Do you see these third parties for drugs as something equivalent to the financial ratings agencies we have today? If so, no thanks…
He probably also meant “tenets” instead of “tenants.”
How is this?
And of course that reputable third party company will dole out that information for free to poor people out of the goodness of their bottom lines, right?
Again with your Stepford vision of how everybody exists. You know who my doctor is? Whoever’s on call at the ER if I get sick – ok, that’s not true for me (as I can afford insurance that lets me see a doctor if I need to), but it’s true for millions of people in this country.
Not to mention that you’re advocating a replacement for the FDA with companies that will compete in the free market. That information should not be competed for. It should be provided for the well-being of the American people, not for ledger sheets up and down Wall Street.
There was no economic recovery until after the war. Not much more I can say about that.
If you’re argument is that the FDA have a desire to provide protection for the consumer I don’t know what more I can say.
From the FDA’s website: “The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, and products that give off radiation.”
Who do you think they’re protecting?
The economy was recovering in the mid-'30s and went into a recession again when FDR cut spending in 1937. The economy began to recover again in 1938 and showed signs of improvement through the start of the war.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
Even here, you’re assuming a lot. I think the actual conversation would be something like this:
“Well, we’ve completed the tests and determined our new drug is helpful in treating this condition. We’re ready to go to market.”
“Did we test for possible harmful side-effects?”
“How much would testing for harmful side-effects cost?”
“Several million dollars.”
“And would discovering harmful side-effects increase the sales of our product?”
“Obviously not.”
“And are we required by law to test for harmful side-effects?”
“Not since the Paul administration.”
“So do you think we tested for harmful side-effects?”
“I was just checking. Like you said, we’re ready to go to market. We want to be able to say there are no known harmful side-effects.”
Do tell us what you think the researchers, investigators, lab techs and other employees of the FDA “desire” to do.
I’ll make it easier for you, with a specific example. Read about the FDA’s role in tracking the source of the E. coli outbreak in fresh produce in 2006, minimizing public exposure and working to develop plans to limit future outbreaks. Then explain how this is something other than the FDA’s providing protection for the consumer, as well as how Ron Paul’s FDA-less future will improve matters.
I think the point WillFarnaby is trying to make (and by all means, please correct me if I’m wrong) is that any entity that is faced with competition from another entity will be inspired to produce work of a higher quality. By making the FDA federally funded, they have no market competition and thus are not inspired to be as thorough and efficient in their research as they could be.
Also, just as a point of curiosity, why do you guys think that all these things need to be dealt with on the federal level? Dr. Paul proposed to eliminate these five Cabinet-level agencies: Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior. This does not at all mean that he’s going to eliminate commerce, education, etc. It merely means that these issues will be either privatized or addressed at the state level. Why is federal control so much better than privatization or decentralization?
He hasn’t said that. He’s said the FDA gets between people and their doctors (which it does only insofar as it can approve or not approve drugs), and that people should have the option to take Poisonex if that’s what they want. For the most part, the FDA does not do research. It evaluates research that companies do in support of their own drugs and surgical tools and such.
That is a byproduct of the point I was making in defending Paul’s plan to cut FDA funding. I think the FDA does a poor job in fulfilling it’s mission statement and a private company would have the incentive to do a better job.
I eagerly await your explanation of how that’s going to happen and your response to the pitfalls I pointed out in post #68. The FDA has its problems, but they’re not because it lacks the incentive to do a good job.
So what is their incentive?
If you’re argument is that the FDA can’t provide protection for the consumer unless there’s a monetary payoff involved, then I don’t know what more I can say.
Their incentive is making sure products are properly vetted so they can help people and preventing dangerous ones from hurting people. The whole idea of regulating is that you want the industry to work as best as possible for the people who need its products, not just the people who make money from selling those products. There is overlap between those goals, but they can come into conflict, which is where there is a use for a strong, impartial third party.
I’m not arguing that. I am saying that the incentive to do good for the sake of doing good is probably not as motivational as they incentive to do a good job because otherwise you might lose your job and go out of business.
You’re right. From the standpoint of consumers, an agency that is tasked with protecting consumers has less incentive to do a good job than a company that has to balance protecting consumers with pleasing shareholders by meeting its profit and sales targets.
The recent banking fiasco had oodles of financial incentives, the result wasn’t pretty.
What about the incentive to do bad for the big bucks? Corruption is what will result, not doing good.