their own. All multiple-antibiotics resistant strains of bacteria were actually traced to the hospitals, where antibiotics are always prescribed. And this was mostly in the ICU (intensive care units), where people are routinely pumped with antibiotics (in order to save their lives, where there immune systems are down).

Another common source of multiple-antibiotics resistant bacteria is industrial farming. It was reported that wide-spread area surrounding those farms is heavily contaminated with such bacteria. Often lawn fertilizer is derived from such areas and sold in the cities. Some argue that animal antibiotics are not quite the same as those prescribed to people, but this is not quite true. There are only minor differences. Once an organism becomes tolerant to an antibiotic, it generally becomes tolerant to the whole class of these antibiotcs; and both people and animals are treated with the same classes of drugs.

But this is off topic in this thread...


Can you buy antibiotics freely in Bulgaria? I know you can in Mexico and Russia. Plus in Russia a visit to a Dr is free, so people can always consult a specialist if they don't have confidence in their own choice. That's how it should be, don't you think?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,213 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 20 November 2014 - 08:06 PM

http://www.who.int/m...almedicines/en/ ..and obviously no one is talking about addictive drugs, which are controlled in most countries, including the ones where antibiotics are sold freely.

I don't know how much a visit to a Dr cost in Bulgaria (it is about $100 in the US, plus they often do not prescribe antibiotics without insisting on a test, which is another few hundred $) -- all this just to get the permission to buy a drug. In many countries antibiotics are sold without prescription, and there are no reports coming from those countries about people "developing tolerance".

It's a common misconception that people "develop tolerance" to antibiotics while taking them on their own. All multiple-antibiotics resistant strains of bacteria were actually traced to the hospitals, where antibiotics are always prescribed. And this was mostly in the ICU (intensive care units), where people are routinely pumped with antibiotics (in order to save their lives, where there immune systems are down).

Another common source of multiple-antibiotics resistant bacteria is industrial farming. It was reported that wide-spread area surrounding those farms is heavily contaminated with such bacteria. Often lawn fertilizer is derived from such areas and sold in the cities. Some argue that animal antibiotics are not quite the same as those prescribed to people, but this is not quite true. There are only minor differences. Once an organism becomes tolerant to an antibiotic, it generally becomes tolerant to the whole class of these antibiotcs; and both people and animals are treated with the same classes of drugs.

But this is off topic in this thread...


Can you buy antibiotics freely in Bulgaria? I know you can in Mexico and Russia. Plus in Russia a visit to a Dr is free, so people can always consult a specialist if they don't have confidence in their own choice. That's how it should be, don't you think?

 

A visit to a doctor in Bulgaria if you are not health - ensured, costs between 10 and 20 euros (depending where you will make the exam). Those, who are health - ensured, if they go to the exact place, will pay only a symbolic tax, of averagely 1,5 euro. I don't know what test are you talking about - if you mean allergy test, we do it here only if you have a history of allergy. The allergology test is not payed from the health ensurance, and costs averagley 40 euros. Another possible test is the antibiogram. I am not sure for its cost, but it can't be more than 100 dollars.

 

In Bulgaria, there are some "normative rules", which are part of the law, and which require the pharmacies to sell antibiotics only to people with prescriptions. Even though, I have succeeded one time to have antibiotics without a prescription (after having a small quarrel, ensureing them, that I am a medic, and after leaving the change to the pharmacian). There are people, who have succeeded to have antibiotics without prescription even easier. This is not correct, even though.

 

Well, I think, that antibiotics need to be controlled. I have seen antibiograms of microbes, which are very prone to many kinds of antibiotics. For the penicillin G (the oldest antibiotic), for example, has been used in doses thousands UI. Today, because of the build - up microbes resistence, the doses, that are used now are in millions UI. It is not common today, but, the example is good. So, building a resistance of the microorganisms for the antibiotics do exist. They appear to evolve to comply with the antibiotics environment, that we are offering them. It seems, that really antibiotics must be taken only if there is a need of them. This is why a doctor needs toprescribe them. You are right, that in some countries, they are being sold just like that, and there are industries, that use them without thinking at all, but this is a very big mistake, that may cost the existence of the human kind in its worst case scenario.
 



#5 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,042 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 20 November 2014 - 10:25 PM

The answer is an unqualified yes.


  • Agree x 3

#6 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 November 2014 - 02:10 AM

Hmm.  I don't think the antibiotic argument holds a lot of water.  Maybe some though.  The main reason there are such tight controls on drugs in America is risk aversion.  We're a country of scaredy-cats, and we can't handle it if something bad happens.  There are plenty of bad things that would happen if every knucklehead could run down to the drug store and buy anything they wanted.  There would be a lot of drug abuse, for one thing.  There would be valium addiction and people driving on ketamine.  People would injure themselves with superpotent corticosteroids and all manner of other things.   It would be great for people like (some of) us, but there would be a body count that accompanied such a move.  Years ago, people in California used to go down to Mexico to pick up various cures.  My dad got some methotrexate that was great for his psoriasis, until he had a seizure from it...


  • Good Point x 1

#7 xEva

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 21 November 2014 - 03:25 AM

Thank you Mind! you're my man :)

@niner: this is not about ketamine or even valium, which are not sold freely, not in Mexico nor Russia -- unlike antibiotics and other essential drugs. And no one reports bad things happening in those (and other) countries where "every knucklehead [can] run down to the drug store and buy [what they need]". There are no reports of people injuring themselves with drugs that are freely sold there. So, this is not a valid point. And yes, while I lived in LA, I too went couple of times to Tijuana to get what I needed. Why did I have to do that? Why could not I simply get it in the pharmacy around the corner?

#8 xEva

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 21 November 2014 - 03:37 AM

@seivtcho: thanks for your feedback on things in Bulgaria.

Re:

Well, I think, that antibiotics need to be controlled. ...So, building a resistance of the microorganisms for the antibiotics do exist. They appear to evolve to comply with the antibiotics environment, that we are offering them. It seems, that really antibiotics must be taken only if there is a need of them. This is why a doctor needs to prescribe them.


It is true that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics as long as they are used. What is NOT true is that resistance develops more often when people use them without a prescription. Again: the studies showed that resistant strains actually developed in the hospitals (and nursing homes) where the antibiotics were always prescribed.

There are no reports whatsoever of people abusing or misusing antibiotics in the countries where they are sold freely. So, your concerns are not supported by evidence.

Edited by xEva, 21 November 2014 - 03:42 AM.


#9 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,213 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 21 November 2014 - 06:39 AM

Well, the microbes develope their resistence faster when they are longer in an antibiotic environment. So, all the kinds of use for the antibiotics, that are not for healing a human have to be stopped. This is the logic of the prescriptions - to stop the exposure of bacteria against antibiotics, because of stupidity.

 

The resistence strains develope faster in the hospitals, because there are more antibiotics used there. But there is also another fact, that everybody underestimate - people, who incompetentely self-treated different micromes diseases with many antibiotics, often for manyyears, develope a resistent strain, and then go to the hospital with the resistent strain to seek help, when the self-treatment finally failed. Thus are made conditions for the resistent strain to stay in the hospital, and the hospital to be turned into a resistent strains concentrator. There are however some benefits for the development of the resistent strains in the hospitals - the sterilization and desinfection control is very high, and very few of these resistent strains manage to go out and survive outside of the hospital.

 

 



#10 smccomas01

  • Guest
  • 155 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Richmond Va

Posted 21 November 2014 - 10:30 PM

Why would we need to change the constitution? What you want to challenge is federal or state law there are not any restrictions in the constitution as to what an individual can or can not purchase.

 

I agree with you why should there be a restriction on what I purchase. If I can afford it and take responsibility for it, why is it anyone else's business? 



#11 xEva

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 21 November 2014 - 10:40 PM

Lasting happiness without health is a doubtful proposition. I believe that right to pursue health is the fundamental human right, more fundamental than the right to pursue happiness. As such should be mentioned in the Constitution, like it is, in fact, in the constitutions of some other countries.

Edited by xEva, 21 November 2014 - 10:42 PM.


#12 smccomas01

  • Guest
  • 155 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Richmond Va

Posted 21 November 2014 - 10:50 PM

The phrase life liberty and pursuit of happiness is not in the constitution it is the declaration of independence. The Constitution lays out a framework of govt that originally gave very little power to the federal govt. Everything else was for the states to decide idea being if the citizens of a particular state liked or did not like something they could change it, they being the ones that had to live with the consequences.

 

I may be wrong and if I am someone correct me I do not believe there are any restrictions on personal liberty in the constitution. The restrictions you are talking about are federal or state laws not constitutional law.    


Edited by smccomas01, 21 November 2014 - 10:52 PM.


#13 xEva

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 21 November 2014 - 10:58 PM

Thanks! :) Guess it was a while since my naturalization exams. The US Constitution does not mention health, but here is what Russian Constitution has to say:


Article 41

1. Everyone shall have the right to health protection and medical aid. Medical aid in state and municipal health establishments shall be rendered to individuals gratis, at the expense of the corresponding budget, insurance contributions, and other proceeds.

2. In the Russian Federation federal programmes of protecting and strengthening the health of the population shall be financed by the State; measures shall be adopted to develop state, municipal and private health services; activities shall be promoted which facilitate the strengthening of health, the development of physical culture and sport, ecological and sanitary-epidemiological well-being.

3. The concealment by officials of the facts and circumstances posing a threat to the life and health of people shall entail responsibility according to the federal law.



#14 smccomas01

  • Guest
  • 155 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Richmond Va

Posted 21 November 2014 - 11:04 PM

Point to remember and it is very important. Laws do not tell you what you can do, they tell you what you cant. So in the beginning we had that right :) 



#15 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 November 2014 - 03:35 AM

There are no reports whatsoever of people abusing or misusing antibiotics in the countries where they are sold freely. So, your concerns are not supported by evidence.

 

Doctors are constantly having to tell people with viral infections that they don't need the antibiotics they are asking for.  Do you really think that if you took the doctor out of the equation, there wouldn't be more antibiotic abuse?



#16 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 November 2014 - 03:58 AM

I agree with you why should there be a restriction on what I purchase. If I can afford it and take responsibility for it, why is it anyone else's business? 

 

I like the idea of freedom to do whatever the hell I want, but when one of us gets hurt, it suddenly becomes everyone's business, because we don't just let people die.  Even if we did, there is a cost to everyone when an educated young person dies.  All of society's investment in that person is lost, and their future productivity is lost.  Similar things happen if we are badly injured; often a bad injury is even more costly to society than a death, because of the long term cost of caring for the injured person.



#17 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 November 2014 - 04:04 AM

@niner: this is not about ketamine or even valium, which are not sold freely, not in Mexico nor Russia -- unlike antibiotics and other essential drugs. And no one reports bad things happening in those (and other) countries where "every knucklehead [can] run down to the drug store and buy [what they need]". There are no reports of people injuring themselves with drugs that are freely sold there. So, this is not a valid point. And yes, while I lived in LA, I too went couple of times to Tijuana to get what I needed. Why did I have to do that? Why could not I simply get it in the pharmacy around the corner?

 

What exactly do you mean by essential drugs?  I feel that I should have an inalienable right to buy Valium and Ketamine without having to find an MD who has lost his mind or is a criminal.  Is everything that is addictive or dangerous off the list?  How about quinolones and steroids? 



#18 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,213 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 22 November 2014 - 12:23 PM

xEva is correct with one thing - every body should have the right of receiving health care.

 

By the way, it appeared, that the right for health is also in the Bulgarian constitution.

 

The health care now is free in Great Britain and in Russia. Maybe in more countries, which makes me think, that free medical care is possible (because of the existing facts).



#19 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,213 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 22 November 2014 - 12:26 PM

Point to remember and it is very important. Laws do not tell you what you can do, they tell you what you cant. So in the beginning we had that right :)

 

Well, laws also tell you what you can do, sometimes even the logistics of how to do it.
 



#20 smccomas01

  • Guest
  • 155 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Richmond Va

Posted 22 November 2014 - 12:43 PM

How so? Are you talking about regulations? As in say I wanted to purchase something like antibiotics because I have an infection BUT for me to comply with the law I must go to a dr to get the prescription?

 

Catch what I did there ;)  



#21 smccomas01

  • Guest
  • 155 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Richmond Va

Posted 22 November 2014 - 01:10 PM

I concur with point of the original post, I believe I have the right to choose what medications I take or not take. It is frustrating having to purchase things from Canada (which I do). For me to get the same meds here I would have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops, unnecessary cost and deal with insurance etc.It is better to pay cash and be done with it.

 

 


  • like x 1

#22 xEva

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 22 November 2014 - 02:17 PM

What exactly do you mean by essential drugs?  I feel that I should have an inalienable right to buy Valium and Ketamine without having to find an MD who has lost his mind or is a criminal.  Is everything that is addictive or dangerous off the list?  How about quinolones and steroids?


Essential drugs are, those that are needed most often in a course of normal life. They are, first of all, antibiotics. And admittedly, I don't know much about the drugs many people take on a daily basis, but those, too, should certainly make the list.

Your arguments are based on fear of what some dude may or may not do. They are not based on what happens in reality in the countries where such drugs are sold freely. It's a given that dangerous and addictive drugs are not sold there without a prescription. I have never heard or came across anything about problems with people having direct access to essential drugs there. Have you?

Your bringing into the discussion Valium and Ketamine, quinolones and steroids reeks of demagoguery. Same for your concern for someone getting hurt, and then "suddenly it becoming everyone's business". The reality in the US is that the poor have no access to the medical care until they are already close to dying. Whatever there is supposedly available for them on paper does not reflect what actually happens.

And what's there to do for an ex-professional who, due to a chronic health condition looses everything, starting with regular job and ending with health insurance that comes with it? It turns out that he/she does not even have the basic right to maintain his/her own health. Are you concerned for those people? I bet your opinion would change quickly, if you found yourself in their shoes.

But i don't want to steer this discussion into the health system in the US, which, the whole world knows, is seriously messed up. The point is, an adult has the basic right --fundamental inalienable right!-- to maintain his/her own health as he/she sees fit. And this includes unimpeded access to the basic drugs, without the requirement to pay for what amounts to the additional tax for the right to stay alive.

Edited by xEva, 22 November 2014 - 02:29 PM.

  • like x 1

#23 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 November 2014 - 03:39 PM

Your bringing into the discussion Valium and Ketamine, quinolones and steroids reeks of demagoguery. Same for your concern for someone getting hurt, and then "suddenly it becoming everyone's business". The reality in the US is that the poor have no access to the medical care until they are already close to dying. Whatever there is supposedly available for them on paper does not reflect what actually happens.

 

Hmm My concern about not wanting to pay for someone else's unadvised and entirely avoidable medication error is "demagoguery"?  Ok, if you say so.  You are now defining essential drugs as anything that isn't dangerous, so we already have the system that you're asking for.  They are called "Over The Counter" (OTC) drugs, because you can buy them over the pharmacy counter without a doctor being involved.  Lots of important meds have been moved from prescription status to OTC status.   Since they also made your "demagoguery" list, do you think quinolones and steroids are not dangerous, or that they are not essential?  I guarantee that they are essential for some people.  They saved my life on at least one occasion.  They are also dangerous as hell if misused, and sometimes are dangerous when used entirely correctly.   I guess what you really want is for a few more drugs to be moved to OTC status.  I have no problem with that, but I don't think that all "essential" drugs are safe enough to go OTC.   

 

The healthcare industry is interested in squeezing the maximum amount of profit out of consumers, and placing artificial barriers to obtaining drugs is one of the tools they use to this end.  I realize that, and I don't like it.  I'm trying to walk a fine line between not supporting that behavior, but also not supporting putting drugs on OTC status when they are dangerous.

 

BTW, the idea of "rights" keeps coming up.  If we have a right to healthcare, and it's possible to spend millions of dollars to prop up one life, where does the money come from to support that?  There has to be some point where you either pay for it yourself, or you don't get it.  A demagogue would call that "rationing", a terribly scary term kind of like "death panels".  A right to healthcare presumably derives from the fact that we might die without it, so by the same logic, shouldn't we have a right to housing, food, and clothing?    The kinds of rights in the Constitution/Bill of Rights don't require someone else to pay for them, so a right to healthcare is really a new kind of right.   A right to be allowed to make your own health decisions that you pay for yourself is entirely different, and is more like traditional rights.  I think that I should be able to drive my car in a way that is safe and to my liking, but there are a bunch of stupid laws that require me to sit idle waiting for a light to change despite a lack of cross traffic.   Why don't I have a right to go under that circumstance?  I get a lot of tickets for stuff like that.  That may sound irrelevant, but it's the same situation.  A set of laws has been created to deal with possible risks because some people are idiots.  I'm not an idiot (most of the time) but the laws, either pharmaceutical laws or traffic laws, treat me like I am.



#24 xEva

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 22 November 2014 - 04:41 PM

It's good that you brought up the traffic laws, 'cause they are just about the same throughout the world, which, a demagogue would surely point out, is the reflection of the fact that people everywhere are fundamentally the same. This brings us back to the topic at hand. Why would the same drugs considered dangerous in one country and not dangerous in the next? Again, the reality in those countries does not support your fears of drug misuse.

And, the unwillingness to pay for someone's health is the first argument against the universal healthcare in the US. The same people also want to limit other people's rights to buy drugs -- and for the same reason, though now they wrap it in the concern for their wellbeing: they don't want them to hurt themselves! Please.

See, logically, the access to essential drugs could be limited IF access to medical consultation was free. But when it is not, to prevent people from treating themselves is worse than 'unconstitutional'. It violates the basic right to remain alive.

Edited by xEva, 22 November 2014 - 04:43 PM.


#25 smccomas01

  • Guest
  • 155 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Richmond Va

Posted 22 November 2014 - 04:58 PM

The term right keeps being used however I don't think it means what you think it means. A right is something an individual has it is not granted. The bill of rights lays out rights that a person has by being a us citizen. If something is granted by an external entity then it is not a right it is a privilege and it can be taken away or becomes subject to the control of the entity.
  • Informative x 1

#26 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,213 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 22 November 2014 - 06:27 PM

....

BTW, the idea of "rights" keeps coming up.  If we have a right to healthcare, and it's possible to spend millions of dollars to prop up one life, where does the money come from to support that?  There has to be some point where you either pay for it yourself, or you don't get it. 

 

 

Health care can be free if a part of the country budget pays for it. This means, that a part of the taxes, that the government is taking you each year (or each month - I don't know how it is for your country), for other things, goes also for health. Another way is, if your country has a production. Money from the country's main product at the end of each year may go for health.

 

A right to healthcare presumably derives from the fact that we might die without it, so by the same logic, shouldn't we have a right to housing, food, and clothing? 

 

 

The housing and clothing are not this necessary for being alive. For the food costs, I agree with you. Food is more important for being alive. Plus the costs for food are not higher than the medical care.



#27 xEva

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 22 November 2014 - 07:10 PM

The US cannot afford to pay for the healthcare of their citizens, because then who will pay for the military? And if we don't police the whole world, then Russians will certainly come and get us. (and some are already here, stirring up trouble :))
  • Good Point x 1

#28 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,840 posts
  • 721
  • Location:Austria

Posted 22 November 2014 - 07:34 PM

The US cannot afford to pay for the healthcare of their citizens, because then who will pay for the military?

 

With a national debt above $ 19 trillion now, there would be still enough thin air...
 



#29 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 November 2014 - 09:59 PM

The US cannot afford to pay for the healthcare of their citizens, because then who will pay for the military? And if we don't police the whole world, then Russians will certainly come and get us. (and some are already here, stirring up trouble :))


Either the Russians or the "Terrorists"... I think that the US military is far larger than it needs to be in order to protect the "Homeland". (am I the only one who thinks that sounds an awful lot like "Fatherland"?) Anyway, I'm pretty sure Putin will stop before he gets to Portugal, so no worries.

There is an important difference between the military and healthcare: If Congress gives the Pentagon a thousand unnecessary planes instead of two thousand, no one goes on Fox News and starts screaming about "Rationing". If we paid for all the healthcare everyone wanted, and never ever ever said no to a procedure or drug, the cost would dwarf that of the military. Just so it's clear, I'm in favor of a rational (and "rationed") national healthcare program, not that it's likely to happen in the US with our present plutocracy.

#30 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 08 December 2014 - 01:05 PM

I don't know how much a visit to a Dr cost in Bulgaria (it is about $100 in the US, plus they often do not prescribe antibiotics without insisting on a test, which is another few hundred $) -- all this just to get the permission to buy a drug. In many countries antibiotics are sold without prescription, and there are no reports coming from those countries about people "developing tolerance".

It's a common misconception that people "develop tolerance" to antibiotics while taking them on their own. All multiple-antibiotics resistant strains of bacteria were actually traced to the hospitals, where antibiotics are always prescribed. And this was mostly in the ICU (intensive care units), where people are routinely pumped with antibiotics (in order to save their lives, where there immune systems are down).


I'm afraid you're mistaken. Antibiotics are uncontrolled in India, and the country is shot full of antibiotic resistance. It's at epidemic levels, and is a real problem. I don't think it's coming from either hospitals or industrialized farming, both of which are more common here. Last year in India, 58,000 infants died of antibiotic resistant infections.


  • Informative x 1




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users