[m.b.]

i didn't make up anything about him...you're the one that's crying that the government should have been there to save him, not him.

that's the biggest insult of all.

No, my point was that sufficient oversight would have prevented the now infamous meteoric rise and black hole crash of Enron from happening in the first place.

But I also realize that like the Deepwater debacle, its the kind of clusterf'k that you can't know is possible until it happens, because nothing like it has ever been done before.

so if you "can't know a clusterfuck like that is possible until it happens," how do you have "sufficient oversight" that can prevent it without crippling industries with excessively burdensome and costly regulations?

and how much "oversight" is too much? where does it end? (i know you will never answer those two questions.) there is always gonna be something that happens where big government liberals will say "see, there should have been more government oversight" no matter how much "oversight" you have.

[BigCliff]

the FDA is a bureaucratic clusterfuck that is as corrupt as any government agency out there. there are several very good medications from several manufacturers that are approved in every country of the world but the US, that have done phenomenally well and helped thousands, if not millions, of people. they haven't been approved in the U.S. because the right wheels haven't been greased.

but keep showing us what you (don't) know.

if merck ignored safety protocols and a few people died they'd be out of business. a healthcare/drug company that gets the reputation of killing a few people doesn't last very long (especially in a country that's run by lawyers). that's the way the free markets work...most people don't need the government to tell them what to do. unlike big government liberals, the people that run these companies understand this.

it's funny you bring up merck for your example though... you remember a great drug called vioxx? remember what happened there? multi-billion dollar drug that was voluntarily (that means without the government even suggesting they do it) pulled from the market. merck's biggest seller ever, and they pulled it on their own. many people (myself included) believe that it should still be on the market albeit with a black box warning re: maintenance therapy.

why did merck pull it? they found out there were increased risks, and perhaps deaths, associated with it so they yanked it out of fear of what would happen - lawsuits and a bad public image that would put them out of business. they realized that if they did what the largely ignorant public thought was right, it would look better for them in the long run. pulling vioxx also killed arcoxia, the "2nd generation vioxx" that the company had spent billions developing and was about to launch.

next time try using an example that doesn't perfectly illustrate my point.


you need more examples? do some homework on PhRMA and get back to us on what purpose they serve (hint: you won't find it on their website).







and you can't pin any of the deepwater horizon shit on Bush. Obama himself admitted that he was responsible. do you need me to bump that link up again? i know upsetter dudn't want that one coming back.

Ok, so you're saying that because the FDA won't approve some drugs that could make some drug reps lots of money, its a clusterfuck?

And no, the Merck example doesn't prove me wrong, it illustrates my point. You're right that they acted in the interest of the public and their shareholders without gov't intervention. This makes them very diff't from BP, which has shown that they will not voluntarily do what's right regarding safety. Despite multiple penalties from gov't regulators, they continue to cut corners and gamble with safety in the interest of profitability. Given this history, why shouldn't they be subject to greater scrutiny and regulation?

You're right that as long as corporations f' up, there will be some who think that gov't oversight could have fixed it. Its also true that as long as gov't regulations exist, some will blame businesses' profitability struggles on the reg's. They're both sometimes wrong, and sometimes right. What needs to happen is that we design rules that are sufficient to keep shareholder's interests from crapping on the public good without overly burdening the corporations with needless rules.

The definition of where that tipping point lies is likely to change depending on which party's in power: more strict during Dem control, and more lax during GOP control. If the Dem's strictness is assumed to have caused more harm than good, they'll have a harder time getting campaign contributions and votes. The same applies for the GOP. If one side or the other goes too far, the people are able to fire them via elections, and the regulatory pendulum swings the other way.

David Brooks wrote a column on the topic the other day http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/opini ... avidbrooks that seems about right, except that I think the GOP is much more able to reduce regulations once they're in power than he implies is possible.

[m.b.]

Ok, so you're saying that because the FDA won't approve some drugs that could make some drug reps lots of money, its a clusterfuck?

no, you said that.

what i said was that the fda is a bureaucratic clusterfuck because it's holding back medications that are approved in every other country of the world, that are proven, useful medications that have helped thousands (if not more) people around the world, and that the fda is dragging it's feet about approving them because wheels haven't been greased. pay attention.

since, (how do you put it?) "reading actual words is difficult for you," and you failed to comprehend it the first time, here's the quote again:

the FDA is a bureaucratic clusterfuck that is as corrupt as any government agency out there. there are several very good medications from several manufacturers that are approved in every country of the world but the US, that have done phenomenally well and helped thousands, if not millions, of people. they haven't been approved in the U.S. because the right wheels haven't been greased.

but keep showing us what you (don't) know.

it has nothing to do with how much some fuckin' drug rep makes (which again shows you have no idea what you're talking about), it's about making available the latest technology to patients in need. your statements say a lot about what the libtard outlets you listen to have convinced you to think goes on in the healthcare industry vs. what actually does.

but since you brought it up, if companies bring about medications that save and improve lives around the world shouldn't they be rewarded handsomely for it? without incentive to do that kind of stuff, do you actually think it's gonna happen? show us your true colors here....

And no, the Merck example doesn't prove me wrong, it illustrates my point. You're right that they acted in the interest of the public and their shareholders without gov't intervention. This makes them very diff't from BP, which has shown that they will not voluntarily do what's right regarding safety. Despite multiple penalties from gov't regulators, they continue to cut corners and gamble with safety in the interest of profitability. Given this history, why shouldn't they be subject to greater scrutiny and regulation? i give up, you tell us why merck should be subject to greater scrutiny and regulation because some oil company fucked up. while your at it, let us know exactly where the limit is re: too much regulation and interference.

You're right that as long as corporations f' up, there will be some who think that gov't oversight could have fixed it. Its also true that as long as gov't regulations exist, some will blame businesses' profitability struggles on the reg's. They're both sometimes wrong, and sometimes right. What needs to happen is that we design rules that are sufficient to keep shareholder's interests from crapping on the public good without overly burdening the corporations with needless rules. uh hello, we have those. you will always have issues like the ones you're crying about, no matter how much regulation you put on industries. i'm lost on how you can't comprehend that.

The definition of where that tipping point lies is likely to change depending on which party's in power: more strict during Dem control, and more lax during GOP control. If the Dem's strictness is assumed to have caused more harm than good, they'll have a harder time getting campaign contributions and votes. The same applies for the GOP. If one side or the other goes too far, the people are able to fire them via elections, and the regulatory pendulum swings the other way.

David Brooks wrote a column on the topic the other day http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/opini ... avidbrooks that seems about right, except that I think the GOP is much more able to reduce regulations once they're in power than he implies is possible.

[BigCliff]

Ok, so you're saying that because the FDA won't approve some drugs that could make some drug reps lots of money, its a clusterfuck?

no, you said that.

what i said was that the fda is a bureaucratic clusterfuck because it's holding back medications that are approved in every other country of the world, that are proven, useful medications that have helped thousands (if not more) people around the world, and that the fda is dragging it's feet about approving them because wheels haven't been greased. pay attention.


it has nothing to do with how much some fuckin' drug rep makes (which again shows you have no idea what you're talking about), it's about making available the latest technology to patients in need. your statements say a lot about what the libtard outlets you listen to have convinced you to think goes on in the healthcare industry vs. what actually does. No, it shows that I've noticed that you sold your boat and have been cranky as all hell ever since.

but since you brought it up, if companies bring about medications that save and improve lives around the world shouldn't they be rewarded handsomely for it? without incentive to do that kind of stuff, do you actually think it's gonna happen? show us your true colors here.... Of course they should, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be subject to reasonable safety reg's.

[m.b.]

No, it shows that I've noticed that you sold your boat and have been cranky as all hell ever since. that has nothing to do with why i sold that boat. i'm getting a bigger one, dumbass.

Of course they should, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be subject to reasonable safety reg's. which current safety regulations aren't reasonable? what needs to be added to make them "reasonable?"

[tailchaser]

No, it shows that I've noticed that you sold your boat and have been cranky as all hell ever since.

you do realize he has two other boats, don't you? if fact, he has fished pretty much every weekend since he sold his skiff.

he also has 7 others he can use any time he wants.

including the exact same boat he just sold

[DayTripper]

less talk, more cartoons, dammit!

[m.b.]

wait, wait, before we go back to cartoons, i want to hear about which of these current safety regulations that aren't reasonable and what needs to change to make them reasonable.

[Muddled Duck]

[Rusty Hook]

[BigCliff]

wait, wait, before we go back to cartoons, i want to hear about which of these current safety regulations that aren't reasonable and what needs to change to make them reasonable.

I didn't say that current FDA regulations aren't reasonable. In my (admittedly non-expert) opinion, I think the FDA does a pretty good job of hitting the right mix of safety while allowing speed to market sufficient for considerable profitability.

My point was that the MMA and other regulators should be improved the the standard of the FDA where it makes sense.

[m.b.]

wait, wait, before we go back to cartoons, i want to hear about which of these current safety regulations that aren't reasonable and what needs to change to make them reasonable.

I didn't say that current FDA regulations aren't reasonable. In my (admittedly non-expert) opinion, I think the FDA does a pretty good job of hitting the right mix of safety while allowing speed to market sufficient for considerable profitability.

My point was that the MMA and other regulators should be improved the the standard of the FDA where it makes sense.

so how much time/speed to market (time to approval) is sufficient for considerable profitability?