I had to dig through all the liberal anti-Bush stuff to find this but he makes a good point:
"But here's the thing: it's still only a fraction. Only a small number of people whose doctors prescribe these meds like candy actually need them, and as for the rest there are these things called lifestyle change and dietary change and perspective change and even spiritual shift that can affect the overall health of your life like a goddamn miracle, like a thousand drugs combined, changes that millions simply refuse to undertake because, well, it's just too damn hard."
He's right about this. Many people due to lifestyle or ignorance over a long period of time are in a situation where they have to take meds. Many other people don't need all the meds but wind up taking them anyway. The side effects of many popular meds are significant and those get largely overlooked when people make decisions about taking them.
Part of the issue also is the lousy dietary advice that's been floating around for so many years -- that high carbs, no meat is the healthiest choice. That's one of the reasons so many people have chronic health problems.
Conservatives are the people of personal responsibility. We should be the ones leading the effort for more healthy choices (note I said "choices", not gov't mandates about taxing Hardee's mega-cheeseburgers and such).
(Flame-retardant suit now firmly in place. . . . )
But in between her homoerotic rhetoric and her pathological love/hate relationship with G. W. Bush, she has a valid point ... lots of folks are stuffed to the gills with drugs to treat conditions that might better be alleviated by lifestyle changes (like getting up off their fat arses and moving a bit), then with drugs to alleviate the side effects of the first set of drugs, then with drugs to alleviate the interaction effects of the first two sets, then ...