This is actually a bad thing for those who only play single player, as developers would be pressured to focus more on the online content rather than the offline single player.
That is a distinct possibility. It will be interesting to watch that play out. But having been watching the video game industry for many years, I can say that every time we hear about something being the end of single player games, it never turns out to come true. Right now to many games have online multiplayer tacked on with no really effort put into them. If online multiplayer is actually a revenue generator, rather than merely a cost, then we may actually see an improvement in online multiplayer that will be inciting to those of us that have so far shied away from it.
You're assuming companies will pass on their savings on to the consumers, especially the used-game stores, since they aren't getting any savings or earnings from this.
No actually, I'm making an even less likely assumption, that consumers will refuse to buy second hand games at the current prices if they have to pay extract for online content. I freely admit that assuming consumers will do anything in their best interests is a far stretch, but I am trying to maintain hope that people will do the right thing. As for original purchase, I don't expect the price to change at all, I think hope that Sony's claim of improved online service will actually come about. Even though I don't usually play online, anything that improves for my fellow gamers is something I support.
or the should have made the service into something like Xbox Live.
For those of use that only play a very few online games, and prefer single player or offline multiplayer, I am very glad that Sony didn't follow that pattern. Why would I want to pay $50 a year for a service I rarely use, when it is included with the games I purchase, or if I purchased second hand, I could purchase a lifetime pass for that game (presumably for less than $50, but that remains to be seen).
As for the markeing speak, how is decreasing the number of players available forplay enhaning the experience?
The idea, and we don't know yet how it will work out, is that the number of players will not decrease, or not decrease significantly, but that all players will be paying to help support the service. Right now only the original purchaser is supplying anything toward the current cost of the service.
I think you are misunderstanding what the PSN pass is. Look at the title of it and you might understand. This is not a pass to play the game one time, or by the original owner, it's a pass to play the game on the PlayStation Network. It's a pass that authorizes access to Sony's online service.
The PSN Pass does not restricted resale of the product. They can still be resold, and used after resale. What you can't do after resale, without purchasing a new PSN pass, is to access that games services on the PSN.
This has nothing at all to do with first-sale doctrine. Like many other products in history, this is about a service attached to the product, that does not transfer rights. If you have ever purchased a car, or any electronics you should already be familiar with this process. The warranty that you receive on most purchase is for the original purchaser only. So if you sell a car, or other warrantied product, and it is still under warranty, it will no longer be under warranty for the new owner. At least in this case, you can purchase a PSN pass even as the second owner.
In my day you had a disc, and that was your game. You could play it, lend it to a friend, sell it, turn it into a shuriken (though that was mostly done with AOL cds). I miss that.
And under this process you can still do all of those things. What you can't do is transfer your access to the online service. Well you can, but you would have to transfer your entire PSN account, which might be a violation of the EULA, but since i never considered doing it I'm not positive.
This is an absolute boon to those of us that don't play online, but do like to play the single player version of online games. In theory the resale cost will go down, since the resold version will not have online access included. Take $10 of the second hand resale cost and charge $10 for a PSN pass and everyone wins (expect gamestop, but you won't see me crying over that). This way the prices stay the same, while the service provide has more money to spend on maintaining and improving the service. And if you don't want to use the online service, your cost actually goes down (for second hand games). I just wish they would reduce the cost for original sale and make the online component an extra cost for those that want it.
Why can't we vote with regulation? We don't allow companies to dump massive amounts of toxic wastes into rivers, why do we allow them to dump toxic code into their products?
There is a big difference between environment destruction or impacts on human and animal well being, and having to pay for an online service. In a free market, which we claim to have in most western countries, you can not regulate price.
Plus you don't always have a vote...At that point "voting with our dollars" becomes a fantasy, a weak "the market will fix it" dream that will never come true.
You always have a vote, always. If everyone in a particular industry is operating in a way you disagree with, then you do not participate in the industry. Boycott is one of the most powerful tools consumers have. Too bad most people are too weak to actually exercise that power.
You can also create a competitor. If your product or service is what people actually want then you will succeed. But what you might find out, is that what you think people want, is not what they actually want.
From a political standpoint, those who don't vote, don't matter. Sad but true.
This is exactly why I think for any change to pass it will require a majority of registered voters, not a majority of voters. Not voting should be the same as voting to keep things exactly as they are. In my opinion, by not voting, you are saying that you like things the way they are.
Even better is to realize that both of the Democrat Presidents who increased spending were elected immediately following a major recession/depression under a Republican. If the pattern holds true and we can maintain a Democrat as president, then we will get out of the current recession and then reduce spending significantly. Doubt that's going to happen since I don't believe Obama is a charismatic enough president to get elected again, but I can hope right.
You put heroin in the same category as Starbucks? You have a messed up sense of proportion, my friend.....
I know really. I mean Heroin is reasonably priced for what you get yet hardly anyone buys it, while Starbucks is overpriced and people line up daily for their morning cup of burt beans and hot water. Makes you wonder which is more addictive.
Being familiar with addiction, I will tell you that it's easier to quit many other drugs than it is to quit caffeine, especially the over priced crap that comes out of seattle chain stores.
the people who feel strongest about drug legalization are mainly the ones who want to do drugs...assuming that all drug users (that is, those who are aware enough to vote) would vote yes to drug legalization [wikipedia.org], we can say there are fewer than 46% who use drugs regularly.
Many people who use drugs either do not vote, or can not vote. This is also true of those that don't use drugs, so you can't take voting numbers to represent the number of users.
More importantly, many non-users would vote for legalization. Legalization is not necessarily condoning use, but it is condoning the right to make choices and reducing the costs associated with those choices. The cost of drug enforcement in this country is high. The cost of lost taxation and the loss of a complete potential market is also high. People are going to use drugs, regardless of the legality, as was clearly understood by the end of prohibition. Many people support legalization for these reasons, even though they are not users themselves.
There are also those on the other side that vote against legalization, or abstain from voting on the issue, while also using restricted drugs. Their reasoning is a bit more convoluted, but it's a lot like conservatives voting against gay marriage, yet being caught involved in homosexual relationships.
That's because cooperation is dangerously close to socialism.
Best Quote I have read in a while. Though I think it would be more accurate as "Cooperation is dangerously close to communism." But that's probably just picking nits.
Shouldn't be too difficult to rearrange the worlds wealth equally, distribute the workload evenly to the populace, remove humans innate competitiveness, get rid of all people that are insane / have no self control, control the crazy teenagers and rewrite the rules of most societies. Lets get to work on that....
The people in the advanced countries now face a choice: we can express justified horror, or we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes. If we refuse to do the latter, we will be contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead. - Noam Chomsky
The issues you raise are solvable, and each one has been addressed at some point in some culture (except competitiveness but that would be foolish to remove), we just need to be willing to look at the cause.
I don't hire engineers that aren't interested in learning.
So you hire mostly self taught engineers? I mean nothing shows an interest in learning than actually doing it, on your own time, of your own choosing, with no other benefit other than the knowledge itself. Few people go to college to learn, most go to receive a degree. I could be log but your seemed to imply that lack of general education at a university implies a lack of interest in learning, and really a university degree and desire to learn are completely unrelated (though you could of course have both)
Now your point might still hold true of the original post, since it shows an explicit lack of interest in learning, and merely an interest in gaining a degree.
should a government employee be expected to give up all rights to individual privacy just because they work for the government?
When they are on-the-job, yes.
When referring to police officers you have to realize that they are, in many jurisdictions, always on the job. An Off-Duty police officer can, and in many case, must conduct his duties as a police officer regardless of his current status as on or off duty. If an off duty police officer observes a crime, be it directly or indirectly, they can, and in some case are obligated, to intervene. This means that Police Officers are always on the Job.
In my opinion that means that they should give up their right to privacy as long as they have heightened privileges. For an open and free government to work, this should be a requirement of all government officials. If you don't like giving up your right to privacy then don't voluntarily accept a governmental position.
It is gambling in the exact same sense that craps is gambling. Most people will not get as much out of the insurance system as they put in. The majority of those insured will loose a little over a life time, and a rare few will benefit a lot. If this were not true then Insurance companies would be out of money rather than making large profits. The wealthy understand this, and it is why the fight against any public health care. Right now most of the wealthy people do not pay into any insurance pool. If health care was public then they would be forced to pay into the same pool as the rest of us. If you can actually afford to pay medical bills directly, then you would be foolish to put money into a shared pool that is priced specifically so that the odds are in favor of the insurance company rather than the individual.
Don't forget that three Democrats joined in with six Republicans to file suit in the DC District Court seeking an injunction against continued action in Libya.
I think you miss understand. Congress is not against continued action in Libya, they are just against continued action in support of the National Transitional Council. If NATO where supporting the Libyan army then none of this would even be an issue. The corporations that finance the members of congress have spent plenty on the continuation of the libyan government, the last thing they want are a group of free people running the country.
Do you not think that items in the following list may deserve to be protected?
The simple rule should be this. Government should not act with out fully knowledgeable consent of the the people whom the govern. Any action taken in secret is without the fully knowledgeable consent of the people. Any action taken without consent of the people is tyranny.
To put it succinctly, no, the government should not maintain any secrets, including those on your list.
Non Classified data Is paid for by the public, so is owned by the public.
By separating classified and non-classified data, all that you are doing is giving motivation to classify more information.
Any and every action made by an elected official or their appointees must be public knowledge for a representative democracy to work. Otherwise the people represented have no way of knowing if their interests are being met. As long as we allow information to remain hidden from the people of the country then we have nothing but tyranny.
The majority of such conditions - those that require lifelong medication - are also those that most require followup and management.
I'll agree that some medications have significant side affects that need to be monitored. If someone has to take Warfarin for the rest of their lives due to an increased chance of blood clots, they should probably be monitored regularly to make sure the levels are correct and that the person does not have internal bleeding. If a person is has a seizure disorder and is on Phenytoin then they should have their liver function tested regularly.
On the other hand, a person with asthma that needs to have handy a rescue inhaler of Albuterol should not need to see their Dr ever year for the prescription when their number or severity of attacks has not change. Another person with epilepsy taking Levetiracetam doesn't need to see their dr unless they are experience significant side affects, which would have been seen in the first couple months, or has break through seizure activity. I'll tell you for sure that no Dr is going to be requesting an EEG looking for interictal activity on the off chance that the patient is having seizure that they are not aware of.
Not that any of that really matters, because if concern over side effects or changes in disease severity were really concern then doctors wouldn't be handing out drugs known to cause suicidal and homicidal ideation like they were candy, with out even the scheduling a follow up, let alone regular monitoring.
But the notion that docs should be handing out lifelong prescriptions to medication is simply ludicrous: no physician, drug manufacturer, or regulatory body would take on such a risk.
This is the most truthful statement in what you wrote, but not because any of those groups are worried about a patients health, but that lifelong prescriptions cost those groups lots of money. A Dr does not get mandatory return visits, the drug manufactures can't push the latest, and still protected under patent, medications, and regulatory bodies couldn't justify governmental funding. These groups do not lobby against OTC drugs because of the risk, it's because of the massive loss of revenue.
The majority of such conditions - those that require lifelong medication - are also those that most require followup and management.
I'll agree that some medications have significant side affects that need to be monitored. If someone has to take Warfarin for the rest of their lives due to an increased chance of blood clots, they should probably be monitored regularly to make sure the levels are correct and that the person does not have internal bleeding. If a person is has a seizure disorder and is on Phenytoin then they should have their liver function tested regularly.
On the other hand, a person with asthma that needs to have handy a rescue inhaler of Albuterol should not need to see their Dr ever year for the prescription when their number or severity of attacks has not change. Another person with epilepsy taking Levetiracetam doesn't need to see their dr unless they are experience significant side affects, which would have been seen in the first couple months, or has break through seizure activity. I'll tell you for sure that no Dr is going to be requesting an EEG looking for interictal activity on the off chance that the patient is having seizure that they are not aware of.
Not that any of that really matters, because if concern over side effects or changes in disease severity were really concern then doctors wouldn't be handing out drugs known to cause suicidal and homicidal ideation like they were candy.
But the notion that docs should be handing out lifelong prescriptions to medication is simply ludicrous: no physician, drug manufacturer, or regulatory body would take on such a risk.
This is the most truthful statement in what you wrote, but not because any of those groups are worried about a patients health, but that lifelong prescriptions cost those groups lots of money. A Dr does not get mandatory return visits, the drug manufactures can't push the latest, and still protected under patent, medications, and regulatory bodies couldn't justify governmental funding. These groups do not lobby against OTC drugs because of the risk, it's because of the massive loss of revenue.
This is what happens when people allow anyone to step on their freedoms. Unions are just one, very valid, way of defending your freedoms against people or organizations that have more power than you do individually.
But don't worry about it too much. It's all part of the cycle. The good thing is that this means if we have to deal with the crappy part of the cycle then our children won't, and seriously they deserve something good after having to deal with the legacy we are bound to leave behind.
But if everybody puts all there shit on there, eventually it will get to the point where those assholes won't have anybody to work for them anymore.
Not that I would want to work for a company that does this, but since it's going to happen anyway I'm glad I'm one of those people smart enough to not be on facebook, or part of any other social network (outside of real life). Once all the facebook users are fully discriminated against I should end up in high demand.
The time has come for the engineers of the world to unite.
You would need to somehow deprogram most of the engineers that think they are better off negotiating on their own behalf, and don't realize that companies work very hard to keep people believing that myth.
Are you proposing that anyone be able to buy any prescription medication they want?
This would certainly be better than the current process. People who have life long ailments will most likely have to remain on a certain prescription medication until their condition changes. Rather than write out life long prescriptions, Drs end up writing out prescriptions for some period of months. This forces people to return to the Dr, paying the cost of the visit, every few months just for the Dr write a new prescription. This is an unnecessary cost that should not have to be incurred.
there is no money to be made in office visits for $4 prescriptions.
That alone should be the argument as to why people should not need to visit a Dr for many, if not most, prescriptions. Even more so when most Drs will write out what ever prescription you ask for. I have seen many Drs prescribe antibiotics, even after saying that the illness was a viral infection.
Slashdot Mirror
This is actually a bad thing for those who only play single player, as developers would be pressured to focus more on the online content rather than the offline single player.
That is a distinct possibility. It will be interesting to watch that play out. But having been watching the video game industry for many years, I can say that every time we hear about something being the end of single player games, it never turns out to come true. Right now to many games have online multiplayer tacked on with no really effort put into them. If online multiplayer is actually a revenue generator, rather than merely a cost, then we may actually see an improvement in online multiplayer that will be inciting to those of us that have so far shied away from it.
You're assuming companies will pass on their savings on to the consumers, especially the used-game stores, since they aren't getting any savings or earnings from this.
No actually, I'm making an even less likely assumption, that consumers will refuse to buy second hand games at the current prices if they have to pay extract for online content. I freely admit that assuming consumers will do anything in their best interests is a far stretch, but I am trying to maintain hope that people will do the right thing. As for original purchase, I don't expect the price to change at all, I think hope that Sony's claim of improved online service will actually come about. Even though I don't usually play online, anything that improves for my fellow gamers is something I support.
or the should have made the service into something like Xbox Live.
For those of use that only play a very few online games, and prefer single player or offline multiplayer, I am very glad that Sony didn't follow that pattern. Why would I want to pay $50 a year for a service I rarely use, when it is included with the games I purchase, or if I purchased second hand, I could purchase a lifetime pass for that game (presumably for less than $50, but that remains to be seen).
As for the markeing speak, how is decreasing the number of players available forplay enhaning the experience?
The idea, and we don't know yet how it will work out, is that the number of players will not decrease, or not decrease significantly, but that all players will be paying to help support the service. Right now only the original purchaser is supplying anything toward the current cost of the service.
I think you are misunderstanding what the PSN pass is. Look at the title of it and you might understand. This is not a pass to play the game one time, or by the original owner, it's a pass to play the game on the PlayStation Network. It's a pass that authorizes access to Sony's online service.
The PSN Pass does not restricted resale of the product. They can still be resold, and used after resale. What you can't do after resale, without purchasing a new PSN pass, is to access that games services on the PSN.
This has nothing at all to do with first-sale doctrine. Like many other products in history, this is about a service attached to the product, that does not transfer rights. If you have ever purchased a car, or any electronics you should already be familiar with this process. The warranty that you receive on most purchase is for the original purchaser only. So if you sell a car, or other warrantied product, and it is still under warranty, it will no longer be under warranty for the new owner. At least in this case, you can purchase a PSN pass even as the second owner.
In my day you had a disc, and that was your game. You could play it, lend it to a friend, sell it, turn it into a shuriken (though that was mostly done with AOL cds). I miss that.
And under this process you can still do all of those things. What you can't do is transfer your access to the online service. Well you can, but you would have to transfer your entire PSN account, which might be a violation of the EULA, but since i never considered doing it I'm not positive.
This is an absolute boon to those of us that don't play online, but do like to play the single player version of online games. In theory the resale cost will go down, since the resold version will not have online access included. Take $10 of the second hand resale cost and charge $10 for a PSN pass and everyone wins (expect gamestop, but you won't see me crying over that). This way the prices stay the same, while the service provide has more money to spend on maintaining and improving the service. And if you don't want to use the online service, your cost actually goes down (for second hand games). I just wish they would reduce the cost for original sale and make the online component an extra cost for those that want it.
Why can't we vote with regulation? We don't allow companies to dump massive amounts of toxic wastes into rivers, why do we allow them to dump toxic code into their products?
There is a big difference between environment destruction or impacts on human and animal well being, and having to pay for an online service. In a free market, which we claim to have in most western countries, you can not regulate price.
Plus you don't always have a vote...At that point "voting with our dollars" becomes a fantasy, a weak "the market will fix it" dream that will never come true.
You always have a vote, always. If everyone in a particular industry is operating in a way you disagree with, then you do not participate in the industry. Boycott is one of the most powerful tools consumers have. Too bad most people are too weak to actually exercise that power.
You can also create a competitor. If your product or service is what people actually want then you will succeed. But what you might find out, is that what you think people want, is not what they actually want.
From a political standpoint, those who don't vote, don't matter. Sad but true.
This is exactly why I think for any change to pass it will require a majority of registered voters, not a majority of voters. Not voting should be the same as voting to keep things exactly as they are. In my opinion, by not voting, you are saying that you like things the way they are.
Even better is to realize that both of the Democrat Presidents who increased spending were elected immediately following a major recession/depression under a Republican. If the pattern holds true and we can maintain a Democrat as president, then we will get out of the current recession and then reduce spending significantly. Doubt that's going to happen since I don't believe Obama is a charismatic enough president to get elected again, but I can hope right.
You put heroin in the same category as Starbucks? You have a messed up sense of proportion, my friend.....
I know really. I mean Heroin is reasonably priced for what you get yet hardly anyone buys it, while Starbucks is overpriced and people line up daily for their morning cup of burt beans and hot water. Makes you wonder which is more addictive.
Being familiar with addiction, I will tell you that it's easier to quit many other drugs than it is to quit caffeine, especially the over priced crap that comes out of seattle chain stores.
the people who feel strongest about drug legalization are mainly the ones who want to do drugs...assuming that all drug users (that is, those who are aware enough to vote) would vote yes to drug legalization [wikipedia.org], we can say there are fewer than 46% who use drugs regularly.
Many people who use drugs either do not vote, or can not vote. This is also true of those that don't use drugs, so you can't take voting numbers to represent the number of users.
More importantly, many non-users would vote for legalization. Legalization is not necessarily condoning use, but it is condoning the right to make choices and reducing the costs associated with those choices. The cost of drug enforcement in this country is high. The cost of lost taxation and the loss of a complete potential market is also high. People are going to use drugs, regardless of the legality, as was clearly understood by the end of prohibition. Many people support legalization for these reasons, even though they are not users themselves.
There are also those on the other side that vote against legalization, or abstain from voting on the issue, while also using restricted drugs. Their reasoning is a bit more convoluted, but it's a lot like conservatives voting against gay marriage, yet being caught involved in homosexual relationships.
That's because cooperation is dangerously close to socialism.
Best Quote I have read in a while. Though I think it would be more accurate as "Cooperation is dangerously close to communism." But that's probably just picking nits.
Shouldn't be too difficult to rearrange the worlds wealth equally, distribute the workload evenly to the populace, remove humans innate competitiveness, get rid of all people that are insane / have no self control, control the crazy teenagers and rewrite the rules of most societies. Lets get to work on that....
The people in the advanced countries now face a choice: we can express justified horror, or we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes. If we refuse to do the latter, we will be contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead. - Noam Chomsky
The issues you raise are solvable, and each one has been addressed at some point in some culture (except competitiveness but that would be foolish to remove), we just need to be willing to look at the cause.
I don't hire engineers that aren't interested in learning.
So you hire mostly self taught engineers? I mean nothing shows an interest in learning than actually doing it, on your own time, of your own choosing, with no other benefit other than the knowledge itself. Few people go to college to learn, most go to receive a degree. I could be log but your seemed to imply that lack of general education at a university implies a lack of interest in learning, and really a university degree and desire to learn are completely unrelated (though you could of course have both)
Now your point might still hold true of the original post, since it shows an explicit lack of interest in learning, and merely an interest in gaining a degree.
should a government employee be expected to give up all rights to individual privacy just because they work for the government?
When they are on-the-job, yes.
When referring to police officers you have to realize that they are, in many jurisdictions, always on the job. An Off-Duty police officer can, and in many case, must conduct his duties as a police officer regardless of his current status as on or off duty. If an off duty police officer observes a crime, be it directly or indirectly, they can, and in some case are obligated, to intervene. This means that Police Officers are always on the Job.
In my opinion that means that they should give up their right to privacy as long as they have heightened privileges. For an open and free government to work, this should be a requirement of all government officials. If you don't like giving up your right to privacy then don't voluntarily accept a governmental position.
Guardians are supposed to check batteries and devices every week.
If Guardians where capable of checking things regularly then they wouldn't need these devices in the first place.
None of them. Not one country in the world has a problem with cannabis use.
Looking at the wikipedia link it appears that China and Japan seem to have a problem with cannabis use.
Medical insurance isn't gambling.
It is gambling in the exact same sense that craps is gambling. Most people will not get as much out of the insurance system as they put in. The majority of those insured will loose a little over a life time, and a rare few will benefit a lot. If this were not true then Insurance companies would be out of money rather than making large profits. The wealthy understand this, and it is why the fight against any public health care. Right now most of the wealthy people do not pay into any insurance pool. If health care was public then they would be forced to pay into the same pool as the rest of us. If you can actually afford to pay medical bills directly, then you would be foolish to put money into a shared pool that is priced specifically so that the odds are in favor of the insurance company rather than the individual.
Don't forget that three Democrats joined in with six Republicans to file suit in the DC District Court seeking an injunction against continued action in Libya.
I think you miss understand. Congress is not against continued action in Libya, they are just against continued action in support of the National Transitional Council. If NATO where supporting the Libyan army then none of this would even be an issue. The corporations that finance the members of congress have spent plenty on the continuation of the libyan government, the last thing they want are a group of free people running the country.
Do you not think that items in the following list may deserve to be protected?
The simple rule should be this. Government should not act with out fully knowledgeable consent of the the people whom the govern. Any action taken in secret is without the fully knowledgeable consent of the people. Any action taken without consent of the people is tyranny.
To put it succinctly, no, the government should not maintain any secrets, including those on your list.
Non Classified data Is paid for by the public, so is owned by the public.
By separating classified and non-classified data, all that you are doing is giving motivation to classify more information.
Any and every action made by an elected official or their appointees must be public knowledge for a representative democracy to work. Otherwise the people represented have no way of knowing if their interests are being met. As long as we allow information to remain hidden from the people of the country then we have nothing but tyranny.
Corporations are not entitled to privacy.
This would be true, but in the USA corporations are people and therefor have all the same rights as people, but not all the same morals and ethics.
The majority of such conditions - those that require lifelong medication - are also those that most require followup and management.
I'll agree that some medications have significant side affects that need to be monitored. If someone has to take Warfarin for the rest of their lives due to an increased chance of blood clots, they should probably be monitored regularly to make sure the levels are correct and that the person does not have internal bleeding. If a person is has a seizure disorder and is on Phenytoin then they should have their liver function tested regularly.
On the other hand, a person with asthma that needs to have handy a rescue inhaler of Albuterol should not need to see their Dr ever year for the prescription when their number or severity of attacks has not change. Another person with epilepsy taking Levetiracetam doesn't need to see their dr unless they are experience significant side affects, which would have been seen in the first couple months, or has break through seizure activity. I'll tell you for sure that no Dr is going to be requesting an EEG looking for interictal activity on the off chance that the patient is having seizure that they are not aware of.
Not that any of that really matters, because if concern over side effects or changes in disease severity were really concern then doctors wouldn't be handing out drugs known to cause suicidal and homicidal ideation like they were candy, with out even the scheduling a follow up, let alone regular monitoring.
But the notion that docs should be handing out lifelong prescriptions to medication is simply ludicrous: no physician, drug manufacturer, or regulatory body would take on such a risk.
This is the most truthful statement in what you wrote, but not because any of those groups are worried about a patients health, but that lifelong prescriptions cost those groups lots of money. A Dr does not get mandatory return visits, the drug manufactures can't push the latest, and still protected under patent, medications, and regulatory bodies couldn't justify governmental funding. These groups do not lobby against OTC drugs because of the risk, it's because of the massive loss of revenue.
The majority of such conditions - those that require lifelong medication - are also those that most require followup and management.
I'll agree that some medications have significant side affects that need to be monitored. If someone has to take Warfarin for the rest of their lives due to an increased chance of blood clots, they should probably be monitored regularly to make sure the levels are correct and that the person does not have internal bleeding. If a person is has a seizure disorder and is on Phenytoin then they should have their liver function tested regularly.
On the other hand, a person with asthma that needs to have handy a rescue inhaler of Albuterol should not need to see their Dr ever year for the prescription when their number or severity of attacks has not change. Another person with epilepsy taking Levetiracetam doesn't need to see their dr unless they are experience significant side affects, which would have been seen in the first couple months, or has break through seizure activity. I'll tell you for sure that no Dr is going to be requesting an EEG looking for interictal activity on the off chance that the patient is having seizure that they are not aware of.
Not that any of that really matters, because if concern over side effects or changes in disease severity were really concern then doctors wouldn't be handing out drugs known to cause suicidal and homicidal ideation like they were candy.
But the notion that docs should be handing out lifelong prescriptions to medication is simply ludicrous: no physician, drug manufacturer, or regulatory body would take on such a risk.
This is the most truthful statement in what you wrote, but not because any of those groups are worried about a patients health, but that lifelong prescriptions cost those groups lots of money. A Dr does not get mandatory return visits, the drug manufactures can't push the latest, and still protected under patent, medications, and regulatory bodies couldn't justify governmental funding. These groups do not lobby against OTC drugs because of the risk, it's because of the massive loss of revenue.
This is what happens when people allow anyone to step on their freedoms. Unions are just one, very valid, way of defending your freedoms against people or organizations that have more power than you do individually.
But don't worry about it too much. It's all part of the cycle. The good thing is that this means if we have to deal with the crappy part of the cycle then our children won't, and seriously they deserve something good after having to deal with the legacy we are bound to leave behind.
But if everybody puts all there shit on there, eventually it will get to the point where those assholes won't have anybody to work for them anymore.
Not that I would want to work for a company that does this, but since it's going to happen anyway I'm glad I'm one of those people smart enough to not be on facebook, or part of any other social network (outside of real life). Once all the facebook users are fully discriminated against I should end up in high demand.
The time has come for the engineers of the world to unite.
You would need to somehow deprogram most of the engineers that think they are better off negotiating on their own behalf, and don't realize that companies work very hard to keep people believing that myth.
Are you proposing that anyone be able to buy any prescription medication they want?
This would certainly be better than the current process. People who have life long ailments will most likely have to remain on a certain prescription medication until their condition changes. Rather than write out life long prescriptions, Drs end up writing out prescriptions for some period of months. This forces people to return to the Dr, paying the cost of the visit, every few months just for the Dr write a new prescription. This is an unnecessary cost that should not have to be incurred.
there is no money to be made in office visits for $4 prescriptions.
That alone should be the argument as to why people should not need to visit a Dr for many, if not most, prescriptions. Even more so when most Drs will write out what ever prescription you ask for. I have seen many Drs prescribe antibiotics, even after saying that the illness was a viral infection.