tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post5661262822770468569..comments2023-10-15T08:15:46.205-04:00Comments on Mike's Eyes (Spotted By): More Mass Preventive Medicine UrgedMichael Neibelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-45525366759126050722008-11-21T21:07:00.000-05:002008-11-21T21:07:00.000-05:00Robert:You're right that the article did not menti...Robert:<BR/>You're right that the article did not mention government action. I was just going or alluding to the usual method of collective concept acceptance by a culture. Geoffery Rose invented the concept of mass preventive medicine. Others then try to find a barrel of apples or oranges or plums (some aspect of society) with bad ones in it. They then do statistical studies to determine the extent of the badness. These documents will then be published as a need that government should address. The government will address it but not necessarily with direct intervention, probably with government encouragement in a round about way ala the housing crises. Perhaps doctors will be rated on how many of their patients are given this preventive medicine. And so it goes.<BR/><BR/>I agree with your concern about a medicine denied to people without their having a choice about it. But some of that will happen with rationed (socialized) medicine.<BR/><BR/>As things stand right now, I'll be there for dinner. (drooling already)Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-40316748679218017772008-11-21T15:20:00.000-05:002008-11-21T15:20:00.000-05:00Was there a plan for the government to force folks...Was there a plan for the government to force folks to use these medications?<BR/><BR/>I didn't see that in the article ... but it would certainly be bad for the State to compel preventive medicine.<BR/><BR/>At present, I'm more concerned about the government deciding a medication is NOT worth allowing people to choose to take - and forbidding it in the name of not squandering our collective wealth.<BR/><BR/>If a man can afford to take a drug which will lower his risk of cholesterol-related disease (whether by a large margin, or by 1/120th), and it's worth it to him to do so, that should be his decision, and his right ... and more power to him.<BR/><BR/>(And heck, I just might need such a med' after the holiday feasting which officially begins tomorrow night at our place ... hope to see you there!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com