> Go visit a counter clinic and get exactly what you need ---though I'm sure you know that you have acute viral bronchitis and you only needs some over-the-counter drugs to treat symptoms. Then, you can go reinvest your "shitload" in something more intelligent like car insurance or a new graphics card.
The problem is that in my country you cannot get a prescription without a doctor’s appointment. What happens (at least with me) is that I wait to see if I get better by myself.
> You're right. Health care should be like sex. Free only, illegal otherwise, immoral regardless. There should be laws to enforce this.
Nowhere did I claim that. What I meant was that doctors have a conflict of interest. On the one hand they should care for your health and on the other hand they should make as much money as possible. That causes a lot of doctors to prescribe unnecessary tests and perform unnecessary x-rays. In my country there was a law that allowed doctors to sell medicine (usually a pharmacy had to be owned by a pharmacist). This caused a lot of doctors to give out overly expensive medicine that people do not need.
> Say no.
And the doctor will tell you that it is really necessary. Since most people do not know the field they will believe the doctor with blind trust.
> Also, doctors prescribe generally prescribe what will be most likely to work the fastest because ---if you remember from a century ago--- bacterial infections kill you and then spread to your friends and family to kill them.
They actually do that to make money (see above).
> They don't care that you can save $30 with some similar drug they don't know much about.
Those “similar drugs” are run of the mill anti-biotics that have been on the market for 20+ years.
"They actually do that to make money (see above)."
In the USA, doctors do not make money from drugs directly, though they may indirectly benefit from pharmaceutical "good-will." However, that's more common for new drugs that patients would take chronically, like psych drugs, not antibiotics to treat common, acute issues.
"And the doctor will tell you that it is really necessary. Since most people do not know the field they will believe the doctor with blind trust."
Well, do you really know the field enough to know that it's _not_ necessary? And if so, then why would this be relevant to you?
"Those “similar drugs” are run of the mill anti-biotics that have been on the market for 20+ years."
The standard of care evolves ---as do the "biotics."
The problem is that in my country you cannot get a prescription without a doctor’s appointment. What happens (at least with me) is that I wait to see if I get better by myself.
> You're right. Health care should be like sex. Free only, illegal otherwise, immoral regardless. There should be laws to enforce this.
Nowhere did I claim that. What I meant was that doctors have a conflict of interest. On the one hand they should care for your health and on the other hand they should make as much money as possible. That causes a lot of doctors to prescribe unnecessary tests and perform unnecessary x-rays. In my country there was a law that allowed doctors to sell medicine (usually a pharmacy had to be owned by a pharmacist). This caused a lot of doctors to give out overly expensive medicine that people do not need.
> Say no.
And the doctor will tell you that it is really necessary. Since most people do not know the field they will believe the doctor with blind trust.
> Also, doctors prescribe generally prescribe what will be most likely to work the fastest because ---if you remember from a century ago--- bacterial infections kill you and then spread to your friends and family to kill them.
They actually do that to make money (see above).
> They don't care that you can save $30 with some similar drug they don't know much about.
Those “similar drugs” are run of the mill anti-biotics that have been on the market for 20+ years.