What will happen if we do what Repubs want and Deregulate Business'

[Oddball]

No but that is proof that why those agencies are needed and should be beefed up or made more effecient

The fact that they totally failed is proof that we need them!

The fact that who failed? The govt or the companies that put out those drugs?

Isn't the FDA supposed to insure that bad drugs don't make into the marketplace?

Why is it that plaintiffs don't get to sue them for their failures?

 

[The T]

The fact that they totally failed is proof that we need them!

The fact that who failed? The govt or the companies that put out those drugs?

Isn't the FDA supposed to insure that bad drugs don't make into the marketplace?

Why is it that plaintiffs don't get to sue them for their failures?

*whoops*

I can see a head spinning at a keyboard/monitor somewhere...

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact is that government cannot protect us from every harm that exists.

The fact is that drug companies can do reasonable research, testing, and evaluation before releasing a new product, and the government regulatory agency will make an honest effort to determine its probable effectiveness as well as risks involved. And both are going to miss something now and then.

If government must make sure there is zero risk with any product before we are allowed to use it, none of us would be allowed to use anything. If drug companies must identify every possible downside of a new product before they release it, we would still be suffering from many hundreds of physical maladies that we can now avoid or cure or get relief through the products developed by pharmaceutical companies.

EVERY food substance is a risk to somebody.
EVERY medicine contains a little poison.

Every one of us is at risk of something just by getting out of bed in the morning. None of us know that we won't be killed by lightning or falling aircraft or a stray meteorite or some substance that accidentally got into our food on any given day. The best that good government can do, that drug companies can do, that we can do is to exercise reasonable caution. Beyond that we all just do the best we can do avoid unnecessary risk and live our lives.

The Founders were hopeful that their succeeding generations would be educated enough to understand that, and be entrusted to make decisions regarding their own lives and liberty without government intrusion.

We have too many generations of outright babies that wince at the first sign of failure...or their first defeat at attempting life.

One of the most stupid regulations that significantly raises the cost of the medicines we have is the looooooooooong litany of known side effects of any given drug when it is advertised in a magazine or on TV. More than 50% of the advertising seconds purchased is taken up by them having to recite every bad thing that could happen if you take that drug. And even as they desensitize us to the real risks of any given drug, if they happen to miss something that turns up later, then they can be sued for the omission.

It should suffice to say "As is the case with all medications, all people cannot take this product safely and known and unknown side effects can affect some people. Be sure to read all product information carefully and follow the advice of your physician."

 

[The T]

The fact is that government cannot protect us from every harm that exists.

The fact is that drug companies can do reasonable research, testing, and evaluation before releasing a new product, and the government regulatory agency will make an honest effort to determine its probable effectiveness as well as risks involved. And both are going to miss something now and then.

If government must make sure there is zero risk with any product before we are allowed to use it, none of us would be allowed to use anything. If drug companies must identify every possible downside of a new product before they release it, we would still be suffering from many hundreds of physical maladies that we can now avoid or cure or get relief through the products developed by pharmaceutical companies.

EVERY food substance is a risk to somebody.
EVERY medicine contains a little poison.

Every one of us is at risk of something just by getting out of bed in the morning. None of us know that we won't be killed by lightning or falling aircraft or a stray meteorite or some substance that accidentally got into our food on any given day. The best that good government can do, that drug companies can do, that we can do is to exercise reasonable caution. Beyond that we all just do the best we can do avoid unnecessary risk and live our lives.

The Founders were hopeful that their succeeding generations would be educated enough to understand that, and be entrusted to make decisions regarding their own lives and liberty without government intrusion.

We have too many generations of outright babies that wince at the first sign of failure...or their first defeat at attempting life.

One of the most stupid regulations that significantly raises the cost of the medicines we have is the looooooooooong litany of known side effects of any given drug when it is advertised in a magazine or on TV. More than 50% of the advertising seconds purchased is taken up by them having to recite every bad thing that could happen if you take that drug. And even as they desensitize us to the real risks of any given drug, if they happen to miss something that turns up later, then they can be sued for the omission.

It should suffice to say "As is the case with all medications, all people cannot take this product safely and known and unknown side effects can affect some people. Be sure to read all product information carefully and follow the advice of your physician."

Yeah I know. They say in any event? "Ask your doctor..."

My response is "No Thanks..." The Cure is WORSE than the disease.

 

[Big Fitz]

So let's propose this.

Which is worth more?

1. Protecting birds and the populace from an unconfirmed connection between DDT, cancer and thinning egg shells?

2. The confirmed millions of deaths and tens of millions of people infected with Malaria, Yellow Fever and dozens of other mosquito and tse tse borne illnesses in Africa?

Which is better for the world? What is the kinder more enlightened response? I really want to know.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So let's propose this.

Which is worth more?

1. Protecting birds and the populace from an unconfirmed connection between DDT, cancer and thinning egg shells?

2. The confirmed millions of deaths and tens of millions of people infected with Malaria, Yellow Fever and dozens of other mosquito and tse tse borne illnesses in Africa?

Which is better for the world? What is the kinder more enlightened response? I really want to know.

Second.

 

[The T]

So let's propose this.

Which is worth more?

1. Protecting birds and the populace from an unconfirmed connection between DDT, cancer and thinning egg shells?

2. The confirmed millions of deaths and tens of millions of people infected with Malaria, Yellow Fever and dozens of other mosquito and tse tse borne illnesses in Africa?

Which is better for the world? What is the kinder more enlightened response? I really want to know.

Second.

*Seconded*

 

[mudwhistle]

What will happen if we do what Repubs want and Deregulate Business? .

Why do you assume you have the right to regulate business in the first place?

Because in society there are rules.

Problem with the nimrods in the White House it's not rules, but rule, as in domination by a ruler.

Anti-business regulations are the problem here, not whether or not business are taking advantage of customers. Like was said before, the customer can't get what he wants from one business he can always patronize another. What Obama wants to do is tell businesses how to do their business. This is an infringement on our freedoms under constitution. The pursuit of happiness dealio. He just uses tree-hugging as an excuse to attack anyone or any business that doesn't suck his root in a enthusiastic enough manner.

 

[Eric Cartman]

The fact that who failed? The govt or the companies that put out those drugs?

Isn't the FDA supposed to insure that bad drugs don't make into the marketplace?

Why is it that plaintiffs don't get to sue them for their failures?

*whoops*

I can see a head spinning at a keyboard/monitor somewhere...

I don't think they would call for so many recalls if they could "insure that bad drugs don't make into the marketplace?".

I bet most Americans would pick FDA approved drugs over drugs that weren't.

 

[Big Fitz]

So let's propose this.

Which is worth more?

1. Protecting birds and the populace from an unconfirmed connection between DDT, cancer and thinning egg shells?

2. The confirmed millions of deaths and tens of millions of people infected with Malaria, Yellow Fever and dozens of other mosquito and tse tse borne illnesses in Africa?

Which is better for the world? What is the kinder more enlightened response? I really want to know.

Second.

*Seconded*

And from the left... crickets. Very amused crickets. Who are laughing at them for being exposed to loving pests and disease over people.

I guess parasites know their own and stick together.

 

[Oddball]

The fact that they totally failed is proof that we need them!

The fact that who failed? The govt or the companies that put out those drugs?

Isn't the FDA supposed to insure that bad drugs don't make into the marketplace?

Why is it that plaintiffs don't get to sue them for their failures?

Weelllll?

 

[Eric Cartman]

The fact that who failed? The govt or the companies that put out those drugs?

Isn't the FDA supposed to insure that bad drugs don't make into the marketplace?

Why is it that plaintiffs don't get to sue them for their failures?

Weelllll?

You are actually asking why a plaintiff can't sue us the taxpayer when a drug companies drug hurts someone?... wow.

Should the victim of a drunk driver be able to sue the tax payers because there isn't enough cops?

 

[Oddball]

Well, if your pretext is consumer protection and you fail to protect the consumer, why should you be immune from the consequences of your failure just because you're a bureaucrat?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The fact that they totally failed is proof that we need them!

The fact that who failed? The govt or the companies that put out those drugs?

Isn't the FDA supposed to insure that bad drugs don't make into the marketplace?

Why is it that plaintiffs don't get to sue them for their failures?

So get rid of the Government who failed but keep the companies that failed?

 

[Oddball]

The companies that put out products that harm people should be sued and ordered to make the victims whole again.

So, when does the same yardstick apply to the FDA, especially in light of the fact that it costs companies over $500 million and nearly a decade to get new devices and medications approved?

And what of the discovered "orphan drugs", which treat so few people that they costs of bringing them to market can never be recouped , in the process?...Who pays for the pain and suffering of the people who could be helped there?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The companies that put out products that harm people should be sued and ordered to make the victims whole again.

So, when does the same yardstick apply to the FDA, especially in light of the fact that it costs companies over $500 million and nearly a decade to get new devices and medications approved?

And what of the discovered "orphan drugs", which treat so few people that they costs of bringing them to market can never be recouped , in the process?...Who pays for the pain and suffering of the people who could be helped there?

So, you are advocating for people being able to sue the govt for our tax money?

I dont agree, but everyone is different...

 

[Big Fitz]

The fact that who failed? The govt or the companies that put out those drugs?

Isn't the FDA supposed to insure that bad drugs don't make into the marketplace?

Why is it that plaintiffs don't get to sue them for their failures?

So get rid of the Government who failed but keep the companies that failed?

By certifying a dangerous drug is safe, they are taking responsibility AS WELL AS the company that made it. If you can sue the drug manufacturer for making a drug that harmed instead of helped, you should also be able to sue the government for failing to protect you for they claimed that it was safe for your consumption.

Why should those who are designating us our protectors not be held accountable for failing to do so? If it was a private company protecting us, we could sue them.

 

[Big Fitz]

The companies that put out products that harm people should be sued and ordered to make the victims whole again.

So, when does the same yardstick apply to the FDA, especially in light of the fact that it costs companies over $500 million and nearly a decade to get new devices and medications approved?

And what of the discovered "orphan drugs", which treat so few people that they costs of bringing them to market can never be recouped , in the process?...Who pays for the pain and suffering of the people who could be helped there?

So, you are advocating for people being able to sue the govt for our tax money?

I dont agree, but everyone is different...

So you're saying you don't want to be held responsible for your poor choice in electing a politician who appoints bad people?

Huh... so really this is about no consequences to you in any way.

 

[Eric Cartman]

The companies that put out products that harm people should be sued and ordered to make the victims whole again.

yes

So, when does the same yardstick apply to the FDA, especially in light of the fact that it costs companies over $500 million and nearly a decade to get new devices and medications approved?

You just said that the company should make the victim whole. The $500 million is the cost of development plus FDA safety testing, right? Shouldn't they safety test even if there wasn't an FDA?

And what of the discovered "orphan drugs", which treat so few people that they costs of bringing them to market can never be recouped , in the process?...Who pays for the pain and suffering of the people who could be helped there?

Another great argument for government funded research.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, right....They're a failure at regulating it, so let's just sign the whole enchilada over to them to run in toto.

How did I miss the obvious solution?