IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Miller wrote:

Percocet consists of acetaminophen + oxycodone

Tylenol is the Brand name for acetaminophen.

So...if the patient is allergic to tylenol, why would anyone with a brain Rx Percocet to the patient?

Also, this is classified as a CII drug and as such in most if not all up-to-date States of the United States, each and every pruchase of this Rx by an individual within a specific State would be red flagged in the State's central pharmacy computer.

The MDs then Rxing the med would be contacted
and legal action then initiated.

Oh... and about the schedule two drugs... Central computer?

Absolutely true. You may wish to update your knowledge of Federal and State Pharmacy law.

As to George's last question's and remarks: I agree with spendi.

I know that some doctors here in Germany try to dp their profession as if it was a business.
They usually change their attitude when patients stop coming because of that (which is, of course, business related as well).

Moreover it isn't their only motivation, and there is nothing wrong with giving them an economic incentive to remain attentive to the needs and wants of their patients.

Without wanting to please the patient, why would any of them care about the patient? A satisfied customer is the best advertising, and any good professional cares about whether his customers are satisfied with good service.

My nephew is a physican who now works at Queens Hospital in Honolulu; he also teaches there. He goes to Cambodia to volunteer his services at their hospital in medical intensive care several times a year. My other nephew, a dentist, has volunteered his services in India for one year, and my brother, a ophthalmologist goes to Mexico regularly to volunteer his services.

Financially, they are very secure.

okie wrote:

Without wanting to please the patient, why would any of them care about the patient? A satisfied customer is the best advertising, and any good professional cares about whether his customers are satisfied with good service.

That certainly is the patient's view.

'£10 licence to smoke' proposed[/b]

Smokers could be forced to pay £10 for a permit to buy tobacco if a government health advisory body gets its way.

No one would be able to buy cigarettes without the permit, under the idea proposed by Health England..........................

Professor Le Grand, a former adviser to ex-PM Tony Blair, said cash raised by the proposed scheme would go to the NHS.

He said it was the inconvenience of getting a permit - as much as the cost - that would deter people from persisting with the smoking habit.

"You've got to get a form, a complex form - the government's good at complex forms; you have got to get a photograph...................

Mr Clark added: "The senior government advisor putting this idea forward is not only adding to the red tape and bureaucracy we already have in this country.

"He is openly bragging that he wants to make the form as complex as possible to fill in."

A department of health spokeswoman did not rule out such a scheme as part of the next wave of tobacco regulation.

She said: "We will be consulting later this year on the next steps on tobacco control.........

Here ya go liberals.

Tell us with a straight face that you wouldn't approve of this.

What's next? A tax to buy beer?

cicerone imposter wrote:

What's next? A tax to buy beer?

Sales tax in place in many States of the USA.

On second thought, I also wouldn't oppose a measure that required anual or semi-anual cotinine tests. And any smokers would pay a larger portion of any of their medical bills related to smoking - ie, COPD, cardiac problems, asthma, poor circulation and such.