Rand Paul Gets It Wrong Regarding the Opioid 'Epidemic'

[kcchiefs6465]

[Swordsmyth]

Just how do you think he "gets it wrong"?

[kcchiefs6465]

Just how do you think he "gets it wrong"?

By not speaking about getting federal dollars out of healthcare and rather focusing on what laws he and others can come up with to restrict physicians in what they prescribe and as well, to restrict patients from what they take and for what ailment.

So when the doctors are made more fearful than they already are and they cut off opioid addicted patients in pain and said patients resort to snorting and injecting heroin or whoring themselves for 60 dollar pills of black market oxycodone, the do good politicians can spend a few more tens of thousands of dollars to hold an inquiry into just what has happened.

[Swordsmyth]

By not speaking about getting federal dollars out of healthcare and rather focusing on what laws he and others can come up with to restrict physicians in what they prescribe and as well, to restrict patients from what they take and for what ailment.

So when the doctors are made more fearful than they already are and they cut off opioid addicted patients in pain and said patients resort to snorting and injecting heroin or whoring themselves for 60 dollar pills of black market oxycodone, the do good politicians can spend a few more tens of thousands of dollars to hold an inquiry into just what has happened.

That won't happen if you cut off the federal money that is paying for the opioids?

I'm sure he wants to get the feds out of the medical insurance industry but maybe he is going for what he CAN GET since neither the Demoncrats or the Swampublicans are going to get anywhere near getting federal dollars out of healthcare.

[dannno]

By not speaking about getting federal dollars out of healthcare and rather focusing on what laws he and others can come up with to restrict physicians in what they prescribe and as well, to restrict patients from what they take and for what ailment.

Wrong (see :57 in the video)

But ya I would like to see opium be made legal for all, if people wanna adulter it then go ahead but I think most people who want to use it would be pretty happy with the sap that comes straight off the flower.. not incredibly dangerous nor incredibly addictive compared to heroin and some prescription opioids.

[kcchiefs6465]

That won't happen if you cut off the federal money that is paying for the opioids?

I'm sure he wants to get the feds out of the medical insurance industry but maybe he is going for what he CAN GET since neither the Demoncrats or the Swampublicans are going to get anywhere near getting federal dollars out of healthcare.

The solution is not restricting physicians from treating their patients with what they and the patient see fit nor should the government have any say in medicine whatever.

He starts from the position that the federal government has authority within healthcare.

If someone wishes to use oxycontin to control pain, for euphoria, etc. it is not the government's business. Period. They can talk about epidemics until the crows come home but the fact remains that they are the reason half of the bathtub narcotics exist, as well as the heroin 'epidemic,' as they sit in their palace and scratch their heads as to what happened. Their failed solutions will no doubt have more unintended consequences. He should know better.

[kcchiefs6465]

Wrong (see :57 in the video)

But ya I would like to see opium be made legal for all, if people wanna adulter it then go ahead but I think most people who want to use it would be pretty happy with the sap that comes straight off the flower.. not incredibly dangerous nor incredibly addictive compared to heroin and some prescription opioids.

I posted the video.

[dannno]

I posted the video.

He said normally he would not be concerned with the issue and leave it up to the states, but because a study showed medicaid patients use prescription opioids at twice the rate of non-medicaid patients and since it is federal money being spent, there needs to be rules. He didn't say there needs to be rules for non-medicaid people who buy the drugs with their own insurance, just rules for people who buy opioids using taxpayer dollars.

[kcchiefs6465]

That doesn't mean you listened

He said normally he would not be concerned with the issue and leave it up to the states, but because a study showed medicaid patients use prescription opioids at twice the rate of non-medicaid patients and since it is federal money being spent, there needs to be rules. He didn't say there needs to be rules for non-medicaid people who buy the drugs with their own insurance, just rules for people who buy opioids using taxpayer dollars.

Right. And the correct position would be to cut off federal dollars to healthcare. Not to imprison doctors (which he brags about Kentucky's results in doing so) and not to intefere in the doctor patient relationship. Regardless of what supposed justification he offers.

[Swordsmyth]

The solution is not restricting physicians from treating their patients with what they and the patient see fit nor should the government have any say in medicine whatever.

He starts from the position that the federal government has authority within healthcare.

If someone wishes to use oxycontin to control pain, for euphoria, etc. it is not the government's business. Period. They can talk about epidemics until the crows come home but the fact remains that they are the reason half of the bathtub narcotics exist, as well as the heroin 'epidemic,' as they sit in their palace and scratch their heads as to what happened. Their failed solutions will no doubt have more unintended consequences. He should know better.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

If the patients are taking federal money to pay for their healthcare they must put up with federal rules about it.

YES IT WOULD BE BETTER TO GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF HEALTHCARE ENTIRELY BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT RIGHT NOW SO HE IS GOING FOR WHAT HE CAN GET TO STOP SUBSIDIZING ADDICTION THAT THEN COSTS US EVEN MORE MONEY.

[dannno]

Right. And the correct position would be to cut off federal dollars to healthcare. Not to imprison doctors (which he brags about Kentucky's results in doing so) and not to intefere in the doctor patient relationship. Regardless of what supposed justification he offers.

So the correct position is what he stated first, which is to leave it up to the states.. But since there is federal money, and he isn't going to be able to change that fact, he doesn't want to spend taxpayer dollars on overly expensive opioids that enriches the pharma unless it is absolutely necessary.

Doctors could avoid to having to abide by these rules by not serving medicaid patients.

[specsaregood]

He makes it clear he is arguing because of the money a number of times.
eg: @3:54
"As much as I'm for freedom of the physician to prescribe stuff, its federal money and we are going to have to oversee the federal money."

A couple years back when the DEA changed the rules and put limits on the number of patients and number of pain meds doctors could prescribe Randal came out strongly against it saying that the govt has no business getting in between the doctor an patient as well as predicting that it would lead people to seek their pain meds on the black market/street drugs.

[nikcers]

You also gotta look at his perspective, he was recently assaulted and had 6 ribs broken and was given a prescription for opioids but only took ibuprofen. Other countries wait till you are dying to give you anything that strong, our country gives it away like candy.

[specsaregood]

You also gotta look at his perspective, he was recently assaulted and had 6 ribs broken and was given a prescription for opioids but only took ibuprofen. Other countries wait till you are dying to give you anything that strong, our country gives it away like candy.

They didn't used to, then they changed their philosophy telling people that there was no reason to have to live with any amount of pain, then after they got everybody addicted, they decided to start cutting it off again. The whole "opioid crisis" managed/planned/created.

[nikcers]

They didn't used to, then they changed their philosophy telling people that there was no reason to have to live with any amount of pain, then after they got everybody addicted, they decided to start cutting it off again. The whole "opioid crisis" managed/planned/created.

Yeah its almost like Soma in Brave New World.

[kcchiefs6465]

So the correct position is what he stated first, which is to leave it up to the states.. But since there is federal money, and he isn't going to be able to change that fact, he doesn't want to spend taxpayer dollars on overly expensive opioids that enriches the pharma unless it is absolutely necessary.

Doctors could avoid to having to abide by these rules by not serving medicaid patients.

$#@! the states.

[kcchiefs6465]

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

If the patients are taking federal money to pay for their healthcare they must put up with federal rules about it.

YES IT WOULD BE BETTER TO GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF HEALTHCARE ENTIRELY BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT RIGHT NOW SO HE IS GOING FOR WHAT HE CAN GET TO STOP SUBSIDIZING ADDICTION THAT THEN COSTS US EVEN MORE MONEY.

I pay the piper.

$#@! their tune.

You don't solve largely created government problems by first codifying their supposed authority in the matter into law and then reacting to problems created thereafter and then further codifying more supposed fixes into law (which further compound the problem).

In other words. Fix the root cause of a problem.

The issue with stipulating the what and when and how within the healthcare field (because it is subsidized) is that it sets a precedent. One which will sign off on medical panels to determine when and if enough treatment is enough (i.e they die) for people who were duped into believing (and forced to) buy into government insurance scams.

[nikcers]

By not speaking about getting federal dollars out of healthcare and rather focusing on what laws he and others can come up with to restrict physicians in what they prescribe and as well, to restrict patients from what they take and for what ailment.

So when the doctors are made more fearful than they already are and they cut off opioid addicted patients in pain and said patients resort to snorting and injecting heroin or whoring themselves for 60 dollar pills of black market oxycodone, the do good politicians can spend a few more tens of thousands of dollars to hold an inquiry into just what has happened.

Just had time to watch the video- and no Rand Paul is not wrong, you are. Rand was focusing specifically on the federal government being a passive buyer to buy stuff that is not needed. It's something Rand has consistently focused on, government waste. His one solution that he does offer is to restrict government money.

[kcchiefs6465]

He makes it clear he is arguing because of the money a number of times.
eg: @3:54
"As much as I'm for freedom of the physician to prescribe stuff, its federal money and we are going to have to oversee the federal money."

A couple years back when the DEA changed the rules and put limits on the number of patients and number of pain meds doctors could prescribe Randal came out strongly against it saying that the govt has no business getting in between the doctor an patient as well as predicting that it would lead people to seek their pain meds on the black market/street drugs.

Federal government creates money. Do they now have [legitimate] authority in every financial transaction? To dictate if duck dicks get studied or the internet habits of Kenyan farmers?

Well. I suppose they do (if you assume a few things). One might also posit that they have no authority whatever.

Does Congress have the authority to determine what ailments are treated and not with regards to the stolen and fictiously created money the divvy out?

[specsaregood]

Federal government creates money. Do they now have [legitimate] authority in every financial transaction? To dictate if duck dicks get studied or the internet habits of Kenyan farmers?

Well. I suppose they do (if you assume a few things). One might also posit that they have no authority whatever.

Does Congress have the authority to determine what ailments are treated and not with regards to the stolen and fictiously created money the divvy out?

Yes, they have the authority to do whatever the $#@! they want to do. I'm pretty sure they have proven that this is the case plenty of times. You might not like it, you can argue it isn't moral, you can argue it isn't constitutional all you want; but that wont change the fact that they have the authority to do it just because they have the power to back it up. Welcome to an anarchist society, enjoying it?

[kcchiefs6465]

Just had time to watch the video- and no Rand Paul is not wrong, you are. Rand was focusing specifically on the federal government being a passive buyer to buy stuff that is not needed. It's something Rand has consistently focused on, government waste. His one solution that he does offer is to restrict government money.

Oh. Okay.

It is not as if Rand Paul was instructing a circle jerk of vague remedies to a government created and sustained problem.

Government steals or creates money to fund medicare payments for cancer treatments. Ought Paul Ryan and Pelosi have a quorum to see how much time is enough time before a final solution is merited? If not, why not?

[nikcers]

Does Congress have the authority to determine what ailments are treated and not with regards to the stolen and fictiously created money the divvy out?

Might as well subsidize liposuction and medical marijuana since we have to subsidize opoid addiction and liver transplants for alcoholics?

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes, they have the authority to do whatever the $#@! they want to do. I'm pretty sure they have proven that this is the case plenty of times. You might not like it, you can argue it isn't moral, you can argue it isn't constitutional all you want; but that wont change the fact that they have the authority to do it just because they have the power to back it up. Welcome to an anarchist society, enjoying it?

Thank you for your honesty.

I do understand that honesty is not politically expedient for Rand Paul.

He seemed convinced on the matter (hence why I made a random thread on Rand Paul after being mostly dormant on this forum).

[kcchiefs6465]

Might as well subsidize liposuction and medical marijuana since we have to subsidize opoid addiction and liver transplants for alcoholics?

Or pull the plug on the brain dead and terminally ill. I guess it depends on the whores in DC political leanings.

[nikcers]

Oh. Okay.

It is not as if Rand Paul was instructing a circle jerk of vague remedies to a government created and sustained problem.

Government steals or creates money to fund medicare payments for cancer treatments. Ought Paul Ryan and Pelosi have a quorum to see how much time is enough time before a final solution is merited? If not, why not?

Rands been battling big pharma, and they are getting a ton of government money from things like this..while everyone was arguing over Steve Bannons and other side shows. It's why he needs to be careful, its probably why he keeps getting attacked...

[specsaregood]

Thank you for your honesty.
I do understand that honesty is not politically expedient for Rand Paul.
He seemed convinced on the matter (hence why I made a random thread on Rand Paul after being mostly dormant on this forum).

I think Randal has made it clear that he is not going to follow his fathers tactics of limiting himself to philosophical statements and grandiose bills that will never be passed. He is more intent on trying to chip away and make whatever limited headway he can with his amendments and media, as well as throwing up as many roadblocks as he can. That doesn't mean he isn't on the exact same page as his dad as far as an ideal society, just different tactics.

[Working Poor]

Well we have to do something with all the Afghanistan opium. But in all seriousness IMO opium is refined in ways that make it more dangerous and addictive. They remove some of the molecule that assist in the opioid in doing it's job going to the right receptors and flushing out of the system quickly. It is messed up as all get out. It is obvious to me that health is not the focus. If I am in intense pain I take aspirin. Occasionally I get a cbd stick if it is real bad. I guess my rant is over all ya'll know I hate the medical industrial complex

[kcchiefs6465]

Rands been battling big pharma, and they are getting a ton of government money from things like this..while everyone was arguing over Steve Bannons and other side shows. It's why he needs to be careful, its probably why he keeps getting attacked...

I've been on a Rand Paul binge lately after seeing a few of his speeches regarding militarism and Yemen. He's kicking ass and is beyond versed on every issue he speaks on. I was a little surprised by this but will still probably spend a couple hours tonight listening to another few speeches.

No big deal either way as Specs has pointed out. The train is still a rolling.

[kcchiefs6465]

You also gotta look at his perspective, he was recently assaulted and had 6 ribs broken and was given a prescription for opioids but only took ibuprofen. Other countries wait till you are dying to give you anything that strong, our country gives it away like candy.

A couple anecdotal stories but what the hell.

My grandmother had a brain tumor about the size of her head. She was refused morphine as it was addictive and died painfully.

I've been prescribed 5/500 or 5/375 hydrocodone and oxycodone for abscesses and tooth pain. They do not help so I did not take them.

I've taken other ('strong') narcotics for months on end. Never became addicted.

I can say that being prescribed motrin for a hole in my tooth has contributed to my decision of never going to a doctor. When you actually need something their hands are tied.

Cocaine elixirs and heroin balms and somehow society did not devolve into dopefiends. Give the government unbridled authority to control narcotics and what has happened?

No one asks the obvious question of if they didn't debase currency and enact policies of misery in urban metropolitans (and import the drugs and protect the drug trade, I'd add) might the rats in rat park not commit a prolonged suicide?

They cannot be the answer as they are part of the problem.

[Swordsmyth]

I pay the piper.

$#@! their tune.

You don't solve largely created government problems by first codifying their supposed authority in the matter into law and then reacting to problems created thereafter and then further codifying more supposed fixes into law (which further compound the problem).

In other words. Fix the root cause of a problem.

The issue with stipulating the what and when and how within the healthcare field (because it is subsidized) is that it sets a precedent. One which will sign off on medical panels to determine when and if enough treatment is enough (i.e they die) for people who were duped into believing (and forced to) buy into government insurance scams.

The precedent of government control was set a long time ago, until we can stop the government from spending the money it is an improvement to make them do it wisely.