Media Disinformation on American and Canadian Insulin prices
Despite the notion that Canadian insulin is far cheaper than the U.S., with many left-wing sources such as Business Insider, Slate magazine, CNN, the Washington post, MSNBC, and others reporting that Canadian insulin is far cheaper than U.S. Insulin, this is simply not the case; just for comparison, there is 25 dollar insulin that is provided in the U.S. by Walmart, with no medicare or insurance needed, in comparison to 50 dollar insulin in Canada, and Medicare, Medicaid and Health insurance frequently helps to pay for this insulin (80% or more), making it even cheaper for the end consumer. American Insulin prices in these left-wing articles is often reported to be between 285-350 dollars per vial (285 dollars according to Business insider, 350 according to etc.), vs. only 50 dollars per vial in Canada, supposedly demonstrating how terrible the U.S. medical and drug system apparently is, as according to them insulin is over priced. This is clearly proof that the evil, greedy capitalists have over priced their insulin, and that we need to switch to a government-ran, socialist system which will keep prices low, clearly, never mind that ultra cheap capitalist insulin exists that is half the price of government provided Canadian insulin. No mention is made of course of the type of insulin, difference in quality or quality control, or how the insulin is made, only that they must be exactly the same (even though many different type of insulin related drugs exist, such as more expensive fast acting insulin used only for emergencies, slow acting insulin for daily use, insulin via injection or pills, medicine which boosts insulin production or replicates insulin vs. actual raw insulin, and so on), and that as no individual gets insulin from health insurance of medicare apparently, and they must pay for it out of pocket (almost no diabetic pays for it completely out of pocket, in real life), so, obviously, these costs must be extremely high.
The simple reality is, this is not true. The problem is in the promotion of half-truths; it is true that insulin can be upwards to 285-350 dollars per vial in the United States, but not every single form of insulin is 350 dollars per vial. In the same way a car can cost up to 100,000 dollars, but not all cars are this expensive, insulin can be 350 dollars per vial in the U.S., but averages around 90 dollars, with some forms of insulin as low as 25 dollars per vial, such as a form of Insulin provided by walmart, which is cheaper than the Canadian insulin cost at 50 dollars per vial. The quality obviously differs between variants, but nonetheless Insulin is not necessarily 350 dollars per vial, and neither is Asthma medication for example, which is another related drug price lie promoted by the same left-wing outlets (). For those of you interested in the raw data, you can merely look at a price listing of different forms of insulin on various websites, and come to the same conclusion yourself that it's not actually 285 dollars per vial for every single person. Insulin does not necessarily NEED to be 285-350 dollars per vile, and it is grotesque that the media flagrantly and blatantly lies about this. It is quite revolting, and disgusting, that the media continues to perpetuate such obvious lies, but even more dumbfounding is that so many people believe it. These arguments have been made by political candidates (such as Bernie Sanders or Justin Treduea), and there is such a widespread belief among the public that Insulin is cheaper in Canada, that people have been flocking to Canada in order to get it, instead of just, going to the local grocery store such as Walmart and picking the cheaper form of Insulin. The media disinformation is hurting people, and it is not just malicious for it's own sake, but willing to lead millions of people suffer who unfortunately believe these lies, to push a political objective. Lives depend upon us being correct, and misinformation puts those lives at risk needlessly. It not only is immoral to lie for it's own sake, but given the damage that it can cause; people are risking their lives to go to Canada and get insulin, when there is already cheap Insulin in the U.S.
More importantly than the actual price of Insulin, is how people pay for it; few people pay in the U.S. for the entire cost of insulin themselves, or buy insulin with money spent "out-of-pocket". Health insurance by law must be provided by your employer in the United States, and health insurance frequently covers insulin costs, generally 80% or more. For those without health insurance, or in addition to their existing health insurance, there is also Medicare and Medicaid, which can also pay up to 80% with Medicare D, or the full 100% depending on how life threatening the form of diabetes is. If one qualifies as having a disability according to Social Security via the social security Bluebook, they automatically qualify for Medicare D, and potentially A and B, which will assist in paying for insulin, or depending on the severity, completely pay for diabetic medication. By the end of the user's 20% co-payments, they spend as little as 20 dollars for each 100 dollars of insulin purchased, where as Canadians actually pay the full price without co payments, being forced to pay 50 dollars per insulin vial to their own government who is the only supplier in their single payer healthcare system, which is a higher cost for a lower quality version of insulin. Where as the U.S. government helps citizens pay for their insulin, the Canadian government does not, and so the price differences matter substantially; 250 dollar insulin in the U.S. only costs the consumer 50 dollars if they have health insurance or qualify for Medicare supplemental copay (of which virtually all diabetics do), meaning 250 dollar insulin in the U.S. only costs an individual diabetic person 50 dollars. For those with life threatening diabetes nearly 100% of the cost can be covered, thus leading to no payments at all. When a civilian does not need to pay for their own medicine, they tend to buy more expensive medication than they otherwise would be able to afford, and as the government assists in payment, 250 dollar insulin only costs the average American citizen 50 dollars, meaning with government copay or government mandated copay (such as via insurance), the price is actually the same price or lower than Canada. Health insurance is almost always provided to american citizens by their place of employment, and thus few people actually pay for their own health insurance costs. One, once again, wants insurance to be of a higher quality, when they do not pay for it themselves.
The price of health insurance is not a problem for the consumer, as it is not the consumer who pays for it, but rather the business that is required by law to give their workers expensive health insurance. Lowering the cost of health insurance may benefit large companies, but it would not necessarily be a benefit to most individuals, who do not need pay for health insurance themselves. Healthcare related issues have a has a tendency to expand in to multiple other issues, but the simple reality is, insulin is not only cheaper in the U.S., but often paid for by the U.S. government. A consumer does not worry as much about the price when they themselves don't pay for it, or when they only have to pay 20% of the cost, and thus Americans tend to buy more expensive insulin, as they can afford it. For those that can't, there is extremely cheap insulin available, as well as government welfare programs to help pay for it in it's entirety. This is on top of other benefits to the poor, which helps to provide them with housing (Section 9 government housing), food (SNAPS programs), and cellphone services, that lower taxes for those under the poverty line, and even programs that provide money directly (such as from social security), all of which help free up money to pay for other things, such as medication. As a result, if an individual for some reason did not qualify for medicare or medicaid benefits, or have health insurance, they likely qualify for other programs, which would assist them in paying for other costs in their daily lives, freeing up money to help pay for medication. While it is the law that any diabetic qualifies for at least some nonpayments to help pay for insulin medication, there are also other benefits to the poor, that can help them pay for a variety of things.
The Purpose of Disinformation
It has often been said that the purpose of disinformation is not necessarily to convince, but to confuse, to suppress the truth, and to make it impossible for the average person to regularly discern what the truth is without a tremendous amount of effort. Simply by over-saturating a topic with lies, and flooding it with misinformation, they can wash over the truth, making it difficult to discern reality, obfuscating what the truth is and thus effectively suppressing it, rather than completely changing people's minds. It is as important to make the truth difficult to find, as it is to actually change hearts and minds and win them over to their position. You can't win over everybody, but simply making it hard for people to see reality is far easier. With this added "tax" or difficulty in finding the truth, most people will not spend the time or effort to wade through all the muck, or succumb to their own biases in the process, leaving only a small percentage who know the whole story. The mere act of lying makes it difficult to tell what is true and what is fake, and requires extra effort to break down the lie and discern the truth; while telling a lie is easy, finding the truth can be exceedingly difficult. It has been said that a lie travels half way around the world before the truth has even gotten off the ground, and very few people will ever read the correction, assuming one is ever posted. The key purpose of disinformation is not just to persuade or convince, but to suppress the truth, to make the truth difficult or even impossible in some circumstances to discern. If one cannot convince the enemy, it is possible to simply mislead them. It is important to remember these lies are not stand-alone concepts, but are designed specifically to push for a very carefully laid out political objective. There is an overarching objective, and so the lies serve a specific political purpose other than sewing mere confusion for it's own sake; it is designed to help those in office gain power and push a particular policy agenda, which often is not to the benefit of the people.
It is frequent that we see story after story regurgitating the same set of lies, with the entire left-wing media in lock-step with each other, to push specific political agendas, chiefly healthcare reform via single payer healthcare. Be it about misleading asthma medication costs, American costs in general being higher, Americans getting less money from the government, or other obvious and easily disprovable lies, these lies weave a narrative of increasingly costly The U.S. government pays more for healthcare per citizen, has a higher survival rate than, and has an overall better healthcare system than most other first world countries, yet with left-wing inundation of misinformation, many believe this is not the case. Many arguments can be made about the effectiveness of each individual system if they decide to go through them carefully, but no-one can refute the simple raw data, that the U.S. has a substantially higher survival rate than most European countries, and a survival rate roughly on par with most Scandinavian countries in Europe. Taken from United Nation's healthcare data, an international source on the issue, we can find that
Despite this, many still believe the U.S. healthcare system is far worse, despite having lower costs, the government sharing a greater burden of these costs, a higher survival rate, and higher access to care than many comparable first world countries. The poor automatically qualify for medicare and medicaid, and all emergency healthcare is provided for free in the U.S.
Monday, May 4, 2020
Saturday, May 2, 2020
The connection between Drugs and violent crime
The connection between Drugs and violent crime
According to 1994 figures by the Department of Justice [1][2], approximately 2.7% of those who didn't regularly take drugs committed violent crimes, in comparison to 4.8% of those who drank alcohol regularly (1.8 times higher), 14.6% of those who took Cannabis only (5.4 times higher), and 26.1% of those who regularly took Cannabis, Alcohol, and Cocaine (9.6 times higher). In fact, 48% of all homicide and assault crimes were committed by a drug-dependent individuals, vs. just 9.4% of the population who were dependent on drugs, or a rate of 5 times higher than the general population. These figures remained roughly the same in another analysis in 2004. The trend shows that consistently, drug use is associated with higher rates of violent crime and behavior. While this is likely widely accepted that alcohol and cocaine are likely to lead to higher rates of violence (as well as other "hard" drugs such as meth, heroine, and barbiturates), marijuana remains more controversial, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the fact the mechanism in the brain is consistent with other drugs and situation which also tend to increase rates of violence (predominately through the increase of dopamine).
Despite the notion that American prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders, the overwhelming majority of prisoners were incarcerated due to violent crimes, or 53.8%, according to 2013 incarceration figures. [3] Only 16% were incarcerated due to drug-related crimes, and of that, only 3.7% were in prison for possession alone, with a smaller percentage being for marijuana. It has been estimated that approximately 20,000 to 40,000 prisoners, or roughly 1-2%, are in prison for marijuana related charges, and generally this involves trafficking, intoxicated driving, or other charges to be incarcerated for long periods of time. Drug users do fill the prison, but overwhelmingly due to them committing other crimes, such as violent crimes or property offenses (theft). These figures remained roughly consistent when compared back to 2009 [4]
Drug users were also significantly more likely to cause accidents that lead to death. Looking at car accidents, 43.6% of fatal car accidents involved a driver testing positive for drugs (compared to just 9.4% of the general population) [5], while marijuana was associated with at least a two fold risk increase for fatal car accidents. Marijuana related car accidents trippled from 1993 to 2015, largely after widespread decriminalization and legalization. [6][7][8] Other accidents are also likely to be higher, given that drugs have a tendency to impair reaction times, basic cognitive functions, and distract the driver, as well as induce temporary psychosis. Legal drugs such as opiods and alcohol, were also associated with higher accident rates, indicating similiar trends with similiar drugs.
When drugs were legalized in many states and countries, violent crimes rates increased. In Portugal for example, violent crime rates increased by 60%, falling only after 16 years to levels that still remain 10% higher than before the legalization [9], and have fallen less than many comparable countries (with the U.S. violent crime rate falling by nearly half, for example [10]). While associated with a reduced risk in spreading HIV, this coincides with the production of drugs which can stop the spread of HIV, and likely was not responsible for this fall. Violent crime rates as well increased in Amsterdam, by nearly triple, after legalization. [11] In California, Colorado, and Washington, after marijuana was legalized for recreational use (not medical use), violent crime rates and car accidents went up concurrently, particularly among those testing positive for marijuana or THC, while violent crime has generally fallen over the rest of the U.S.; crime rates staying the same in these areas would still indicate a problem with violent crime as a result. [12][13] In Colorado from 2014 to 2018 after the legalization of marijuana, the violent crime rate increased from 307.8 to 397.2 (an increase in 29%), while the murder rate went from 2.8 to 3.7 (32%), despite it falling across the rest of the country. While the potential reasons or speculations on this are numerous, it is generally accepted that this occurred. [14][15][16] Some, such as forbes, have speculated this is due to the presence of places that have not prohibited the drugs (yet for some reason in places which did prohibit the drugs, violent crime did not rise), and people from prohibited areas flocking to non-prohibited areas. However, this is not consistent with the fact that Mexico has decriminalized many drugs and cartel members regardless of this increased their activities in California (going from one legal area to another, not an illegal area to a legal one), and the fact that legalizing the drug was said to in theory reduce profits for the cartels and drive down their activities, which it did not. If legalizing drugs increases the prevalence of crime from drug dealers, then the theory of drug legalization being useful for this reason is defeated outright.
Further, we know about the effects drugs have on the brain, that thus demonstrably, causatively prove why the drugs would increase rates of violent crime. Studies on the brain indicate that Marijuana increases dopamine levels and that THC is a dopamine antagonist, thus replicating the increase in violence associated with high levels of dopamine caused by other means, such as by alternative drugs (for example, cocaine), schizophrenia, or even sporting events, and found a 7 fold increase after compensating for socioeconomic status and other factors. "38% of the participants did try cannabis at least once in their life. Most of them experimented with cannabis in their teens, but then stopped using it. However, 20% of the boys who started using pot by age 18 continued to use it through middle age (32-48 years). One fifth of those who were pot smokers (22%) reported violent behavior that began after beginning to use cannabis, whereas only 0.3% reported violence before using weed. Continued use of cannabis over the life-time of the study was the strongest predictor of violent convictions, even when the other factors that contribute to violent behavior were considered in the statistical analysis. In conclusion, the results show that continued cannabis use is associated with a 7-fold greater odds for subsequent commission of violent crimes." [17][18] Alcohol use, heavy episodic drinking, and marijuana use were all more prevalent among young adults raised in households with greater resources, negating the argument that higher rates of violence among marijuana users was due to poverty levels or previous criminal lifestyles. [19][20]
It is very likely that violence rates increasing after drug legalization is not a coincidence brought on by other factors, when it is well known it's impact on the brain is likely to impair reasoning and judgement skills, with impulsivity being a primary factor in the likelihood for individuals to commit violent crime. [21][22] With impaired reasoning and cognitive skills, decision making skills are impacted, especially when the risk-reward centers of the brain are over stimulated, such as with dopamine, and so individuals are more likely to engage in unpredictable or risky behavior, thus increasing their chance of committing a violent crime. The emotional state of the user is less important when analyzing violent crimes; the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are committed out of a desire to obtain money (such as through burglary or muggings), and not due to extreme anger. Thus even if the individual is less prone to anger while on the drug, this is unlikely to decrease the chance of a violent crime. Impulsivity is a key factor linked to crime, and a lack of self control is more likely to lead to violence than the emotional state of the user. Drugs have also been known to agitate the user and increase paranoia or anxiety, with fear, and not anger, being more heavily linked to violent crime and behavior in general.
Conclusions
It is my opinion that the emphasis of law enforcement with drug crimes should focus on Rehabilitation, instead of incarceration, which should only be used as a last resort. Drug addiction can be treated, and is more likely to be successful if the individual goes through rehabilitation than through the prison system. Mandatory rehabilitation is likely a more effective as well as compassionate method to deal with drug users. Drug rehabilitation tends to prevent recidivism 40-60% of the time, in comparison to 10-30% of the time for incarceration. [23][24] However, we should not be permissive, allowing reckless behavior. While drug use is often considered to be a victimless crime, like traffic violations, such as speeding or running stop signs, reckless behavior can endanger others, and lead to higher rates of accidents or violence. If certain behaviors and actions are more likely, but not always certain to injure others, there is still a prescient need for law enforcement to be involved to prevent these reckless acts. While likely not always intentional, drug use is associated with higher rates of violence and crime, and the mechanisms in the brain which decrease self-control and increases proclivities towards crime should not be ignored. While there is a need to balance freedom and security, in my opinion recklessness can be just as immoral and dangerous, producing just as many victims, thus not being justified as a "victimless crime". Homicides make up approximately 15,000 deaths a year, however accidents make up over 160,000, over 10 times higher. [25] Nonetheless, it is for the individual to decide what their opinion's on drug legalization and decriminalization are, but hopefully these figures and data will dispel some rumors and misconceptions on drugs and crime, particularly given that it is a heated political topic.
According to 1994 figures by the Department of Justice [1][2], approximately 2.7% of those who didn't regularly take drugs committed violent crimes, in comparison to 4.8% of those who drank alcohol regularly (1.8 times higher), 14.6% of those who took Cannabis only (5.4 times higher), and 26.1% of those who regularly took Cannabis, Alcohol, and Cocaine (9.6 times higher). In fact, 48% of all homicide and assault crimes were committed by a drug-dependent individuals, vs. just 9.4% of the population who were dependent on drugs, or a rate of 5 times higher than the general population. These figures remained roughly the same in another analysis in 2004. The trend shows that consistently, drug use is associated with higher rates of violent crime and behavior. While this is likely widely accepted that alcohol and cocaine are likely to lead to higher rates of violence (as well as other "hard" drugs such as meth, heroine, and barbiturates), marijuana remains more controversial, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the fact the mechanism in the brain is consistent with other drugs and situation which also tend to increase rates of violence (predominately through the increase of dopamine).
Despite the notion that American prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders, the overwhelming majority of prisoners were incarcerated due to violent crimes, or 53.8%, according to 2013 incarceration figures. [3] Only 16% were incarcerated due to drug-related crimes, and of that, only 3.7% were in prison for possession alone, with a smaller percentage being for marijuana. It has been estimated that approximately 20,000 to 40,000 prisoners, or roughly 1-2%, are in prison for marijuana related charges, and generally this involves trafficking, intoxicated driving, or other charges to be incarcerated for long periods of time. Drug users do fill the prison, but overwhelmingly due to them committing other crimes, such as violent crimes or property offenses (theft). These figures remained roughly consistent when compared back to 2009 [4]
Drug users were also significantly more likely to cause accidents that lead to death. Looking at car accidents, 43.6% of fatal car accidents involved a driver testing positive for drugs (compared to just 9.4% of the general population) [5], while marijuana was associated with at least a two fold risk increase for fatal car accidents. Marijuana related car accidents trippled from 1993 to 2015, largely after widespread decriminalization and legalization. [6][7][8] Other accidents are also likely to be higher, given that drugs have a tendency to impair reaction times, basic cognitive functions, and distract the driver, as well as induce temporary psychosis. Legal drugs such as opiods and alcohol, were also associated with higher accident rates, indicating similiar trends with similiar drugs.
When drugs were legalized in many states and countries, violent crimes rates increased. In Portugal for example, violent crime rates increased by 60%, falling only after 16 years to levels that still remain 10% higher than before the legalization [9], and have fallen less than many comparable countries (with the U.S. violent crime rate falling by nearly half, for example [10]). While associated with a reduced risk in spreading HIV, this coincides with the production of drugs which can stop the spread of HIV, and likely was not responsible for this fall. Violent crime rates as well increased in Amsterdam, by nearly triple, after legalization. [11] In California, Colorado, and Washington, after marijuana was legalized for recreational use (not medical use), violent crime rates and car accidents went up concurrently, particularly among those testing positive for marijuana or THC, while violent crime has generally fallen over the rest of the U.S.; crime rates staying the same in these areas would still indicate a problem with violent crime as a result. [12][13] In Colorado from 2014 to 2018 after the legalization of marijuana, the violent crime rate increased from 307.8 to 397.2 (an increase in 29%), while the murder rate went from 2.8 to 3.7 (32%), despite it falling across the rest of the country. While the potential reasons or speculations on this are numerous, it is generally accepted that this occurred. [14][15][16] Some, such as forbes, have speculated this is due to the presence of places that have not prohibited the drugs (yet for some reason in places which did prohibit the drugs, violent crime did not rise), and people from prohibited areas flocking to non-prohibited areas. However, this is not consistent with the fact that Mexico has decriminalized many drugs and cartel members regardless of this increased their activities in California (going from one legal area to another, not an illegal area to a legal one), and the fact that legalizing the drug was said to in theory reduce profits for the cartels and drive down their activities, which it did not. If legalizing drugs increases the prevalence of crime from drug dealers, then the theory of drug legalization being useful for this reason is defeated outright.
Further, we know about the effects drugs have on the brain, that thus demonstrably, causatively prove why the drugs would increase rates of violent crime. Studies on the brain indicate that Marijuana increases dopamine levels and that THC is a dopamine antagonist, thus replicating the increase in violence associated with high levels of dopamine caused by other means, such as by alternative drugs (for example, cocaine), schizophrenia, or even sporting events, and found a 7 fold increase after compensating for socioeconomic status and other factors. "38% of the participants did try cannabis at least once in their life. Most of them experimented with cannabis in their teens, but then stopped using it. However, 20% of the boys who started using pot by age 18 continued to use it through middle age (32-48 years). One fifth of those who were pot smokers (22%) reported violent behavior that began after beginning to use cannabis, whereas only 0.3% reported violence before using weed. Continued use of cannabis over the life-time of the study was the strongest predictor of violent convictions, even when the other factors that contribute to violent behavior were considered in the statistical analysis. In conclusion, the results show that continued cannabis use is associated with a 7-fold greater odds for subsequent commission of violent crimes." [17][18] Alcohol use, heavy episodic drinking, and marijuana use were all more prevalent among young adults raised in households with greater resources, negating the argument that higher rates of violence among marijuana users was due to poverty levels or previous criminal lifestyles. [19][20]
It is very likely that violence rates increasing after drug legalization is not a coincidence brought on by other factors, when it is well known it's impact on the brain is likely to impair reasoning and judgement skills, with impulsivity being a primary factor in the likelihood for individuals to commit violent crime. [21][22] With impaired reasoning and cognitive skills, decision making skills are impacted, especially when the risk-reward centers of the brain are over stimulated, such as with dopamine, and so individuals are more likely to engage in unpredictable or risky behavior, thus increasing their chance of committing a violent crime. The emotional state of the user is less important when analyzing violent crimes; the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are committed out of a desire to obtain money (such as through burglary or muggings), and not due to extreme anger. Thus even if the individual is less prone to anger while on the drug, this is unlikely to decrease the chance of a violent crime. Impulsivity is a key factor linked to crime, and a lack of self control is more likely to lead to violence than the emotional state of the user. Drugs have also been known to agitate the user and increase paranoia or anxiety, with fear, and not anger, being more heavily linked to violent crime and behavior in general.
Conclusions
It is my opinion that the emphasis of law enforcement with drug crimes should focus on Rehabilitation, instead of incarceration, which should only be used as a last resort. Drug addiction can be treated, and is more likely to be successful if the individual goes through rehabilitation than through the prison system. Mandatory rehabilitation is likely a more effective as well as compassionate method to deal with drug users. Drug rehabilitation tends to prevent recidivism 40-60% of the time, in comparison to 10-30% of the time for incarceration. [23][24] However, we should not be permissive, allowing reckless behavior. While drug use is often considered to be a victimless crime, like traffic violations, such as speeding or running stop signs, reckless behavior can endanger others, and lead to higher rates of accidents or violence. If certain behaviors and actions are more likely, but not always certain to injure others, there is still a prescient need for law enforcement to be involved to prevent these reckless acts. While likely not always intentional, drug use is associated with higher rates of violence and crime, and the mechanisms in the brain which decrease self-control and increases proclivities towards crime should not be ignored. While there is a need to balance freedom and security, in my opinion recklessness can be just as immoral and dangerous, producing just as many victims, thus not being justified as a "victimless crime". Homicides make up approximately 15,000 deaths a year, however accidents make up over 160,000, over 10 times higher. [25] Nonetheless, it is for the individual to decide what their opinion's on drug legalization and decriminalization are, but hopefully these figures and data will dispel some rumors and misconceptions on drugs and crime, particularly given that it is a heated political topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)