patrick.net

It will just result in creative bookkeeping, where they will interpret an absolute rule this way...

The only solution is to gut centralized government

errc says

Less access to western medicine often does result in better health. That crap will kill you

Total bullshit. Utter and complete bullshit. There are numerous anti-anxiety, anti-depression medications which have been on the market for decades, some of which my family has been on and the result was a total and drastic improvement in their lives. Mental health is like anything else. If you have a heart problem that precribed medication can help remedy then naturally you would take those. The same is true for mental disorders. Your brain runs on chemicals and electricity. All these medications do is to help correct some of those chemical interactions so that the brain can then function more normally.

edvard2 says

There are numerous anti-anxiety, anti-depression medications which have been on the market for decades

Meta studies indicate SSRIs are no more effective than placebo past 3 months.
And yet people stay on them for years.
edvard2 says

If you have a heart problem that precribed medication can help remedy then naturally you would take those.

Or maybe you have arthritis and got prescribed Vioxx.
"It soon turned out Merck had known of potential lethal side effects even before launching Vioxx in 1999, but had brushed all such disturbing tests under the rug."
And up to a half MILLION people died…..oops.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/46535/when-half-million-americans-died-and-nobody-noticed#ixzz2xkMQH38M

jazz music says

So what's your message here?

I am advocating effective intervention, not more no-better-than-placebo-block-buster-profit-psychotropics that have 3 pages of side-effects discussing suicidal ideation.

Lotta jingoism going on here.
From both sides.
And as usual, it's the people stuck between these forces that get crushed.
Sometimes I despair of things getting better without AF-style change, which is a rapid descent into horrible awfulness, mostly so we can get rid of the awful people who govern us. Ugh, I will move somewhere remote while that is going on, if it does. I'd rather deal with weather and wild animals than bureaucrats or ravening Obama supporters.

Quigley says

From both sides.

Yes: both sides do it.

Both sides are always equally to blame, equally bad, to within 1 part in 10^(-15).

It's the weirdest coincidence.

jazz music says

So what's your message here? That death is too good for them?

I've read the studies RS is referring to. Look it up.

An example, one of many: http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/mdma_ptsd_u.s._study_veterans_of_war/

With those numbers, of suicides in 3 months, there must be better therapies, whatever they might be. The government is not trying hard enough to deal with this. It's expensive, but they should have thought of that before going to war.

Robert Sproul says

Meta studies indicate SSRIs are no more effective than placebo past 3 months.

And yet people stay on them for years.

Whatever "studies" these are I would dearly love to see. Again- a bunch of horse shit. In fact, I can give you some personal examples. I am myself in fact on an SSRI , and so too is my brother. Anxiety issues run in the family and after spending years with issues, I started taking Celexa 4-5 years ago. You want proof? I and my brother are living proof. The difference in our lives has been dramatic. These drugs work and work very well. I'd tried therapy, and countless other things and the drug alone was what fixed it. For those of you who know diddly-squat about these, meaning anyone who doesn't take them, let me fill you in. These DO NOT stop you from having worries or anxieties. What they DO is help you to more rationally and thoughtfully deal with them and thus come to a rational conclusion. The difference is that I used to spend WEEKS being concerned about something, just simply beside myself because I could not get beyond a stage of having these concerns gnaw away at me for long periods. Now if I have something come up I can look at it, rationalize it, and come to a conclusion and move on. That's it. This was something I wasn't able to do before.

Secondly, these drugs often don't work immediately. There is a break-in period that lasts for sometimes weeks. If you were to place someone on a placebo they would not experience this at all. The break in period is actually really awful because your brain is basically resetting and many experience a heightened level of anxiety before the drugs start to work, and when they do work, the difference is dramatic.

So for those going on and on about these either being dangerous, ineffective, or otherwise needless don't know what they are talking about. If you've not experienced these then you're in no position to make an argument.

BTW,
I just read that study. The study had nothing to do with SSRI's. The Study was for covering the use of MDMA's, which is a totally different type of drug.

Edvard says "I myself am addicted to an SSRI"

And than he has a bunch of anecdotes supplanted as data.

Let me see your anecdote, and raise you an datum. Every single last soul I come across that is hooked on these dangerous drugs, is also an ardent supporter of The State. Why is that?

Thanks for finally coming clean here Edvard, its nice to put some context to your unquestioning love of heritagefoundationcare

The plural of anecdote is not data. Some people improve coincidentally, just as rain sometimes follows rain dances, but the rain dances do not cause the rain. In the case of SSRIs, the clearly proven effects are toxic. The purported benefits are mainly a placebo effect, as countless studies have shown.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/treating-depression-is-there-a-placebo-effect/

Even the manufacturers' own cherry-picked studies show only marginal benefit vs placebo, in the range of 10%, i.e. even the manufacturers admit that 90% don't benefit. And that's their best numbers, including "rescue countries" where they throw cash at some poor doctor in an impoverished foreign clinic in exchange for a study showing whatever they want, etc.

Newsweek: "Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong"

Vanity Fair: "Deadly Medicine"

The actual benefits are financial (to the manufacturers and prescribers) and political (to the patronage networks that raise the price of all drugs and write mandatory subsidized insurance laws forcing everyone to pay for them). Contrary to the manufacturers' now abandoned "not habit forming" claims, which FDA finally made them stop claiming, the drugs do cause physical dependence including a nasty withdrawal ("discontinuation") syndrome, and the addicts are desperate to keep those subsidies coming at all costs. People who criticize SSRIs publicly get harangued by drug addicts, and even on PatNet I have observed that whenever I point to data on this topic, even if I only quote directly (and link to) well established sources, I rack up Dislikes that are most likely from addicts.

How high would house prices be if americans didn't have these astronomical payments for universities, childcare and healthcare? Why do people put up with this shit when they are already paying what they are paying for fed/state/property taxes?

errc says

Edvard says "I myself am addicted to an SSRI"

And than he has a bunch of anecdotes supplanted as data.

Let me see your anecdote, and raise you an datum. Every single last soul I come across that is hooked on these dangerous drugs, is also an ardent supporter of The State. Why is that?

Thanks for finally coming clean here Edvard, its nice to put some context to your unquestioning love of heritagefoundationcare

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. If we use your simpleton means of debate-as demonstrated on this site many a time- then anyone who takes aspirin, gets braces, or uses hemorrhoid suppositories is also " hooked" on "dangerous" drugs.

So far, the only "dangerous" issue that has come up with my particular drug is if you were to have serious heart issues and also take a large dosage of the medication. Its been around for over 40 years so far and not even remotely close to being shown as either toxic or dangerous. The same is true with my brother's medication.

What the fuck are your trying to say that " Everyone you've met" who takes SSRI's is an "Ardent supporter of the state". Yes- I support the United Stated of America. I use my rights to vote, enjoy the benefits of our constitution, and so on. So if that be the case I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're trying to state. curious2 says

In the case of SSRIs, the clearly proven effects are toxic.

Total nonsense. Ridiculous because if you look on the back of a bottle of aspirin, if you abuse it you can also suffer some serious health issues. The same is true with anything, and in the case of SSRi's, yes there are potential side effects, but they are NO DIFFERENT than any other drug in existence. And so I would ask- what the fuck is the point?

errc says

Let me see your anecdote, and raise you an datum.

Wait a minute.

Aren't you the guy who believes that bacon is good for you because you eat it every day and haven't died yet?

Spending lifetime on SSRIs is really no solution. Honestly, the best way to address some of the issues that SSRIs try to remedy is to have a monthly "binge drinking" session - but it has to be on upper tier hard liquor and it has to be in solitude. It will reboot your "system" like nothing else can. There's a reason why hard liquor is referred to as "spirits" because it really is a conduit to your second soul.

edvard2 says

So far, the only "dangerous" issue that has come up with my particular drug is if you were to have serious heart issues and also take a large dosage of the medication. Its been around for over 40 years so far and not even remotely close to being shown as either toxic or dangerous.

If that's the case, then it isn't an SSRI, it's probably a tricyclic, and those are less harmful and more likely beneficial than the SSRIs. The issue is, when the patents on tricyclics expired, the manufacturers began advertising SSRIs on TV, and the SSRIs are much worse, but much more lucrative. If you found a doctor who recommended a tricyclic instead of an SSRI, score one point for that doctor, at least (s)he isn't prescribing whatever the drug companies are promoting this week.

BTW, since you mentioned a family history, beware any doctor who prescribes SSRIs to a female who is or may become pregnant. Some SSRIs are teratogens, and formerly "not habit forming" paroxetine ("As Seen on TV!") in particular is notorious for causing neonatal withdrawal syndrome including convulsions.

edvard2 says

curious2 says

In the case of SSRIs, the clearly proven effects are toxic.

Total nonsense. Ridiculous because if you look on the back of a bottle of aspirin, if you abuse it you can also suffer some serious health issues.

The benefits of aspirin, and the risks, are both well documented. Aspirin confers clearly observable benefits in more than 90% of users; the same cannot be said of SSRIs. Aspirin can also kill you, which can also be said of SSRIs. That's the difference. All drugs have risks, but some (e.g. aspirin) have benefits that justify the risks. Others don't.

Veterans are at particular risk of being prescribed whatever is most profitable. PhRMA has got its hooks deep into the VA. These days, that would mean SSRIs, not tricyclics.

edvard2 says

BTW,

I just read that study. The study had nothing to do with SSRI's. The Study was for covering the use of MDMA's, which is a totally different type of drug.

Yes. RS said this:

Robert Sproul says

These poor suckers need psychedelics not toxic SSRIs.

Psilocybin, DMT, and MDMA regimens can effectively treat PTSD.

And then Jazz Music said:

jazz music says

Robert Sproul says

These poor suckers need psychedelics

So what's your message here? That death is too good for them?

To which I responded:

humanity says

I've read the studies RS is referring to. Look it up.

An example, one of many: http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/mdma_ptsd_u.s._study_veterans_of_war/

I'm sure SSRIs sometimes work well, but it does seem that some less conventional therapies have been successful in treating PTSD. There has been a lot written about this.

There's a whole lot of lack of knowledge in regards to these medications in this thread. For the first time maybe ever I actually agree with Edvard.

Fwiw, I also agree that a suitable treatment for PTSD has not yet been discovered.

curious2 says

If that's the case, then it isn't an SSRI, it's probably a tricyclic, and those are less harmful and more likely beneficial than the SSRIs.

Uh... no its not. Its an SSRi, and if you want to read more about this, it might help enlighten your knowledge so that the next time you decide to generically spout off "facts" that aren't based in reality, maybe you'll have a valid point. According to Wikipedia, and also according to the data sheets that come with my medication, Celexa and others in its class is an SSRi.

"Citalopram (/sɪˈtælɵpræm/ or /saɪˈtælɵpræm/; brand names: Celexa, Cipramil) is an antidepressant drug of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class"

curious2 says

The benefits of aspirin, and the risks, are both well documented. Aspirin confers clearly observable benefits in more than 90% of users; the same cannot be said of SSRIs. Aspirin can also kill you, which can also be said of SSRIs. That's the difference. All drugs have risks, but some (e.g. aspirin) have benefits that justify the risks. Others don't.

Celexa ( Citalopram ) as I previously mentioned before has been around for decades and yes- it has proven to have a level of success- just like aspirin. The remainder of your comment is basically reiterating what I just said above.

edvard2 says

( Citalopram )

was invented in 1989, and received FDA clearance (reluctantly) in 1998. It has not been around 40 years as you claimed. It is less bad than paroxetine, because it has a longer serum half-life and is therefore less likely to cause withdrawal syndrome. That doesn't make it good, only less bad.

Either the drug you are taking is more recent than you claimed, or it is a different drug from what you claimed. You can check the label and clarify if you want. It's your life, or at least it used to be until Obamneycare.

Beware of Wikipedia though, it is heavily edited by PhRMA employees and prescribers, and compulsive addicts. Quoting Wikipedia is midway between quoting a TV advertisement and quoting a manufacturer-sponsored study: all three illustrate that misleading information ("We know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction") can be terribly dangerous. By its own admission, Wikipedia is not a source; if you insist on reading it, at least balance it with some actual sources that are subject to fact-checking:

Newsweek: "Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong"

Vanity Fair: "Deadly Medicine"

curious2 says

was invented in 1989, and received FDA clearance (reluctantly) in 1998. It has not been around 40 years as you claimed. It is less bad than paroxetine, because it has a longer serum half-life and is therefore less likely to cause withdrawal syndrome. That doesn't make it good, only less bad.

Either the drug you are taking is more recent than you claimed, or it is a different drug from what you claimed. You can check the label and clarify if you want. It's your life, or at least it used to be until Obamneycare.

Ok... so its been around for 25 years. So you should feel proud of yourself for correcting me on the one point of my post that made no difference otherwise to the overall lack of fact you previously presented. The rest of your response to me looks like a lot of stumbling around trying to prove this strange theory of yours in regards to "SSRI's", which BTW, covers a large class of drugs and their collective dangers, of which in almost all cases are not any different from any other drug on the market. as

And nice little hook, throwin' in some of classic right-winger crap at the end. Not sure how some of you always manage to pin politics to everything. My response had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with medical facts. So if you want to throw that in there at the end- fine. Still doesn't make your previous statements anymore true in the end.

edvard2 says

that made no difference

To the contrary, it makes a huge difference, because older drugs are off patent and PhRMA doesn't pay doctors to prescribe them. As the old practitioners' adage says, "Always prescribe a drug in its first two years on the market, while it still works." The minute it goes off patent, a "new and improved" drug will be contrasted with the "old and lousy" drug that was previously hailed as a (financial) miracle. Sometimes, you can even look up how much your doctor was paid to prescribe PhRMA's latest and greatest moneymaker, although the reported numbers are only the tip of the iceberg; there is also the MCME treadmill etc.

edvard2 says

pin politics to everything.

Obamneycare was specifically brought to you by PhRMA in a secret deal that the White House initially denied but then admitted after Billy Tauzin bragged publicly about it. Pointing out that widely reported fact isn't a partisan effort to pin something where it doesn't belong, but your partisan reaction shows your superficiality. If you or the people you rely on watch the national commercial news on TV, count the ads to see who's paying the piper and calling the tune, then consider how that has shaped your worldview.

curious2 says

To the contrary, it makes a huge difference, because older drugs are off patent and PhRMA doesn't pay doctors to prescribe them.

Stay on subject. I don't care about whatever dealings go on between pharma companies and doctors. My responses were directed at your previous comments regarding the effectiveness and dangers of SSRI's, none of which are true, and in the case of the study you used as an example, the study wasn't even about the same family or group of medications. The debate ended a long time ago.curious2 says

Obamneycare was specifically brought to you by PhRMA in a secret deal that the White House initially denied but then admitted after Billy Tauzin bragged publicly about it. Pointing out that widely reported fact isn't a partisan effort to pin something where it doesn't belong, but your partisan reaction shows your superficiality.

The fact that you're using a negative term for the ACA tells me it would be worthless to debate you about anything related to ACA... IF THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE DEBATE. Like I said before- my comments had nothing to do- zilch- nada- zero to do with ACA and everything to do with drugs that have been around a lot longer than the ACA or even the Obama administration.

curious2 says

The plural of anecdote is not data.

You just insulted the entire anti-BenghaziCare contingent on this forum.

(14 horror stories, plus projections of higher costs from right-wing think tanks, does equal data!)

Iosef V HydroCabron says

(14 horror stories, plus projections of higher costs from right-wing think tanks, does equal data!

Even the federal government's own projections showed Obamneycare would increase spending even above prior law. That's why the lobbyists wrote it: to maximize revenue. In the country that was already spending more than any other in the history of the world, they found a way to increase spending even further. And by all accounts spending has indeed increased, even above what we were spending before. Literally nobody disputes that, the Obamanauts only claim (falsely) that the cost increase curve has been bent downward, contrary to federal projections showing it has been bent upward. If you insist on seeing all opposition to that legislation as a vast right-wing conspiracy, then get together with bgamall and post about wonky arms in Sandy Hook.

edvard2 says

The fact that you're using a negative term for the ACA tells me it would be worthless to debate you about anything related to ACA.

The only part of the official title that was actually true was the last A. It was an Act. (Actual partisans insisted on calling it a bill, even after it became an Act. You call me a partisan, because that's the binary prism through which you see the world, you can't really consider issues on a case-by-case basis, and you certainly don't consider that in this case your team is wrong.) All else in the title was patently false. The fact that you would parrot a clearly false title, because you don't get past the headline, says it would be worthless to debate you.

... and once again this post has fallen off the deep end into a bunch of rambling nonsense.

curious2 says

The only part of the official title that was actually true was the last A. It was an Act. All else in the title was patently false. The fact that you would parrot a clearly false title, because you don't get past the headline, says it would be worthless to debate you.

I find it befuddling that you seem to not understand what I just said. You're the one getting all giddy ramping up the anti-obamacare crap. If I wanted to talk about Obamacare, then I would have taken part in an actual ACA-related post, which this one was not. Do you understand the concept of simple debate? A subject is started and people who have something to contribute to it simply state their opinions about that particular subject. I'm not going to repeat myself. I already stated my points against the ones you made before.

So fuck that. Lets talk about Robocop instead.

edvard2 says

... and once again this post has fallen off the deep end into a bunch of rambling nonsense.

Remain calm,,,deep breaths. Now crush up a pill and insuffocate it.

Now you are cured!

God bless heritagefoundationcare!

I just love how McDonald's is TOLERATING this political trespassing.

While you are free to protest out on Public property, provided you have the proper permits, you are not allowed to go inside and disrupt businesses.

errc says

Remain calm,,,deep breaths. Now crush up a pill and insuffocate it.

Now you are cured!

God bless heritagefoundationcare!

Clearly our education system is failing us when above statements show such voids in intelligence.

Those people only have a job because Ben Bernanke printed up billions and gave it to McDonald's just minutes before Obama did one of his dictator press banned political monologues, where he announced out of the blue that McDonald's would be hiring 80,000 people in a time, when McDonald's was being killed by the "Say no to food" campaign that Michelle Obama was promoting across the country.

We all suck so what's the point.
The Liberals tried to convince that everyone was a winner, but losers realized that if they are a winner too for not even trying, then we all must suck. I mean if there is no benchmark to go by.

I refuse to work with the losers they suck, they know it, I know it, the top execs who needs action knows it. Their stupidity allows me to work at home in a bathrobe nursing a pot of coffee.

curious2 says

Even the federal government's own projections showed Obamneycare would increase spending even above prior law.

Congressional Budget Office says

Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

deficits

reflect the gap between taxes and spending. Obamneycare raised both taxes and spending. Also, most [updated - see below] of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits. And, the accounting gimmick about double-counting the same $ as deficit reduction and Medicare extension has been acknowledged even by HHS, i.e. you can't spend the same money twice, despite the appearance of that result in the deficit and Medicare projections; the legislation was drafted to manipulate CBO scoring into producing a result that even HHS acknowledged was not possible. The fact remains that even the federal projections show the legislation increases spending even above prior law. That was the point of enacting it.

If you want to look at houses that are unoccupied (ex: foreclosure, corporate sale, etc) that's where you need a real estate agent.

curious2 says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

deficits

reflect the gap between taxes and spending. Obamneycare raised both taxes and spending. Also, most of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits. The fact remains that even the federal projections show the legislation increases spending even above prior law. That was the point of enacting it.

I missed the meaning of your remark, because the objection seems so minor to me.

Sure, government spending can be bad, but we're talking of spending on fixing busted human beings that is going to happen one way or another, whether through private or public methods.

If the public way is less efficient - this has been proven manifestly untrue in several foreign health-care systems - then that's bad. (I have an idea that ACA will be less efficient, FWIW, because the ACA is to some degree a welfare system for health insurance companies, but that question has yet to be settled.)

But why object, per se, to government handling dollars that will be spent anyway? The issue is whether the total efficiency of the system will get worse or better.

So, yes, "even the federal government's own projections showed Obamacare would increase spending" is not something that anyone outside a coma would deny. Why use that statement to argue against the law?

It's like saying that "Even the Pentagon admits its budget will be spent on armaments and troop training."

If you can reduce the cost of selling from 6% to 4%, that is still 2% in your pocket for some extra work.

Research who sells homes in your area using Redfin which shows you the listing agent and the buying agent.

Open houses: the one that matters is the one for brokers, have a buffett with drinks and appear open to change. You want to identify agents who have buyers for your area.

Offer 3.5 % to 4% to the selling agent. If your area has 5% rather than 6% because of high prices, 3% should be enough. 3% is what agents get to show you a new home development, sometimes less.

Lawyers depend on your area. In many cases not needed in California, but select a good title company you can work with.

Know the local splits on closing costs. It varries with location. For example, in Sacramento the seller pays almost all while elsewhere there is a split.

See if you can find someone who has done it to find out how they did.

You are going to do a lot of research. It will take much of your time. But a lot of the time spent, you end up doing even with an agent.

curious2 says

most of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits

this is wrong.

but what is making the deficits smaller than they should be is the ongoing QE.

Green is the actual YOY deficit with QE factored in/out

Purple is YOY Fed bond holding increase (aka QE)

Blue is total YOY deficit -- including trust fund growth, largely interest (printed bonds) at this point.

Red is YOY debt held by the public, (and the Fed is part of the 'public' here).

Since the Fed pays the interest it gets back to the Treasury, it's OK to ignore their holdings for now.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

spending on fixing busted human beings

No, you've missed the larger point, we're talking about maximizing power (including revenue) for the patronage networks that wrote the legislation, which everyone else calls spending. Any effect on health is incidental, and often negative. If they can break you or otherwise make you worse off and then make more money treating the problem they created or worsened, then that's "creating jobs" (and revenue) from their POV. That is the debate on this thread, i.e. the OP presents one party as evil because it doesn't want to spend more on stuff that is often harmful, and implies the other party is wonderful because they always want to spend more on stuff that is often harmful. It's a bit sad how when they put "health" in the title, the partisans run with that like cheerleaders, Rah-Rah spell H-E-L-L (oops), damn the numbers full speed ahead. If they want to play their partisan games I wish they would stick to issues that people's lives don't depend on, e.g. bridges to nowhere.

Bellingham Bill says

curious2 says

most of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits

this is wrong.

Actually you have a point there, "most" depends on whether Medicare is included in the general budget. So, if we count Medicare in the budget, as we should, then I should replace "most" with "much." The employer and individual mandates are obviously off budget. If I may make an observation, this is a basic difference between thinking persons and partisan drones. When someone points out an actual error, I acknowledge and correct it. The partisans just keep parroting their party lines, without learning anything.

CaptainShuddup says

The Liberals tried to convince that everyone was a winner

Dude.

I'm a total liberal, and I think you are not a winner. You deserve to lose because of your intellectual and character deficits. You do not deserve to have your self-esteem boosted, nor do you deserve a helping hand from the government.

Now how do you spin that as Kumbaya feel-goodism?

curious2 says

Any effect on health is incidental, and often negative.

Why didn't you put it that way, then?

If you're arguing that most hospitals should be closed, and that most doctors should be in other professions, then go with god.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that the medical profession is completely overrated to the point of worship, and that many doctors should be out of business, but there are plenty of statistics correlating longer, not shorter, lifespans, as well as lower infant mortality, with greater availability of medical care.

I can't believe I'm arguing this point.

How do you feel about the Enlightenment, or the germ theory of disease? Scams?