Hacker News Reader

> it should be up to me if the pain is server enough to warrant opioids

It is!

You do get the drugs you need. If you actually ARE in pain. But this woman, as predicted by her doctor, was not. If you read the article, she did not have the pain, it was only fear of it.

Society does have to pay the price in the end if people are given what they want. See the problem of over-subscription of anything from pain killers (in the US) to antibiotics.

Not least, those drugs show up in ground water and in drinking water supplies, and water companies can't really filter that stuff out.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pharmaceuticals-i...

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/drugs-in-our-dr...

If you think "the levels are low - that is save", there is no scientific basis for such a statement. We have no clue what low-level exposure to drug cocktails does.

On an individual basis, good for you that you can handle yourself. You are indeed a victim of the majority. However, making opiates freely available would be catastrophic for society to a point that would dwarf the current epidemic.

In other words, it is a shame that the system can't do better for you, but your point of view is selfish.

I disagree, having studied this topic for more than a decade most of the current epidemic problems, including the death toll can be more accurately attributed to prohibitionist policies as the "War on Drugs" than to any legal availability.

On the topic of Society in General, the US War on Drugs has lead to an inordinate amount of abuse, loss of freedom, and the elimination or reduction of most constitutional protection.

treating Addiction as a Crime is what is bad for society

If you're paying for it, I agree with you.

But that's not the case in Germany, as they have a single payer healthcare system. That "easy solution" costs other people money.

Which is why I also oppose single payer, but that is a whole other topic. The fact that Single Payer is used to make those justifications is one of my primary reasons to oppose it

Hows that? It's my understanding that in a single payer system you are still allowed to pay for whatever you want or buy supplemental insurance to cover types of care the baseline single payer system will not.

I don't think this is the popular understanding of "single payer" by its advocates in the USA. They think it means "I get any medical care I want, any time, with no waiting, for free."

This is a disingenuous characterization of single-payer advocacy in this country. Nobody-but-nobody claims scarcity doesn't exist; the single-payer argument is to deny that the fitness function for who-doesn't-die-from-preventable-disease should be the person with a bigger bank account.

That's a patently ridiculous straw man. No single payer system in the world operates that way.

Easy, once there is even a "baseline" of health services that becomes a platform to start restricting and taxing other things deemed to effect health. Things like smoking, Soft Drinks, high fat or high sugar foods, exercise mandates, and a variety of other public policies around "health" become justified because of public funding for healthcare.

Now I am sure most people including you are going to agree with these public policies but again I am an individualist and believe in personal choice and freedom rare in today world of Nanny State's and collectivism

Smoking is not illegal in most places, and realistically there is an argument that it should be (at least in public) because you don't have a right to expose other people to your habit.

I don't know a single country that has socialized medicine that has illegalized high fat/sugar products or has mandated exercise. If you could point me towards instances where single payer healthcare is being used to outlaw/force such things, I would much appreciate it.

Of course they do not make it illegal, they have learned their lesson from prohibitionist policies on drugs, I can not image the horrors of human rights abuse and violence making candy illegal would bring

They do however regulate and tax to the extreme, For example, how many restaurants in socialized care nations have free refills on soda? How many places in socialized care nations can you buy candy by the pound with just normal sales tax..

>>at least in public

What the hell lets open up another can of worms... That would depend on how you define "public". See in recent years in the US there have been many laws passed the prohibit smoking in businesses that allow general consumer access, incorrectly called "public" businesses. I disagree with these laws as it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to allow or disallow smoking in their place of business. For example if a Bar wants to have smoking and you do not like smoking you are free to no go to that bar. However many people in the US believe it is their right to tell that business owner what his policy is, and they have a right to assert their dominance and their view on smoking upon others.

> They do however regulate and tax to the extreme, For example, how many restaurants in socialized care nations have free refills on soda? How many places in socialized care nations can you buy candy by the pound with just normal sales tax..

This is some bizarre fantasy. There's no connection to reality in your post.

Slight correction: Germany does not have single-payer healthcare.

But the public health insurance system (which covers 90% of the population) makes joint decisions (through broad guidelines) on what is covered. An economic assessment is always part of the decision. Representatives of doctors are heavily involved in the process as well. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss is the name of that body.

Opioid painkillers aren’t necessarily particularly expensive. They are considerably more dangerous than NSAIDs, though, hence the reluctance to prescribe them where not absolutely necessary. It’s not a money thing.