Trifecta of opioids, alcohol and suicide are blamed for the drop in U.S. life expectancy

Obviously people have a right to believe whatever they want to believe. If you are asking if it makes for good public policy my answer is it depends.

Are legacy hires or enrollment a good idea?

If you are there to maintain who is in the upper and upper middle class at a generational level then yes. Maybe having a static society has merit. I don't think so but there is a argument for that.

My overall point is don't get mad that working class rural America picked some guy you think is crazy when society has put in place policies which are literally killing them off.

I didn't say anything about working class rural America's political choices but I'll come back to that.

My primary goal was simply highlighting the hypocrisy of insisting that identity trumps merit when it's for the "greater good of the nation" (not your words, my summation of your argument) and then insisting that there's something wrong when other people apply the same argument for the same reason, the greater good of the nation.

The argument in favor of affirmative action goes specifically to the issue about maintaining who is in the upper and upper middle class class at a generational level. It's precisely about having a static society. Which you don't think has merit, having a static society, but you dislike a tool designed specifically to address it. That's inconsistent logically when put against the backdrop of actual history.

To return to working rural America's political choices - the repeated criticism is that they have constantly voted for people who support the policies that are killing them. Not just in this last Presidential election but for the last 50 years. They have repeatedly voted for politicians who have advocated for free trade and movement of goods even though it is, to quote you, "killing them off".

It's historically absurd to then lay that at the feet of liberals when these policies come from the brain trust of the conservatives whom working class rural America overwhelmingly support politically.

I'm going to say something un-PC. Rural America has been fucking themselves over economically for decades because they don't want to be politically aligned with black America even though they suffer from the same problem regarding the economy and the prioritization of capital over labor.
 
Probaby should have voted for someone else if youre needing help with mental health problems or drug and alcohol addiction


Kasich was the only presidential candidate to even mention the drug addicted and mentally ill during the debates.

I didn't hear a peep from Hillary or Bernie, and of course nothing from the other repubs.

None of the candidates really give a fuck because it has never been a Republican or Democrat agenda item.
 
It's to be expected as people gradually lose their function to the society which they have placed above themselves, as the moral arbiter.

Godless, selfless, fucked, is what they are. Beyond help from the kind of a society that we are progressing towards.

Ultimately, heroin overdoses, suicides, chemical castrations, infertile ideologies etc. are a less painful way to get rid of the people that are incapable of going forward, compared to wars, starvation and disease.

One could say that we've moved from the previous kind of a crude, enforced, unwilling genocide of the "unfit", through ruthless and inhumane methods, to a more conscious, self-imposed and willful departure, on their part. It really shows the kind of progress that we are making as a civilization.
 
Last edited:
No I am saying east coast liberal what I term the petit bourgeoisie use all the resources to pay for stuff they want like Affirmative action programs and global warming initiatives. All the while white rural people get left behind. So they are now mad and supporting Trump.


While I can't completely blame educated North East liberal types; they have been marginalizing rural and some (less populated) suburban area residents for quite some time.
-Shaming those that are not educated
-decreeing all religious types as archaic and out of touch.
--That is why the shock of Trump winning hit so hard.

The truth is a slippery slope; a conscientious effort should be taken to provide funding to these rural areas for education and minimally adequate healthcare, the slippery part is that these areas do not bring in revenue (state income tax revenue) like urban areas do nor are they as populated, and hence do not get a significant share of the money.

I will agree that some domestic policies and spending need to be updated, and aiding Americans first should be the priority.

As a recent turned Republican voter I was flabbergasted by the latest spending bill; the add $6B to fight the Opioid crisis is a joke and doesn't address root causes of these issues like Domestic Spending should.
 
Guys, everything will be ok. Trump has his best people working on it, Kelly Anne Conway is in charge of it and have it stocked full of addiction specialists...
 
While I can't completely blame educated North East liberal types; they have been marginalizing rural and some (less populated) suburban area residents for quite some time.
-Shaming those that are not educated
-decreeing all religious types as archaic and out of touch.
--That is why the shock of Trump winning hit so hard.

The truth is a slippery slope; a conscientious effort should be taken to provide funding to these rural areas for education and minimally adequate healthcare, the slippery part is that these areas do not bring in revenue (state income tax revenue) like urban areas do nor are they as populated, and hence do not get a significant share of the money.

I will agree that some domestic policies and spending need to be updated, and aiding Americans first should be the priority.

As a recent turned Republican voter I was flabbergasted by the latest spending bill; the add $6B to fight the Opioid crisis is a joke and doesn't address root causes of these issues like Domestic Spending should.

I'm going to disagree with the first half of your post because the liberals haven't been marginalizing those regions. Liberals have been pushing for more union protections, higher minimum wage and a prioritization of labor over capital for decades.

That misrepresentation of what liberals have been fighting for is why those regions keep losing. Stronger unions would protect low skill labor. Higher minimum wages would help the pay for people in those regions. Getting a better education would open up more job opportunities. A stronger safety net would protect these people as they transition into new industries.

Contrast that with what the conservatives have been advocating - free trade, lower wages, more labor competition, less education and training opportunities. Fewer protections for those rural workers who have lose their job but still have bills.

Whenever the problems of the rural communities come up, people want to blame liberals without actually looking at the economic issues affecting those areas. They don't look at the policies that hurt those areas and they don't look at who actually advocates those hurtful policies. I'm a long time GOP supporter of the GOP's traditional economic goals and those goals do not help rural America. This is because those goals aim to maximize corporate profits with the hope that the gains will eventually find their way into the pockets of the workers.

The problem with that strategy is that the GOP has not shown any interest in forcing employers to operate from within the U.S., so the gains have trickled down. But they've trickled down to foreign workers. And that increase in buying power has meant more revenue for U.S. corporations internationally. Which has been great for office and salaried workers but it's been detrimental for hourly workers. But none of this grew out of liberal policies, it was primarily GOP economic policy.
 
This is why white rural America voted for Trump. You have people in New York City telling them that they are full of white privilege while white people are dying off. People only turn to drugs, drink and suicide when things are not going well. Yes every time you turn on the tv you hear about white privilage. Notice you never hear about how boys are not going to college anymore. I personally believe the petite bourgeois that laughs at rural America is secretly pleased this is happening and that this is some sort of pay back for ancestral wrongs.


http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-drugs-alcohol-suicides-20180208-story.html


An epidemic of despair is disproportionately claiming the lives of rural white Americans in the prime of adulthood. And for a second year in a row, their deaths by drugs, drink and self-destruction have caused life expectancy in the United States to fall.

That milestone, suggests an editorial in a respected medical journal, marks a sustained reversal of close to a century of improving health for Americans. And it raises a puzzling mystery: What is causing the despair, and what will restore hope and health to these battered Americans?

inRead invented by Teads

ADVERTISEMENT
The opioid epidemic, which claimed the lives of 64,000 Americans in 2015 alone, "is the tip of an iceberg," a pair of public health scholars wrote in the journal BMJ.

In an even larger public health crisis unfolding in the United States, death rates from alcohol abuse and suicides have also seen sharp increases in recent years, wrote Steven H. Woolf of Virginia Commonweath University and Laudan Aron of the Washington-based Urban Institute.

Between 1999 and 2014, the suicide rate rose by 24%. And mounting evidence has shown that deaths linked to alcohol abuse are rising as well among white Americans.

Nowhere are these trends more dramatic than in rural counties, where decades of social and economic changes have made the lives of white Americans less secure than their parents', Woolf and Aron wrote.

About 15% of the nation's population — some 46 million persons — lived in counties outside metropolitan areas in 2014. In a January 2017 analysis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that those living in nonmetropolitan areas were more likely to smoke cigarettes, to be physically inactive and obese and to suffer from high blood pressure than were metropolitan county-dwellers.

Fully 18.1% of rural Americans lived in poverty, compared with 15.1% of those living in and around cities. And people in rural counties reported less access to healthcare and a lower quality of healthcare than did those in metropolitan counties.

In October, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that, while premature deaths were down among all American adults between 1999 and 2015, nine of 48 subgroups studied saw increases in early mortality. The lives of non-Latino whites, largely in rural or small or medium metropolitan counties, were mostly being shortened by suicide, drug overdoses and liver disease — a condition closely linked to alcoholism.

That study's data showed steep declines in deaths due to HIV infection, cardiovascular disease and motor vehicle crashes among African Americans and Latinos and in urban and suburban areas. But those declines were more modest or nonexistent among whites living in any setting. And they were offset by dramatic increases in drug overdoses and suicides in whites, no matter where the victims lived.

The authors of the BMJ essay note that the roughly 15-year run-up in drug deaths and suicides has not been seen in black Americans.

While the racial gap in health is narrowing, African Americans' rates of premature death have always been starkly higher than those among whites, Woolf said. And it may be that the uptick in "deaths of despair" seen in whites will eventually be detected among blacks as well, he added.

But Woolf said it's also possible that black Americans have some "resilience factor" that white Americans do not. Perhaps, he said, African Americans' response to the discrimination, structural disadvantages and health inequities they've long endured has buffered them from following whites down their path of self-destruction.

At the same time, the despair of whites is "unclear, complex, and not explained by opioids alone," Woolf and Aron wrote. In once-thriving communities outside the nation's metropolitan areas, industries have collapsed. As steel mills and coal mines have closed, timber production has gone bust, and automation has left rural communities behind, their economies and their residents' health have suffered.

The result is a national phenomenon that has been unfolding for at least three decades. Relative to life expectancy in other affluent, industrialized countries, Americans' once-commanding lead in longevity began slipping in the early 1980s. By 1998, U.S. life expectancy had fallen below the average for industrialized countries. It is now 1.5 years behind that benchmark.

"It's really sad that a baby born today will likely live less long than one born even a year ago. It's not the direction you'd expect the richest country on Earth to be going," Woolf said.

But economic collapse might be too easy an explanation for rural white communities' epidemic of despair, said Woolf, who has studied the urban-rural health divide across the country. More important might be the fraying of communities' social fabric that followed.

"Poverty rates don't capture the frustration and hopelessness people experience when they can't get ahead or can't give their kids a better life," Woolf said. When the social fabric of a community is frayed, its residents may be more inclined to salve their woes in self-destructive behaviors, he added.

A look at broader U.S. trends and policies may also shed light on the roots of some Americans' despair, Woolf and Aron wrote. During the three decades during which U.S. life expectancy has slid, the nation's educational performance weakened. Its social divides (including income inequality) widened. Its middle-class incomes stagnated. And its poverty rates exceeded those of most rich countries.

"These are all factors we know are important to health," Woolf said.

If policy makers wanted to reverse the trend of shortening U.S. lifespans, "they would promote education, boost support for children and families, increase wages and economic opportunity for the working class, invest in distressed communities, and strengthen healthcare and behavioral health systems," Woolf and Aron wrote.

At the end of the day, Woolf said, "it's probably not a good time to make policy choices that don't invest in helping these people. A policy agenda that's focused on improving value for shareholders is not really going to bring relief to these families and communities."
First off, many of the solutions your own article cites as helpful here are things Democrats support(promote education, boost support for children and families, invest in distressed communities, and strengthen healthcare and behavioral health systems ).

Second, when it comes to talking about the pathology of the urban black community many conservatives boil the issue down to culture. Do you think its possible culture is at fault here too? Its not exactly a secret that alcohol and opiods are bad for you and yet they can't break the cycle.
 
Yeah, poor white Americans are often overlooked when it comes to the discussion of poverty. There are places in Appalachia that are like third world countries.

The only thing I will say for them is that despite the staggering poverty, they manage not to shoot each other, dispelling the myth that poverty+lack of education=violence. That is a purely urban issue, and can be narrowed down even further if you want.
Its an urban issue more so because urban areas are more dense and have higher inequality so of course they also have more violence. But I'm curious, what do you think the problem with urban areas is?
Urban communities are more politically malleable. There are fewer excuses for an urban city to be more violent than rural cities, as they have a lot of things (both economically and socially) stacked in their favour vs. rural communities.
Its actually the opposite, there are fewer reasons for rural communities to be violent than urban ones which is why they are. Population density and income inequality are factors that influence violence and cities have them in spades compared to rural areas.
 
First off, many of the solutions your own article cites as helpful here are things Democrats support(promote education, boost support for children and families, invest in distressed communities, and strengthen healthcare and behavioral health systems ).

Second, when it comes to talking about the pathology of the urban black community many conservatives boil the issue down to culture. Do you think its possible culture is at fault here too? Its not exactly a secret that alcohol and opiods are bad for you and yet they can't break the cycle.

The discussion of black urban community culture is so fascinating when juxtaposed against rural community failings. As I've been saying, anyone who looks at why those areas have failing economic outcomes should be struck by how similar they are in origin. Scarcity of work for low skilled workers. The outsourcing of manufacturing. Big box stores destroying the type of small businesses that used to sustain the community. Predatory lending practices. Poor public school systems that lack the resources to adequately prepare the students for modern college opportunities. Heavy dependence on the social safety net for purchasing food, healthcare, etc.

Yet in one area, we blame the culture of the community and in the other area we blame the government for not doing enough to preserve/protect their opportunities. The dichotomy in which we analyze what are essentially identical economies based on the perceived racial make-ups of the participants can be depressing.
 
The discussion of black urban community culture is so fascinating when juxtaposed against rural community failings. As I've been saying, anyone who looks at why those areas have failing economic outcomes should be struck by how similar they are in origin. Scarcity of work for low skilled workers. The outsourcing of manufacturing. Big box stores destroying the type of small businesses that used to sustain the community. Predatory lending practices. Poor public school systems that lack the resources to adequately prepare the students for modern college opportunities. Heavy dependence on the social safety net for purchasing food, healthcare, etc.

Yet in one area, we blame the culture of the community and in the other area we blame the government for not doing enough to preserve/protect their opportunities. The dichotomy in which we analyze what are essentially identical economies based on the perceived racial make-ups of the participants can be depressing.
I think the disparity here got worse with the downfall of the labor movement. Unions were institutions that could act as a bridge between the white and black working class but with their participation drastically down it seems easier to convince poor communities in either rural or urban areas that their problems are distinct from, and sometimes a result of, the other community.
 
OP has a point.

Only a country full of delirious drunks, doped up opiate fiends, and forlorn recluses could've voted this carnival barker into office.
 
The only thing concering the government are the suicides because it totals into the billions in lost productivity. Keeping people in prison for drugs is big money, and pharma isn't about to let people self medicate.
 
I'm going to disagree with the first half of your post because the liberals haven't been marginalizing those regions. Liberals have been pushing for more union protections, higher minimum wage and a prioritization of labor over capital for decades.

That misrepresentation of what liberals have been fighting for is why those regions keep losing. Stronger unions would protect low skill labor. Higher minimum wages would help the pay for people in those regions. Getting a better education would open up more job opportunities. A stronger safety net would protect these people as they transition into new industries.

Contrast that with what the conservatives have been advocating - free trade, lower wages, more labor competition, less education and training opportunities. Fewer protections for those rural workers who have lose their job but still have bills.

Whenever the problems of the rural communities come up, people want to blame liberals without actually looking at the economic issues affecting those areas. They don't look at the policies that hurt those areas and they don't look at who actually advocates those hurtful policies. I'm a long time GOP supporter of the GOP's traditional economic goals and those goals do not help rural America. This is because those goals aim to maximize corporate profits with the hope that the gains will eventually find their way into the pockets of the workers.

The problem with that strategy is that the GOP has not shown any interest in forcing employers to operate from within the U.S., so the gains have trickled down. But they've trickled down to foreign workers. And that increase in buying power has meant more revenue for U.S. corporations internationally. Which has been great for office and salaried workers but it's been detrimental for hourly workers. But none of this grew out of liberal policies, it was primarily GOP economic policy.


Interesting points;

Liberals have made quite a few policies that have impacted rural communities in negative ways.
While being portrayed as, and driven by a morality, the rational portions of these policies are quite questionable:

For example: An overzealous and rushed commitment to climate change has seemingly skipped the R&D process and strategic planning in creating a renewable energy infrastructure large enough to replace coal and instead, forced actions have occurred harming rural communities
-(in terms of job opportunities, an increased cost to energy bills, etc.).
Many actions taken by the liberals were premature
(such as completely attacking the coal industry through regulations, as opposed to a graceful paradigm shift out of the industry)
-Why rush to cease use of coal when the renewable, green energy infrastructure has not proven to be large enough yet to replace coal?
The Coal mining industry has an average age of 45, an industry that is relatively old and set to be obsolete and yet not quite ready to be fully replaced.
--Climate change is an issue but this should have been managed much better, the rushed energy regulations have left a major employment void in areas like W. Virginia, which have been linked to the opioid crisis.

With respects to the federal minimum wage policy, that is arguably more of a detriment than a benefit to the local rural communities.
A state-wide minimum wage can more easily factor in local municipalities, and their respective costs of living much better than a grand scale federal minimum wage increase can.
*State rule over Federal rule is a staple in Republican Policy*
-Increased wages to unskilled labor = increased labor costs> fewer jobs & increased cost of living
These grand scale, federal policies sound admirable but are only feasible major urban areas, and prove that many liberal policies are geared more around urban impoverished, as opposed to a holistic solution.

While many liberal policies seemingly make an attempt to address poverty and the hourly/work obsolescence; the spending is too widespread and seemingly futile as the funds are not used to address root causes of these issues (not enough relevant skills held by US Citizens)
-some ideas for skill growth and aiding in citizen self-sustainment are, major public education reform; subsidizing state schools to better compete with the private ones, etc.)... while just ideas, both parties need to commit to this.
I will say Both parties are accountable to fine tune their plans during this transition phase
-But the safety net, will seemingly exacerbate a culture of dependency due to being more of a band-aid, symptom fix... the additional spending of these safety nets will only take away from the long term federal capability of aiding its citizens(debt interest payments rise, healthcare gets more expensive, etc.)
--I'd rather do a big investment on a true solution.

Trump and the GOP has made efforts to bring back and maintain corporations in America; making the corporate tax rate competitive, and publicly calling out businesses for implementing foreign worker investment as opposed to domestic ones. I imagine a policy of domestic employment will be implemented and incentivized

As for marginalization of rural people; I can tell you from much of my experience, many in the NE have truly negative opinions of Rural America.
Also, take a look at the MSM voices, poor rural whites are the butt of most jokes.
-Higher education has become a social currency to which anyone without a college degree is simply viewed as a lower status citizen of little value. This prejudice is omnipresent and even being spoken out loud in the current political forum ("basket of deplorables" - H. Clinton).
 
Its an urban issue more so because urban areas are more dense and have higher inequality so of course they also have more violence. But I'm curious, what do you think the problem with urban areas is?

Its actually the opposite, there are fewer reasons for rural communities to be violent than urban ones which is why they are. Population density and income inequality are factors that influence violence and cities have them in spades compared to rural areas.

Population density is an issue. I have made that argument before, but I would disagree with the claim that urban areas are poorer than parts of Appalachia, where some live without running water.

What do I think is the reason for the violence in urban areas vs rural areas?
Obviously, poverty and population density are part of it, as well as certain cultural factors that keep the cycle of violence alive. Families are broken, both by their own choice(single mothers get more $ if no father lives in home) and because of fathers being incarcerated for their crimes, which leads to young boys looking for role models and a sense of family. They find that in gangs, which are by their nature, extremely violent.
 
Interesting points;

Liberals have made quite a few policies that have impacted rural communities in negative ways.
While being portrayed as, and driven by a morality, the rational portions of these policies are quite questionable:

For example: An overzealous and rushed commitment to climate change has seemingly skipped the R&D process and strategic planning in creating a renewable energy infrastructure large enough to replace coal and instead, forced actions have occurred harming rural communities
-(in terms of job opportunities, an increased cost to energy bills, etc.).
Many actions taken by the liberals were premature
(such as completely attacking the coal industry through regulations, as opposed to a graceful paradigm shift out of the industry)
-Why rush to cease use of coal when the renewable, green energy infrastructure has not proven to be large enough yet to replace coal?
The Coal mining industry has an average age of 45, an industry that is relatively old and set to be obsolete and yet not quite ready to be fully replaced.
--Climate change is an issue but this should have been managed much better, the rushed energy regulations have left a major employment void in areas like W. Virginia, which have been linked to the opioid crisis.

With respects to the federal minimum wage policy, that is arguably more of a detriment than a benefit to the local rural communities.
A state-wide minimum wage can more easily factor in local municipalities, and their respective costs of living much better than a grand scale federal minimum wage increase can.
*State rule over Federal rule is a staple in Republican Policy*
-Increased wages to unskilled labor = increased labor costs> fewer jobs & increased cost of living
These grand scale, federal policies sound admirable but are only feasible major urban areas, and prove that many liberal policies are geared more around urban impoverished, as opposed to a holistic solution.

While many liberal policies seemingly make an attempt to address poverty and the hourly/work obsolescence; the spending is too widespread and seemingly futile as the funds are not used to address root causes of these issues (not enough relevant skills held by US Citizens)
-some ideas for skill growth and aiding in citizen self-sustainment are, major public education reform; subsidizing state schools to better compete with the private ones, etc.)... while just ideas, both parties need to commit to this.
I will say Both parties are accountable to fine tune their plans during this transition phase
-But the safety net, will seemingly exacerbate a culture of dependency due to being more of a band-aid, symptom fix... the additional spending of these safety nets will only take away from the long term federal capability of aiding its citizens(debt interest payments rise, healthcare gets more expensive, etc.)
--I'd rather do a big investment on a true solution.

Trump and the GOP has made efforts to bring back and maintain corporations in America; making the corporate tax rate competitive, and publicly calling out businesses for implementing foreign worker investment as opposed to domestic ones. I imagine a policy of domestic employment will be implemented and incentivized

As for marginalization of rural people; I can tell you from much of my experience, many in the NE have truly negative opinions of Rural America.
Also, take a look at the MSM voices, poor rural whites are the butt of most jokes.
-Higher education has become a social currency to which anyone without a college degree is simply viewed as a lower status citizen of little value. This prejudice is omnipresent and even being spoken out loud in the current political forum ("basket of deplorables" - H. Clinton).

Can you please expand on "such as completely attacking the coal industry through regulations, as opposed to a graceful paradigm shift out of the industry".

What legislation are you referring to?

I firmly believe the issue was coal has been protected for long past its due thus things are moving quickly. Hell most people still think it's cheaper than solar or wind.
 
The discussion of black urban community culture is so fascinating when juxtaposed against rural community failings. As I've been saying, anyone who looks at why those areas have failing economic outcomes should be struck by how similar they are in origin. Scarcity of work for low skilled workers. The outsourcing of manufacturing. Big box stores destroying the type of small businesses that used to sustain the community. Predatory lending practices. Poor public school systems that lack the resources to adequately prepare the students for modern college opportunities. Heavy dependence on the social safety net for purchasing food, healthcare, etc.

Yet in one area, we blame the culture of the community and in the other area we blame the government for not doing enough to preserve/protect their opportunities. The dichotomy in which we analyze what are essentially identical economies based on the perceived racial make-ups of the participants can be depressing.

I've never thought about it in that context - juxtaposing the two situations, and the emotional responses we see to them. Great post - really made me think.
 
It is troubling that our counties life expectancy is dropping. Many reasons are given why this is happening. It should be pointed out that during this time, more American have gained further access to medical care. The result has been that more medical care has not resulted in long life spans for American. I'm not surprised.
 
Can you please expand on "such as completely attacking the coal industry through regulations, as opposed to a graceful paradigm shift out of the industry".

What legislation are you referring to?

I firmly believe the issue was coal has been protected for long past its due thus things are moving quickly. Hell most people still think it's cheaper than solar or wind.

The Stream Protection Rule (2017)- recently removed by Trump. had a "rigorous" associated actions
-"'requires companies to restore streams and to return mined areas to the uses they were capable of supporting prior to mining activities, and to also replant these areas with native trees and vegetation,' the Interior Department had said. Companies would furthermore have to test and monitor the conditions of streams that might be affected by the mining activity"

Various regulations have led to increased EPA Permit requirements; the permit process has become arduous with no significant effects to improving mining(in terms of public health)

Coal ash waste regulations - the EPA's overzealous attempt to reduce exposure of coal ash to surface water though no effects were found in nearby residential areas.
-"Coal combustion Products (CCPs) represent a valuable resource to our economy and environment. The beneficial reuse of CCPs annually adds between $6.4 and $11.4 billion in economic benefits to our economy. On the environmental front, recycling of CCPs reduced U.S. GHG emissions by 11 million tons, reduced energy consumption by 162 trillion BTUs, and reduced water consumption by 32 billion gallons in 2007. Government regulators and scientists have stated repeatedly that regulation of coal ash as "toxic" or "hazardous" under Subtitle C of RCRA is "unwarranted.”

As far as renewable energy being cheaper; in the future it will be and coal is a dying industry; but sharp increases in costs (via regulations) will only speed up the process, costing jobs, when better management of this transition is needed.
-That's the real point in my statement. I'd rather a domestic spending program focused on growing the renewable energy sector and hiring hourly workers in doing that.
 
It’s really not complex...


Big pharmaceutical makes billions off painkillers..

Drs in return hand them out like candy...

People start to die...

Government goes “oh shit,peeps are dying”

Government makes it harder to pass out pills like candy...

Peeps hooked on pills turn to heroin, pills are more expensive on street..and dealers prices skyrocket due to regulations and oversight on pill slinging drs.

Peeps overdose even more.

- if we want to put any political angle on it at all...which op tried(but failed miserably)....

Is that your government cares more about pharm stock holders then it does your children... right or left.
 
Back
Top