Share wrote: > The problem with many pills is that they have harmful side
> effects. Another astounding and penetratingly relevant insight from Share. > What is even more alarming in some ways, is that people have > come to accept harmful side effects as par for the course. Which might, depending on the specific situation, be less harmful than those of an "expensive procedure." > In addition, obviously there are some procedures, such as are > found in physical and occupational therapy that could never be > replaced by a pill. Unless Big Pharma comes to insist on it! I don't actually think Obama was referring to physical or occupational therapy when he talked about "expensive procedures" being replaced by a pill, do you? "But Judy..." I wrote: The trend in which medical science has advanced such that an ailment can be cured with a pill rather than an expensive procedure? Sounds good to me. Mike wrote: > Only time will tell. Remember, Obama said there comes a time when we'll just > have to > give somebody a *pill* instead of that expensive procedure. I would say > that's moving > in that direction. Just follow the trend. From: "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 8:33 AM Subject: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] House on Obamacare! Paranoid much? Mike wrote: > It's meant to be a flop. This is just a transitional stage to a single payer > health care > system. Think *incremental-ism*. We're heading towards *equality for all*. > We'll all > have a share in mediocrity, which will constantly be defined down. If I > can't have > what you have, I'll make sure you can't have it either. We're not evolving, > we're > devolving, just like the Soviet Union did. Soon, government will dictate the > *ideal* life > span. If your genes take you beyond that, then that's not fair and > government will > have to remedy that.If your genes fail to get you to that ideal point then > you'll get > extra help to get you there, at other's expense. Now that's fair, isn't it?
