Seriously, it’s as if he was never forced to read Upton Sinclair in high school.
5 Likes
So, drugs in Germany,
Canada,
Italy, Japan,
Poland, Brazil,
Finland, Luxembourg
are all unsafe? Golly, I had no idea. Guess they need a big helping of that sweet, sweet regulatory capture that has served the USA so very well.
You’re dumb.
6 Likes
He’s not dumb. I’ve been around long enough to be confident of that.
He’s just arguing in bad faith. That’s pretty typical.
6 Likes
Also, he has to say “I am a codfish”.
1 Like
You are completely correct about what each of those countries does. That’s why talking about “chalk pills” from India is an exercise in primitive strawmannery.
Yes but eliminating the FDA’s oversight creates a regulatory environment where said chalk pills are much easier to slip into the marketplace, because there’s no oversight. Every other country you mentioned may have institutions with better- or worse-run monopolies on their local markets, but they still have them.
5 Likes
The problem is that our FDA not only safety-tests drugs (good thing) it works hard to keep lower cost generics out of the market (very bad thing).
Adding to that, it seems to me that there would be a major profit incentive to sell brand.
Is there no place free of the tyranny of the nanny state? Will no-one trust the Invisible Hand and the benevolence of corporate executives?
5 Likes
Man, it’s almost as if lobbyists from drug companies push for restricting them, or shove through bullshit drugs with no real improvements to artificially deny generics the ability to come to market or something.
Totally the mean ol’ gubbermints fault, for sure.
No, really, you’re dumb. Like, dumb as in “this system which works worse than literally every other first world nation in every objective metric is obviously the superior choice” dumb.
5 Likes
One more:
2 Likes
7 Likes
Who’s protecting that monopoly? Is there a reason that another company can’t undercut them with a generic version?
“That’s a very good question and I’m glad that you asked it, but first let me ask you a question: How would this situation not be improved by shooting you, taking your stuff and feeding your corpse to wild animals?”
2 Likes
The ruthless clear-eyed businessman is, as in so many things, the beneficiary of a glaring double standard. If the one moral law is self-interest and anything you can get away with you get away with and that’s fine, what stops the hungry poor from eating them?
It turns out, incidentally, according to the experiences of Brazil that the answer is nothing at all. Which is why the hyper-rich of that country tried private armies and when that didn’t work, welfare programs. Presumably, the plutocrats of America will learn the same lesson, in due course.
3 Likes
Here’s the simple version: Prioritizing care over profits gets better care; prioritizing profits over care gets more profits.
Someone might point out that sometimes prioritizing X over Y actually makes Y better than doing it the other way around. I’m sure that’s true. But they just want us to assume it’s true about healthcare. Like the benefit of the doubt goes to things being topsy-turvy.
4 Likes
The quality, cost, and outcome of the safety tests is determined politically, and the political actors are paid by corporations in campaign donations. The FDA is so horrifically corrupt we might well better off with caveat emptor - but a food and drug safety organization that wasn’t completely captured by commercial and political actors would be better still.
1 Like
Wow, a gushing review of socialized medicine and anti-Americanism! I suppose that’s to be expected on boing boing.
If everything is so warm & wonderful in the UK, then why is Bloomberg publishing an article such as below?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-23/u-k-faces-longest-fall-in-living-standards-since-records-began
Why would everything be better under socialized medicine? Who are these ‘angels’? Why are they so much better then the ‘devils’ in the private sector? Why does ‘the state’ get a free pass? Why is everyone so eager to simply throw money at the state, yet question the private sector? Shouldn’t we also question the state?
Suuure it’s eeeeevil socialists, not because decades of stupid, right wing political and economical decisions have damaged life expectancy and quality. Yes, absolutely.
9 Likes
Austerity? We’ve only been complaining about it for the last decade. People are dying from it, in the name of capitalism.
It was a lot better before the Tories started making cuts like a demented serial killer.
This is the only part of your post that I agree with, admittedly for different reasons than you. I question all power structures and have come to the conclusion that the NHS is a better option than the private health industry. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect or that there isn’t a better option, just that it is better than health insurance with all it’s shit about copays, pre-existing conditions, etc.
9 Likes
In case anyone needs reminding how austerity kills
Even the Daily Mail are complaining, showing that a stopped clock is still right sometimes.
Lets face it, if this death rate was caused by socialism we’d never hear the end of it from the capitalists. Remind them how they are killing people every chance you get.
8 Likes
