@orathaic
"@"cut the price to produce the good, make the quality of the good a big liability for companies rather than letting the FDA deal with final tests and restricting, and then temporary price caps so the market price can adjust"
I think this suggestion has terrible issies.
Drug safety testing is expensive and difficult, and there are several example of unsafe drugs being released to the general public."
this is the first reason why i think legal liability has more sway than simply giving up control of drug regulation to the government. 1.3 of the drugs the FDA APPROVES get pulled from market. this is not a natural occurrence for any healthcare industries, this a problem with pharmaceutical companies not being held to high standards.
"The problem is with the liability. If you create a legal entity (corporation) with full liability for possible damages, but without the financial reserves to pay out those liabilities: so they are selling a drug for $10 to 100 million people - their profits are, for the sake of arguement $2 per person.
If 10% of people suffer serious disability as a side effect, then for their entire life they will need to be taken care. But you've only earned ~$2/ 10% per disabled person. So this loability will bankrupt the corporation. And the investors will still make money from other drugs they have invested in. The state may be left picking up the cost of caring for those people after the company ceases to exist. (And you can't punish the rest of the industry, even if they are the same investors spending their money taking risks which happened to pay off)."
well i'll admit i was vague in my short little spiel there, but in an earlier thread i addressed this in more depth. the FDA will not be ENTIRELY dismantled, and there will have to be an appeal process. we're not just synthesizing things in a lab then immediately giving them to people.
furthermore, your example would not fall under what i said previously, but i'll clear that up here. i want to use the school-loan model of liability, where the debt follows even bankruptcy, and i also want an implementation of manslaughter charges for bad drugs to even the higher ups of corporations. this is not just an extra level of bureaucracy, this is a massive rewording of legal statute.
also, you entirely are wrong with investors, if the company messes up the company is doomed, and stock prices will drop fast. investors won't be walking away with profits.
most of my suggestions are removing the superfluous regulations of the FDA, that actually helps take pressure off of the companies.
Here is a good look into the FDA, and go to the section marked
"Comparison of On-Label and Off-Label Usage"
it perfectly describes the economic and medical impacts of the deregulated market.
http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php
"Alternatively, it becomes very difficult/expensive to prove that a particular illness/disability was the direct result of a particular drug. The company - bever having seen this side effect in drug trials, can deny liability entirely. And so you have to fund extensive testing to prove the safety of the drug... who does that?
Under the current system, it is regulations which force drug companies to do just that in the first place."
AND this is where you've misconstrued what i've said. i never said dismantle the entirety of the FDA. the funny thing is, as of right now both the FDA and companies have to run tests on drugs to see safety, and in some prescription markets only some basic observational studies are done by companies, and much of the burden is left to the FDA. literally the situation you just described where the companies do very little, and the government picks up the slack IS the current situation we are in.
furthermore, tracing a drug to side effects, if you have the drug, and you have the side effects, is not that hard to do when compared to having a drugs and attempting to predict what side effects there will be. but EVEN THEN, that doesn't actually fit what i've been saying, i want a reworking of the FDA. as previously noted: 1/3 of drugs the FDA lets onto the market are pulled soon after.
"Now some companies might be very careful and not take risks, but all you need is one or two companies to start making tonnes of cash before the others start copying their risky practices (i would like to cite the investment banking crash as an example of just this happening)."
as someone who has extensively studied the subprime mortgage market, i can officially say either you know nothing about economics, or you have once against misread what i've said.
the problem with the banking crash was not just deregulation over the years, or excessive conscious risk taking: it was the banks not understanding their own rating levels.
there were rating companies that competed with one another, and they did their best when they rated the lower level mortgages at a higher quality level. note: there hadn't been regulation on this in the past, so deregulation did not CAUSE this. then the banks, with only perhaps a few people who knew the extra risk, had no statistical models drawn up of how likely these loans were to default.
to compare this to an unregulated pharmaceutical industry:
1. it'd necessitate that the scientists in the labs being CONSTANTLY lying to the pharmaceutical companies.
2. it'd collapse after a few months, not 20 years, because drugs have much more immediate impacts on people, whereas credit can be built up.
3. you're assuming that the same product is being sold across an industry, which is not at all true with drugs, but thanks to the FED, WAS true with banks.
so... that's a pretty bad comparison.
FURTHERMORE, i still don't think you understand, there will be a baseline level of qualifications still needed for companies by the FDA. i never have ONCE said that this should be a free market, i don't know why you keep portraying my argument as such.
"We already know what this can be like, especially for cancer causing products, like tobacco. It may take decades for the effects to appear, and you might have a genetic lottery to survive (some people can smoke their entire lives and never get lung cancer). But companies making a profit will attempt to disprove any causal links between their product and the side-effects."
of course the ACTUAL problem with the tobacco was that it had bought politicians. IN BIG GOVERNMENT (#HowtoTriggerLiberals)
also, they did that WITH THE FDA STILL AS IT IS. what i want is a legal and governmental reworking of the FDA and laws around pharmaceuticals. literally the example of tobacco companies causing such problems: IS UNDER YOUR OWN SYSTEM
"There is no reason for me to think that deregulation will result in any social good. And i believe JY's findamental premise is flawed."
except, you never addressed my fundamental premise. not once. you pretended i wanted zero regulation and ran with that.
"I'd go further and suggest that the kind of system you propose doesn't exist anywhere in the world, and there is a pretty good reason for that."
even though this is the most expensive time in modern history for healthcare, and that's not just due to inflation? there's a second side to the coin.
"But i can go further, look at the effects of Unions on healthcare in the US - you can contrast with some european countries where they have no national min. wage, because the strong union solidarity has managed to negotiate a industry wide min. wage (which will vary per industry)."
it's interesting how everyone loves unions, but then they hate cartels. it's the same premise, the coalition of employers, and the coalition of workers. both are equally susceptible to corruption.
"In the US unions forced specific industries to offer health insurance to workers on a per industry basis, that is why there was little success in efforts to push for a national health insurance solution."
and that caused monopolies of the 1920s, which Roosevelt tried to destroy, ultimately failed because the systematic regulation and concentration of power into companies led to extreme profit incentives, which led to the mass accruing of debt, which in turn led to the great depression.
"You can argue about rights til you are blue on the face. But the fact is individual industries fought for their right to health insurance and won. That is the only way any group has ever changed the world. And there is clearly a lack of solidarity between workers in different unions/industries and between the unemployed/unemployable."
1. stop using "right" like that. they fought for industry wide contracts.
2. unions got corrupted and didn't always represent their people.
3. ever heard of closed shop rules? it's where you HAVE to join a union or you don't get a job. sounds pretty corporate to me...
4. the ONLY way they changed the world? well that's hyperbole, and it's also a failure because unions quite literally create monopolies through restricting the workforce and crafting deals. unions helped CREATE the corporatist industries that hurt workers during the progressive era.
"And also the entrepeneurs who set up their own businesses, they get 0 empathy or solidarity from the average industrial worker's union."
which is why only the big corporations get union deals, and monopolies are born. DO YOU EVEN READ WHAT YOU ARE WRITING?????
"As automation and unemployment continue to increase, we will see more uninsured americans, and unless you collectively fights for your rights, they will not exist. There will be no 'right to healthcare' unless you make one."
1. automation is increasing, which is leading to more high skill jobs. there still are tons of low skills jobs, but unfortunately they're all being filled up, and a LARGE number of them are being filled by illegal immigrants. this is not hyperbole, there are about 10 million of them living here, and they are predominantly low skill.
2. the death of manufacturing are because of practical slave states that can produce goods for much cheaper. many of these slave states need to be held to the international law's will, but unfortunately the WTO and UN are pussies.
3. interestingly enough medical manufacturing is doing quite well in the USA. this is because in Europe, regulations on medicine actually make our markets look laissez faire by comparison.
4. unemployment will not increase unless our population continues to go up, and we still allow mass immigration, illegal or otherwise. this is causing an increase in the supply of our wage market, which is bringing down wages. meanwhile restrictions on employers make it hard for start ups, costing us jobs. then the employee cost index has been on a steady rise, which means employers can't afford to hire new people.
5. you shouldn't be able to just create rights out of nowhere because you want to. if you want to give the government power to redistribute money and provide healthcare, that is one solution, but a right shouldn't ever be created where it necessitates stealing from other people. in history, when countries create rights like that, despotism soon follows.
"And when it comes to 'positive rights', there is a great example in public education - funded by public taxation (even private schools where they claim some funding from the state). There is no right to education enshrined in the US constitution, there doesn't need to be a right to education."
there isn't a right to education. you have no RIGHT to demand that someone should TEACH you. nobody has a RIGHT to someone else's labor. what we have are powers that we bestowed upon government as a general consensus of the people.
back then public education was left up to municipalities and the state, compared to now with the federal department of education which is causing skyrocketing college tuitions and standardized tests bullshit, back then we had a smarter population. once again, these things were left UP TO THE STATE.
"We all agree that the social good is served by giving everyone a decent education."
yes, but we don't agree on the specifics. it's thousands of times worse if the federal government dictates everything, than if the states do. we have tracked the national intelligence over the years and it has fallen with extended powers to federalization, as extra levels of bureaucracy create unnecessary tests and grants cause overall tuition to rise.
"That cam be because i am less likely to be robbed in the street if the average citizen has alternative means of surviving, and we believe education helps to 'civilise' our fellow citizens. We believe that we're giving them the best opportunity to pursue their 'life, liberty, and happiness' so we agree to collectively pay for public education, because it is a social good."
and we also should go back to the state or more likely community model because that's more effective. i agree.
"The agruement for Universal HealthCare are the same."
leave it up to states or more likely communities to determine the healthcare of its citizens?
i agree!
"I guess if you want universal health care, petition your state to add that as a right (if that is the prefered mechanism to vindicate your rights)."
it's not a right, it's a power.
and secondly, anything not expressly in the constitution was given to the states, so this isn't "preferred" it's the legal way of doing this
GATORS ARE NATIONAL CHAMPS
)
)
)
)
)
)