On 10/20/2008 09:35 AM, Dave Brett wrote:
> The following formed part of an email which I recently sent to Kitty.
> Kitty thought members of the group may be interested in
> discussing the subject :
>
> "I have often discussed my supplement and research chemical usage
> with others and I'm sure that a number of these acquaintances would
> benefit significantly from a calculated program of supplementation
> rather than solely considering/taking prescribed medication. In the
> UK, as I suspect you may already be aware, the National Health
> Service provides most prescription medicines either for "free" (paid
> for from general income tax and national insurance payments) or at
> very low cost (subsidised by general income taxation). In fact, the
> majority of the population qualify for both "free" treatment and all
> medicines. Consequently, and reasonably logically, there is a
> reluctance, on the part of many of the people known by me personally,
> to pay for any medication or supplements.

Those people who choose to make use of only "free" health services have
decided in effect to put themselves in a category of lowest common
denominator of health care, for this is what government health care
means. It is because there are so very many people who think that
government health care is sufficient (because they appear to think that
government authorities know best in this area, in spite of all the
evidence to the contrary in so many other areas) - and besides it's
"free" - that there is as much poor health status as there is. The
numbers of people who take an active truly disorder-preventative style
of life from their 20s onward is very low. Most not only have the
foolishness of youth that they are invulnerable but also think that
government (or employer-provided insurance) will take care of them.

If the health services payment method was one in which people paid
directly for their own checkups and low cost health services/medications
and had insurance only for truly catastrophic situations (say $10,000
and more), I am convinced that they would take far better care of
themselves and actually save money for those illnesses and accidents
that are likely to happen occasionally, even when one is careful. The
attitude of wanting to be taken care of by government or an insurance
company is one that demonstrates a less than fully adult person - a
child-like state. (This attitude exists also when a person does not view
health care providers as advisers by becoming knowledgeable oneself, but
simply agreeing to whatever is prescribed.) What really happens though
is that many people are very mixed in their thinking and don't want to
pay their own way in life - they wouldn't steal from their neighbor or
even a stranger, but have not thought out the progression of events
which causes their request for services from government to logically
be a demand that it extort money from others (and actually themselves
too, except that it appears most people foolishly think that they will
have a net gain) via taxes and fees.

> Here in Switzerland the
> situation is different since specific health insurance is obligatory
> and the cost of medication is generally only partly covered by
> insurance.

Those living in Switzerland are also kept in a child-like state by
government, just somewhat less than in the UK. This Swiss-type
arrangement is what many in the US are trying to enact into law.

> However, the Swiss appear to be very cautious when it
> comes to taking supplements, at least in my experience, although I
> have significantly less Swiss acquaintances by comparison with those
> from the UK."

["Cautious" means "marked by careful prudence in reducing risk or
danger". However, since physiological dysfunction and early death
(grave danger) are inevitable if one simply does what people have
always done and what the vast majority of current medical authorities
prescribe, *not* taking supplements (that are well determined to be
safe, even if they do not have fully proven benefit) is actually the
more risky thing to do, whereas *taking* supplements (as well as
following an excellent diet and getting adequate exercise and
rest/relaxation) is logically the more cautious approach to life. --Paul]

The caution may be a result of lack of government approval or
recommendation. A larger percentage of the population in the US appears
willing to make decisions on their own in regard to supplements and
research chemicals - at least currently. I wonder how many
health-related magazines or simply articles of that nature in general
magazines are purchased and read by those in Switzerland.

The numbers of health-related magazines sold in stores or by
subscription in the US are enormous - likely all are available
internationally through the mails. And then there are all the health
food stores or simply grocery store chains that are catering to more
health conscious customers in the US. These latter have increased in
number over the past 10 years. However we're still waiting for Sprouts
Farmers Market to put in a store in Casa Grande; maybe Trader Joe's and
Sunflower Markets will too. Until then we continue to drive to
Chandler/Mesa area every 2 weeks to go to these 3. Something to note
though is that the more traditional stores, like Fry's (and No Frills
and Price Chopper in rural Ontario) that we use regularly, do have a
greater selection of no-sugar added foods (without synthetic sweeteners)
than 5 years ago, but still don't carry as much as Sprouts, Sunflower,
Trader Joe's and Whole Foods.

In the US where the economy is still (even with the current
government-created financial mess) less government controlled than all
other industrialized countries, most existing businesses and
entrepreneurs are eager to meet the wants (economic "demands") of
purchasers/customers. The less government interference in voluntary
interactions, the more choices there are and can become available. In a
society where individuals voluntarily interact to mutual benefit without
any interference from others, and with each seeking to maximize hir
lifetime happiness (the purpose of each person's life whether or not
s/he recognizes it) using long range wide viewed thinking, the choices
will be unbounded - such a society is the goal of the Self-Sovereign
Individual Project.


> Dave
>
> [Thanks, Dave for following up on my suggestion.
>
> I won't respond with my comment for a week and hopefully in the
> meantime others will have something to say on the multiple of
> related subjects you've brought up. **Kitty]


As a side comment regarding lack of response from others, I realize
that this is the closing days of US presidential election campaigning
and many may be glued to TV sets listening to speeches. (An article
written by me and published 10/27 will hopefully be of interest and
value to those who are planning to vote, and even those who are not -
Just a Charismatic Presidential Candidate? -
http://tinyurl.com/5fptns ) There was one reply from an individual not
identified to us, who also did not respond to my 2 message reminders
of this requirement and encouraging hir to do so. The lack of any
email reply was the most disappointing.

**Kitty