Go Back  Bike Forums > The Lounge > Foo
Reload this Page >

Is curing patients good for business?

Foo Off-Topic chit chat with no general subject.

Is curing patients good for business?

Reply

Old 04-15-18, 01:14 PM
  #26  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,159

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4944 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
You could donate your skills and time to make the world better. Go ahead.

The issue is that it isn't "weighed against life". The issue is that people that work in the medical industry have the free will to choose to research whatever they want, and the Hippocratic oath doesn't oblige them to spend their lives doing what you want them to do.


The Hippocratic oath is there to prevent abuse of power, not to make people slaves to their chosen profession.


If we want top notch research into 'unprofitable' avenues of research, then we have to ask for it through avenues that aren't the free market - donations or taxes. It isn't the doctors fault that they don't live in a communist country.
I do... at least in my little corner of the world... I help people understand tech; I volunteer to help folks with computers, and other tech in their homes that they don't understand. Free Geek Squad... essentially. But obviously that hinders the Geek Squad model of "tech so complicated" only a paid specialist can help, and thus profit from it.
genec is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 01:18 PM
  #27  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,159

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4944 Post(s)
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
Yet, there is the question of "planned obsolescence".

Items have, say a 1 year warranty, and break in 13 months... Accident? Planned?

And, of course, spare parts can be very difficult (and expensive) to acquire.

Certainly in the global market, there is a lot of question whether certain imported products are designed to wear out or break quickly, so that new products can be sold.

Is that even happening in the bicycle world?

I have thought that parts like automobile clutches and transmissions have been intentionally made difficult to service to discourage people from driving old vehicles forever. Or, perhaps not intentionally made to be difficult to service, but rather no thought was put into making them easy to service, especially for home mechanics.
Engineers are hampered by accountants... those who seek to make profit at every turn.

I have often been stopped in my tracks and told to wrap things up, that it is "Just Good Enough." I don't make that decision, it is made by others. In my case however it is not about saving lives. It is simply about designing a better device.

This is where again I come back to the issue of weighing profit against sustaining/maintaining/curing human life. Which has priority? How much profit is enough, if one is in the business of saving lives?
genec is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 01:28 PM
  #28  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 19,237
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6513 Post(s)
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Engineers are hampered by accountants... those who seek to make profit at every turn.

I have often been stopped in my tracks and told to wrap things up, that it is "Just Good Enough." I don't make that decision, it is made by others. In my case however it is not about saving lives. It is simply about designing a better device.

This is where again I come back to the issue of weighing profit against sustaining/maintaining/curing human life. Which has priority? How much profit is enough, if one is in the business of saving lives?
What if it is about improving the quality of life, not simply saving lives.

Reducing long-term cost could also be about improving the quality of life as it could in effect raise people's standard of living, and could apply to many different fields.

Well, insurance pays... yes, but who has to pay for the insurance? The government pays... and who pays for the government?
CliffordK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 01:32 PM
  #29  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 19,237
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6513 Post(s)
Is smoking cessation good for business?

Growing and packaging of tobacco?
Cancer treatment?
Asthma treatment?

Good or bad investment, personally I will not invest in tobacco related companies.

Of course, drug dependency treatment is big businesses, with several new drugs being produced specifically to treat (and perhaps cure) drug dependency.

My guess is that overlaying a map of tobacco production and tobacco dependency would show a strong correlation. Why?
CliffordK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 01:58 PM
  #30  
Kontact
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,628
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2140 Post(s)
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
So curing disease shouldn't be part of public health policies?
Are you now confusing the difference between a private company and government regulated public policy?

As I said earlier, if you want the government to put money into things that aren't profitable - call your representatives. But corporations and private citizens aren't part of "public policy".

Originally Posted by genec View Post
I do... at least in my little corner of the world... I help people understand tech; I volunteer to help folks with computers, and other tech in their homes that they don't understand. Free Geek Squad... essentially. But obviously that hinders the Geek Squad model of "tech so complicated" only a paid specialist can help, and thus profit from it.
I think that if you want to complain that doctors make too much money, you should consider how much money your company profits from the products it creates, and whether those products are truly making the world better.


People keep trying to turn certain professions into a different class of citizen. But the most important job in the world is not providing health care, the most dangerous job is not law enforcement and the most interesting job isn't acting. Everybody that works provides something the society wants or needs. If you don't like how much drug companies charge, don't use their products or travel to where they charge less.

I hate the idea that certain people are obligated to give away their services for a reduced rate just because we deem their contribution more important than someone who grows food or builds bridges.
Kontact is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 02:07 PM
  #31  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 19,237
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6513 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
If you don't like how much drug companies charge, don't use their products or travel to where they charge less.
Of course, our government has created a government enforced monopoly given to the FDA, AMA, and medical licensing boards.

I'd gladly skip the whole MD thing and order the medications I'd like online from Canada or from the UK, or wherever, but our government prohibits that for most medications.
CliffordK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 02:11 PM
  #32  
Kontact
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,628
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2140 Post(s)
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
Of course, our government has created a government enforced monopoly given to the FDA and medical licensing boards.

I'd gladly skip the whole MD thing and order the medications I'd like online from Canada or from the UK, or wherever, but our government prohibits that for most medications.
Government regulation of controlled substances and patent enforcement is for consumer and public protection, not a conspiracy against the free market.

You seem to be alternately complaining about capitalism and then saying there is too much government interference with it. You should pick one.
Kontact is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 02:16 PM
  #33  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,159

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4944 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
Are you now confusing the difference between a private company and government regulated public policy?

As I said earlier, if you want the government to put money into things that aren't profitable - call your representatives. But corporations and private citizens aren't part of "public policy".

I think that if you want to complain that doctors make too much money, you should consider how much money your company profits from the products it creates, and whether those products are truly making the world better.
One could make that argument about many things... is it making the world better to build a softer mattress, or tasty hamburger? Consider too that indulging in those things such as mattresses and burgers is often voluntary, but is wanting to be free from disease also voluntary? What if it is a communicable disease... does that not fit into a public medicine purview? Does one go on to profit from keeping society at large from such illnesses?

Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
People keep trying to turn certain professions into a different class of citizen. But the most important job in the world is not providing health care, the most dangerous job is not law enforcement and the most interesting job isn't acting. Everybody that works provides something the society wants or needs. If you don't like how much drug companies charge, don't use their products or travel to where they charge less.

I hate the idea that certain people are obligated to give away their services for a reduced rate just because we deem their contribution more important than someone who grows food or builds bridges.
Sure, everyone works to provide something society wants or needs. But the question at hand is not about wants... it is about not providing a complete cure for an illness that can/may spread to others, and not providing that complete cure due to profit motivation. At what point does that shift to making people sick so you can profit from the cure?
genec is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 02:22 PM
  #34  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 19,237
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6513 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
Government regulation of controlled substances and patent enforcement is for consumer and public protection, not a conspiracy against the free market.
I never argued against patents. Simply pointed out that they expire (unlike copyrights that seem to be unending). It is a complex business model of gouging for those first 20 years.

I have no doubt that some companies will attempt to extend their patent protection beyond that 20 years. Will GMO patents expire? Gen 2 seeds? Other companies add new developments, or the old stuff simply becomes obsolete.

Increasing cost and decreasing availability may not protect the public... or not all the public.

One might argue benefits of regulating various narcotics, but even that could be changed so a person could for example self-prescribe up to 5 Vicodin pills a month (with a national registry).

Other meds with less abuse potential perhaps don't need to be regulated, or again could have doses limited through a national registry.

For example, Albuterol has been in cycling news recently, but for non pro racers, does it really need to be regulated?

Access to birth control pills, and morning after pills has been hotly debated, with many favoring increased access from self prescribing.

Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
You seem to be alternately complaining about capitalism and then saying there is too much government interference with it. You should pick one.
?????

I'd be the first to admit that government regulations to promote both the good of the people and the good of business interests (and their owners) is complex.

Last edited by CliffordK; 04-15-18 at 02:26 PM.
CliffordK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 02:28 PM
  #35  
clemsongirl 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Not all things should be motivated by profit. I see healthcare, education and the justice system as areas that should be included in that. How the U.S. allows its healthcare industry to function in such a dysfunctional profit oriented manner amazes me, especially when you have good affordable health care systems in other countries as examples to follow. My father has a biotechnology company based in France that gets most of its outside funding from the governments Strategic Investment Fund (instead of venture capitalists) and EU funding. His work in China is also helped greatly by that government. This type of public funding can especially help promising gene therapy start-up’s with R&D costs. Instead the U.S. has a president who wanted to slash the National Institutes of Health's budget and its research funding... thankfully congress didn't.

....off for a ride on the beach bike path on this perfect weather day

eta
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
And that is the other way to get things done, and can even be done within the system we have. We just need to jack taxes way up.

But I take issue with the idea that healthcare, education and justice should be non-profit but national defense, infrastructure, food production and the press can be for-profit. What makes justice have a different status than food? Is it actually more important?

For me a country like France having no costs at all for things like excellent cancer treatment/care for everyone is a worthy social/tax cost.....as do most people in the E.U.

There were also very logical reasons for the U.S. federal government getting out of private prisons (undone by the present AG)) a couple of years ago citing among other findings...they were more expensive and offered much worse results. I see the profit incentive leading to state actions from civil asset forfeitures to sending more people to prison, housing them for longer periods of time and especially setting them up for recidivism as not the best policy.

Perhaps I just have more of a compassionate view of this than you.

Last edited by clemsongirl; 04-19-18 at 05:09 PM.
clemsongirl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 02:35 PM
  #36  
Kontact
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,628
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2140 Post(s)
Originally Posted by genec View Post
One could make that argument about many things... is it making the world better to build a softer mattress, or tasty hamburger? Consider too that indulging in those things such as mattresses and burgers is often voluntary, but is wanting to be free from disease also voluntary? What if it is a communicable disease... does that not fit into a public medicine purview? Does one go on to profit from keeping society at large from such illnesses?



Sure, everyone works to provide something society wants or needs. But the question at hand is not about wants... it is about not providing a complete cure for an illness that can/may spread to others, and not providing that complete cure due to profit motivation. At what point does that shift to making people sick so you can profit from the cure?
Again, there seems to be some confusion between public policy (government) and what free citizens do with their time. In a free society, if you want a service performed - even a life saving service - you are going to have to pay for it. If the free market system doesn't incentivize curing cancer or providing national defense, then you vote to spend your tax dollars on such things. Which is why the EPA and the Navy aren't corporations.


"Providing." Providing a cure by whom? Which private citizen is obligated to do things they don't feel like because you demand it? That's slavery.


And yes, there is a huge difference between not researching unprofitable cures and making people sick. The failure to understand the difference is why some people advocate totalitarianism as a cure for free will.
Kontact is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 02:40 PM
  #37  
Kontact
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,628
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2140 Post(s)
Originally Posted by clemsongirl View Post
Not all things should be motivated by profit. I see healthcare, education and the justice system as areas that should be included in that. How the U.S. allows its healthcare industry to function in such a dysfunctional profit oriented manner amazes me, especially when you have good affordable health care systems in other countries as examples to follow. My father has a biotechnology company based in France that gets most of its outside funding from the governments Strategic Investment Fund (instead of venture capitalists) and EU funding. This type of public funding can also especially help gene therapy start-upís with R&D costs. Instead the U.S. has a president who wanted to slash the National Healthcare Institutes budget for its research and funding... thankfully congress didn't.

....off for a ride on the beach bike path on this perfect weather day
And that is the other way to get things done, and can even be done within the system we have. We just need to jack taxes way up.

But I take issue with the idea that healthcare, education and justice should be non-profit but national defense, infrastructure, food production and the press can be for-profit. What makes justice have a different status than food? Is it actually more important?
Kontact is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 02:44 PM
  #38  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,159

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4944 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
Again, there seems to be some confusion between public policy (government) and what free citizens do with their time. In a free society, if you want a service performed - even a life saving service - you are going to have to pay for it. If the free market system doesn't incentivize curing cancer or providing national defense, then you vote to spend your tax dollars on such things. Which is why the EPA and the Navy aren't corporations.


"Providing." Providing a cure by whom? Which private citizen is obligated to do things they don't feel like because you demand it? That's slavery.


And yes, there is a huge difference between not researching unprofitable cures and making people sick. The failure to understand the difference is why some people advocate totalitarianism as a cure for free will.
Let's quit dancing here.

Say a company develops a cure for a disease such as the flu. The disease has the potential to make a lot of folks sick and some will die.

Is the government obligated to provide that cure to the people? If so, how, by paying whatever price the developing company demands? Or is there a limit?

Or does "the flu" just ravage society because only a select few can afford the cure?
genec is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 02:52 PM
  #39  
coffeesnob
Senior Member
 
coffeesnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Va
Posts: 373

Bikes: Trek DS 8.3

Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2342 Post(s)
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Let's quit dancing here.

Say a company develops a cure for a disease such as the flu. The disease has the potential to make a lot of folks sick and some will die.

Is the government obligated to provide that cure to the people? If so, how, by paying whatever price the developing company demands? Or is there a limit?

Or does "the flu" just ravage society because only a select few can afford the cure?
don't people get free diallysis if they can't afford it?
coffeesnob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 02:59 PM
  #40  
Kontact
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,628
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2140 Post(s)
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Let's quit dancing here.

Say a company develops a cure for a disease such as the flu. The disease has the potential to make a lot of folks sick and some will die.

Is the government obligated to provide that cure to the people? If so, how, by paying whatever price the developing company demands? Or is there a limit?

Or does "the flu" just ravage society because only a select few can afford the cure?
The article is not about cures that exist, but ones that companies would have to invest in developing at their own expense.


But in your example, the money has already been spent, so the company will want to get their investment back by selling the vaccine. In that case, it may approach the government to get funding that will make their investment worthwhile and cause the cure to be promulgated faster than it would in the free market.

Which is what happened in fits and starts when the small pox vaccine was developed.

https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html


So the answer is that the government is "obligated" to do whatever the people tell the government to do, and if the people want their taxes to go toward making a private company's work provided without consideration of individual payers, than that's going to happen through taxes or donations.


Now let's pretend that a company that makes a lot of cold drugs and vitamins has an idea how they could cure the cold. It will cost billions and if it succeeds it will destroy its business in the process. No one dies of the cold. Is this company obligated to destroy their investors and get all their employees laid off because they might have a cure for an inconvenient infection? And would you be okay with a 5% tax increase so the government could help this company do this work without going bankrupt?
Kontact is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 06:29 PM
  #41  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 6,530

Bikes: No. 7 now sitting in a box in the living room

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1093 Post(s)
If you cure somebody, there are many more to be cured.


Nobody went out of business eradicating smallpox, there were resources newly available to tackle other diseases.


Man never runs out of maladies and nature is always happy and willing to find new ones. Man creates plenty of sicknesses for himself as well. His own creations harm him.
__________________
Mrs. Reagan also taught me to Just Say No To Shifting, and be kind to elderly single speeds.
Rollfast is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-18, 09:21 PM
  #42  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 6,530

Bikes: No. 7 now sitting in a box in the living room

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1093 Post(s)
PS It's a FOO topic, and that is exactly where it's at. There isn't a shred or P nor R in the topic.
__________________
Mrs. Reagan also taught me to Just Say No To Shifting, and be kind to elderly single speeds.
Rollfast is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-18, 09:36 AM
  #43  
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 35,725

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 131 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5107 Post(s)
Health Insurance policy administrations call paying for treatment a Medical Loss..

GDP is any thing where there is an expenditure, money paid, that includes funeral services...












Last edited by fietsbob; 04-17-18 at 11:20 AM.
fietsbob is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-18, 10:03 AM
  #44  
no motor?
Senior Member
 
no motor?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 5,730

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 657 Post(s)
The US ranks #1 in costs and 38th in outcomes due to the profit motive. The drug and insurance companies both control things, and they figured out years ago that creating dependence was the way to make money - not creating healthy patients.
no motor? is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-18, 10:18 AM
  #45  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 19,237
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6513 Post(s)
Originally Posted by no motor? View Post
The US ranks #1 in costs and 38th in outcomes due to the profit motive. The drug and insurance companies both control things, and they figured out years ago that creating dependence was the way to make money - not creating healthy patients.
I'm not sure how that ranking comes about. But, there are many factors that go into "outcome" including general health of the society which may include too big of a food budget and too small of an exercise and fitness budget.
CliffordK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-18, 10:47 AM
  #46  
no motor?
Senior Member
 
no motor?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 5,730

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 657 Post(s)
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
I'm not sure how that ranking comes about. But, there are many factors that go into "outcome" including general health of the society which may include too big of a food budget and too small of an exercise and fitness budget.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...ystems_in_2000
no motor? is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-18, 11:37 AM
  #47  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 19,237
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6513 Post(s)
Yet, reading through the Wikipedia article, the results are two decades old, and controversial everywhere. But, it is certainly indicative that we have issues to contend with.

Other articles discuss healthcare innovation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthew.../#43089d021a71

https://www.quora.com/What-countries...-1995-and-2014

One fallacy is that not all the data is normalized by population. Perhaps the biggest competitor to the USA would be the UK with about 1/5 the US population.

Looking at current clinical trials, there are more clinical trials being run in the USA than in all of Europe + all of China + all of Canada combined.



And, those clinical trials and healthcare innovation could potentially impact the whole world.
CliffordK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-18, 02:03 PM
  #48  
no motor?
Senior Member
 
no motor?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 5,730

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 657 Post(s)
Of course it's going to be controversial, everyone wants to do well there. "Bad patient" is the usual response from the people whose main tools are the drugs and surgeries.
no motor? is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-18, 02:17 PM
  #49  
Kontact
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,628
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2140 Post(s)
Originally Posted by no motor? View Post
The US ranks #1 in costs and 38th in outcomes due to the profit motive. The drug and insurance companies both control things, and they figured out years ago that creating dependence was the way to make money - not creating healthy patients.
I don't see how drug and insurance companies could control outcomes. A guy that stops taking his TB meds when he feels better has nothing to do with pharma or insurance. A grossly overweight man that dies despite his statins is not comparable to a thinner man who also took them.


The US doesn't compare well to anywhere else because of the wider disparity in income and education to other Western countries and a much larger population in general. It doesn't take a health care conspiracy to have a nation of people in ill health.
Kontact is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-18, 04:04 PM
  #50  
no motor?
Senior Member
 
no motor?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 5,730

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 657 Post(s)
Drug and insurance companies control access, and that influences outcomes. It's not the only influence, but it's a major one.
no motor? is online now  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service