Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The War on Taint
Friday, June 29, 2007 9:43 PM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:21 AM
Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:50 AM
LEADB
Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:39 AM
Saturday, June 30, 2007 9:03 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2007 12:09 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Sunday, July 1, 2007 3:17 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2007 4:34 AM
SERGEANTX
Sunday, July 1, 2007 7:57 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2007 9:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: I'm not sure I want the FDA to disappear.
Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:05 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:29 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Make people sign a waiver?
Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:36 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SergeantX: Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: I'm not sure I want the FDA to disappear. And you think we'd be helpless without their 'guidance'? There are plenty of ways to protect yourself from bad chemicals. Plenty of ways to ensure that the drugs you buy are safe. Government provides one way. That's not bad in and of itself, but the problem is that they also prohibit any alternate solutions. What's the problem with allowing people to look for other options? Seriously, keep the FDA up and running if you like. Keep the AMA and state medical boards. People who want the government stamp of approval can have that. But at least allow those of us who can't afford the current scheme to look for something else without becoming criminals in the process. It's not the FDA, or monitoring for safety that bothers me. It's telling people that they have to have the government's permission to take drugs that aren't approved or to seek health care outside the system. SergeantX
Sunday, July 1, 2007 5:33 PM
Quote:Originally posted by leadb: And to be clear, you are talking about the US?
Tuesday, July 3, 2007 4:56 PM
Tuesday, July 3, 2007 6:07 PM
Wednesday, July 4, 2007 3:33 AM
Wednesday, July 4, 2007 7:59 AM
FLETCH2
Wednesday, July 4, 2007 12:49 PM
Wednesday, July 4, 2007 3:36 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SergeantX: One of the most popular refrains about the health care fiasco is that the profit motive is the root of the problem. I fail to see how.
Thursday, July 5, 2007 12:32 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SergeantX: We've outlawed low-cost health care.
Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:55 AM
FINN MAC CUMHAL
Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:12 AM
CHRISISALL
Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:17 AM
Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:27 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SergeantX: Chris, I'm scared...
Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:38 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: I have no clue what the hell sixstring is talking about... ...Entire rest of post....
Thursday, July 5, 2007 9:23 AM
Quote:There are plenty of ways to protect yourself from bad chemicals. Plenty of ways to ensure that the drugs you buy are safe. Government provides one way. That's not bad in and of itself, but the problem is that they also prohibit any alternate
Quote:There are millions of people out there dying (some of them literally) for low-cost health care. If there was a way to provide that legally, someone would do it. It's a huge under-served market that no profit driven entrepreneur would deliberately ignore.
Quote:The problem that I see with healthcare in this country is that we have regulated it to suit the doctor not the patient. The MD has been given as near to god-status as is possible without declaring healthcare a religion, and that has imbued the MD with a sizable amount of political power; that is made even more powerful because people don’t even realize that there is political power there.
Quote:we need to abandon the AMA control of the market and allow more supply and demand to operate.
Quote:Open more medical schools and train more doctors. The more doctors we have the lower the price of doctors will be. Relax restrictions on medical practices so that professionals with expertise in certain medical procedures, despite a lack of MD licenses, can practice those procedures. It takes a surgeon to do open heart surgery, but it doesn’t take a surgeon, or even an MD, to mend a broken leg or arm, most of the time. Allow less expensive nurses to practice medical procedurals they are adept at. In most cases you will find that many nurses are far more competent at many things then all but the most expert doctors simply because they are there with the patient all the time.
Quote:Why? One reason is lawyers. The number of lawyers, unlike doctors, are regulated more by the market then the Bar Associations. As a result many people go to law school because the market demand for lawyers is high.
Quote:Part of the reason why the demand for lawyers is high is because of our god-like reverence for MDs. When an MD screws up, or even appears to screw up, or a lawyer can convince someone that an MD has screwed up, then they sue. No matter how ridiculous the case is, they sue. We have this notion that if a doctor screws up it can only be because that doctor was a fraud or evil, because everyone knows that all real doctors are gods and gods are infallible, therefore anything and everything (esp. considering the oftentimes emotional state of the patient and patient's family) become a cause for law suit. That’s not to say that some malpractice suits are not justified or that some doctors are not frauds or evil, but I do believe that the system is being taken advantage of.
Thursday, July 5, 2007 9:52 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Finn, I think you seriously contradicted yourself here. Your previous strategy for increasing the number of doctors was letting the market take over, and let supply catch up with demand. Now you seem to be saying that since the market is controlling the legal professions the demand for lawyers is high?
Thursday, July 5, 2007 12:18 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Finn, I think you seriously contradicted yourself here. Your previous strategy for increasing the number of doctors was letting the market take over, and let supply catch up with demand. Now you seem to be saying that since the market is controlling the legal professions the demand for lawyers is high? No, the demand for lawyers is high because we want lawyers. The Market has created exactly the number of lawyers that is needed to fill the demand, which it would also do for doctors. But the market does not distinguish frivolous lawsuits from serious lawsuits.
Thursday, July 5, 2007 12:51 PM
Quote:Originally posted by leadb: I'd disagree; lack of regulation has allowed more lawyers than we want; this yields a situation where lawyers are looking for 'any' case that might yield a payback. Better to spend 10 hours on a law suit which which has 10% chance of making a million dollars than spend 10 hours thumb twiddling.
Thursday, July 5, 2007 1:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Sarge: I have to disagree with certain aspects of the free-market solution RE the FDA
Thursday, July 5, 2007 3:23 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: I don’t think it is more lawyers then we want, but I do think it is more then we need or should want. We have all these lawyers because we’ve discovered that if we feel slighted or pissed of we can get a lawyer and stick it to the world. We don’t like that we’re fat, so let’s sue McDonalds. We hate Christians, so let’s sue the local school and get Christmas break killed. It’s not the lawyers or the number of lawyers. It’s us.
Thursday, July 5, 2007 3:29 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Thursday, July 5, 2007 3:35 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I agree with the post, I think, but still don't know what 'taint' is.
Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:00 PM
Quote:Originally posted by LeadB: It's the next stage of the "War on..." In this example, it's the war on anything questionable. At least, that's my interpretation.
Friday, July 6, 2007 1:54 AM
Quote:As I've said before, have all the monitoring and government endorsement you want, just don't mandate that people follow it. That way if they can afford the highly trained, AMA endorsed physician with a government license they can go that route. But if the can't, or they've found someone outside the system they can trust, they have that option. Essentially I'm asking, how do you justify telling people what doctors they can patronize, especially in the face of a crisis that leaves so many of us without?
Friday, July 6, 2007 2:36 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Quote:As I've said before, have all the monitoring and government endorsement you want, just don't mandate that people follow it. That way if they can afford the highly trained, AMA endorsed physician with a government license they can go that route. But if the can't, or they've found someone outside the system they can trust, they have that option. Essentially I'm asking, how do you justify telling people what doctors they can patronize, especially in the face of a crisis that leaves so many of us without? I guess you're against government nanny-ism? Maybe part of the solution would be to make the non-FDA practitioners and medicines post a big sign: NON-FDA APPROVED. Truth-in-advertising. ANd I'd have to say that the credulous- or the very desperate- would be killed off pretty quickly. It would be nice, tho, to set up some kind of public databases so that these experiences can be tracked. That way we could accumulate knowledge from the experience of thousands of people.... something that society is useful for. But the other issue would be the insurance companies, which would refuse to pay for anything not approved. And what do you do to solve the problem about people who need and want FDA-approved treatments but can't afford them? If businesses are raking in huge profits (they are) providing FDA-approved treatment, how do you break the monopoly?
Friday, July 6, 2007 4:00 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: I guess you're against government nanny-ism? Maybe part of the solution would be to make the non-FDA practitioners and medicines post a big sign: NON-FDA APPROVED. Truth-in-advertising.
Quote:But the other issue would be the insurance companies, which would refuse to pay for anything not approved.
Quote:And what do you do to solve the problem about people who need and want FDA-approved treatments but can't afford them?
Quote:If businesses are raking in huge profits (they are) providing FDA-approved treatment, how do you break the monopoly?
Friday, July 6, 2007 5:22 PM
Saturday, July 7, 2007 7:37 AM
Quote: A USELESS Law Today Congress approved the three hundred billion dollar Universal Support Enablement Law for Evaders of Suitable Skills, known as the USELES bill. USELESS supporters call the measure’s passage a statement to people with no work skills, bad attitude, poor personal hygiene that they, too, are Americans. The program is open to “any individual who can – but won’t – work, whether due to laziness, self-pity, or bad attitude.” The USELESS passage delighted the chairman of the [[]DNC[]] who, during the New Hampshire primary, called the measure a centerpiece of the year 2000 presidential campaign. “I know a lot of people who don’t like getting up on Mondays. People who stay up too late, who drink too much, and sleep too little. We should honor those who refuse to submit to the Internet era.” USELESS seeks to close the gap between the rich and the poor, the skilled and the unskilled, the motivated and the unmotivated. “Many people,” said the chairman, “lead lives of intellectual stupor. They watch Jerry Springer and smoke Winstons without filters. They think Picasso is something you order from Pizza Hut. They drink out of glasses that originally came from grape jelly. They eat at Sizzlers, bowl on Tuesdays, and say things like ‘boo-yah’ or ‘what’s u-u-u-p-p-p?’ Somebody needs to be there for them." A quarter of a million USELESS volunteers will be paid twenty-five dollars an hour, plus benefits, to watch for and identify the indifferent, the lackluster, and the lazy. Volunteers are instructed to approach those not working and say, “Stand up. You count, too. That’s why God invented microwave popcorn, the remote control and the living room sofa.” USELESS participants will receive vouchers enabling them to purchase goods, products, and services they are simply not interested in working to acquire. Program sponsors say fraud will be kept to a minimum because the lazy and indifferent lack the energy and creativity to cheat the system. “It’s the best of both worlds,” said Hillary Rodham Clinton. “The critics say that giving money to the lazy, dumb and stupid provides a disincentive to learn, grow, or educate. But every day contributions are made by those who are confused, disorganized, and dysfunctional. Except they call it Congress.” Even Republican George W. Bush yielded to the measure’s popularity. “Life can be cruel to somebody who doesn’t like working. We had a cousin, Irving, who didn’t like to work. Gee, I remember in those long ago, less-sensitive days, we just hollered at him and told him to get a job. Oh, he did, but he held it against us for a really long time.” USELESS tax incentives will be awarded to employers who hire those with slovenly work habits, low self-esteem, and poor personal hygiene. Obsessive attention to profits and to corporate image, say USELESS sponsors, denies rights to those without taste, fashion sense, or social skills. “I was out of work a long time,” said Ed Trucker, a former St. Louis airport baggage handler. “People complained that I smelled funny. I admit I never bathed or showered. But I don’t trust the fluoride they put in the water. Makes me itch. But now, with this new law, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel.” USELESS, which goes into effect on April 1, prevents landlords from requiring security deposits, mortgage lenders from seeking collateral, and employers from requiring employees to show up and perform as a condition of compensation. “We shouldn’t create two classes of citizens – those who are punctual and those who are not,” said Ms. Clinton. “Just because you come to work late, or don’t how up at all, doesn’t mean you can’t contribute. What would have happened to the play, Waiting for Gobot, if Gobot had shown up on time?” The measure also outlaws intrusive personal questions during job interviews, such as, “Did you bring a résumé?” “Have you worked before?” or “Why aren’t you wearing pants?” The measure excited Wally Dipstick of New Brunswick, Maine, who calls himself “an auto mechanic who’s never actually worked on a car.” Dipstick cheered after becoming USELESS eligible: “Finally, there’s something for somebody like me. I graduated in the bottom half of my class. It’s guys like me who make the top half possible. You get rid of unmotivated persons like me, how would you separate the winners form the losers?” Said Ms. Clinton, “With the USELESS law, we can finally bridge the horrible gap between people with initiative and those who couldn’t care less. Just because you’re willing to get up early, stay late, and work harder does not entitle you to special privileges. For those of you out-hustled, outsmarted and out preformed by money-motivated colleagues – USELESS says that you are not useless.”
Saturday, July 7, 2007 2:38 PM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL