Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
The whole "deserving" issue goes back though to this inflated sense of personal entitlement that was mentioned several times before. "Because I'm worth it"... etc.
Well, I think I'm worth at least an Audi, but that doesn't mean I can afford one and if I want one I would have to save for one and make sacrifices elsewhere.
I agree with MO's "beggars can't be chosers". If you think you deserve to have everything you see other people have, whether it be cars, designer clothing or iPhones etc... then bloody well work for it and EARN it. And if you can't afford to have it then bloody well go without... it won't kill you. And if you think it's ok to knick it, then I think it's ok if you get banged up for it.
Advertising is much more subtle and powerful than just showing you something that you might want to own. It deliberately creates an association with owning something or looking a certain way or 'being cool' etc with being happy, successful, sexy etc.
Advertising works on everyone even if you think it doesn't affect you. You are exposed to these messages 20, 50 or 100+ times a day, every day.
And its not just actual adverts. TV programs, films magazines are all selling you this lifestyle that you absolutely have to have to be happy but can just never quite obtain.
EDIT: sorry, all this is probably stateing the obvious, but I think people underestimate how much adverts affect us. Burn your TV!
The only trouble MadameO is that some generic drugs don't work as well, I know several people with epilepsy who had their first seizures for years after being switched to generic drugs.
Wot Nam said at the top of the page, there's too much feeling of entitlement. That's really what annoys me about some of the suggestions to "fix" the problem - it wants to set up a society where you never have to face any situation where there's people better off than you be it in terms of possessions, a job., or whatever. To me that's not getting to the route of it, which is that too many people now think they're entitled to haveanything anyone else has regardless of effort, and if they don't get it then they can set fire to things/steal. There's always going to be some situation that pisses you off, so you need to develop a moral compass to deal with it without resorting to what we saw last week.
I'd imagine advertising had a pretty significant effect, otherwise why would companies spend hundreds of millions if not billions on it? Unless it's mainly about switching from one "brand" to another?
I have a problem with advertising when it creates unrealistic expectations. For example, Lynx is supposed to make you some sort of babe magnet according to the advertising. I thought it was supposed to stop you from smelling...
Likewise the current Sky advert on the radio which claims that Sky believe in better. Well, obviously they don't or they would be better, but they create this illusion that if you buy their package then you will be better off.
I also hate false advertising. Recently there was a car advert that claimed that you were saving money because their car used less fuel and therefore saved on petrol and tax, when actually you would still be spending more money because you were buying a car!
And don't start me on L'Oreal. 'Because I'm worth it'? Sorry, I'm worth better than that. (and I'm willing to earn it).
I.e. if people have no jobs, no education and no future they won't give a toss if they get nicked and won't care who they hurt. Would be a lot simpier to sort out if they were political matey. The riots the other week wasn't caused by one issue but a lot of different things in different area's. Promise will read back soon and talk useral carp.
Bear, I accept that there are cases where generics are deemed 'bioequivalent', but the subtle differences they have with the innovator/branded drug are enough to have a negative impact on the patient - in those cases I agree that patients should be prescribed their original drug without question.
My gripe is more about the ones where the drug is absolutely identical. When I worked at the surgery I was sick to death of parents whining because they'd been prescribed a generic paracetamol suspension instead of Calpol.... ok, so Calpol tastes slightly better, but it does exactly the same thing and medicine isn't supposed to be a treat! They'd also clog up appointments so that they could have free prescriptions for over-the-counter drugs that cost as little as 15p to buy - now, I appreciate that some people are seriously hard up, but if someone can afford to smoke, drink and wear gold jewellery they can afford 15p for analgesics. These same people would be the ones calling up shouting about having to wait for an appointment... there's just no basic understanding that in order for a system like that to work, everyone has to do their bit by not taking the piss. Much like the benefits system...
Sorry, went off on a rant there!
I used to insist on Brufen when the generic drugs first came out, as at the time it was the only ibuprofen that was sugar coated. I've always had a problem swallowing tablets (to the extent that I had to come off the pill because it made me retch so much) so anything that made it easier for me was a bonus.
But that was a long time ago and I was on strong ones that I needed to get from the GP anyway. I wouldn't get a GP appointment just for that!