Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Larry]

18 minutes ago, Weganator said:

Or you can create a system in the US that works to try and guarantee informed consent for patients while also protecting their human rights.

 

We have them.  You might think that maybe the line needs to be moved.  But rules are in place, and were created for legitimate reasons.  

 

The question being discussed is "what do we do to companies who decide "Well, your ethics laws are interfering with our potential profit, so we're going to go someplace where your ethics laws don't count".  

[Weganator]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

We have them.  You might think that maybe the line needs to be moved.  But rules are in place, and were created for legitimate reasons.  

 

The question being discussed is "what do we do to companies who decide "Well, your ethics laws are interfering with our potential profit, so we're going to go someplace where your ethics laws don't count".  

I think the question is more is the current FDA regulation set a comprehensive set of appropriate ethics or is there room to help increase innovation while protecting individual rights.

 

The article tries to paint him as synonymous with acts of atrocity because some aspect of current FDA regulations didn't allow individuals like the one in the article to volunteer in the US. The trial appears to have been successful and there isn't patient outcry about a violation of rights.

 

Are there any aspects of this case that could be used as a basis for reform so that future patients can also have the benefits of being in the jurisdiction of the US with additional legal protections?

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, Weganator said:

I think the question is more is the current FDA regulation set a comprehensive set of appropriate ethics or is there room to help increase innovation while protecting individual rights.

 

The article tries to paint him as synonymous with acts of atrocity because some aspect of current FDA regulations didn't allow individuals like the one in the article to volunteer in the US. The trial appears to have been successful and there isn't patient outcry about a violation of rights.

 

Are there any aspects of this case that could be used as a basis for reform so that future patients can also have the benefits of being in the jurisdiction of the US with additional legal protections?

 

I think this is mostly political/philosophical rather than anything really related to FDA regulations, other than needing an IRB.

 

Is there a reason they didn't set up an IRB other than they didn't want to?

 

Would an IRB have not let a similar study go forward?

 

Thiel is an extreme libertarian.  He probably doesn't think there should be an FDA.

Edited August 29, 2017 by PeterMP

[Weganator]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think this is mostly political/philosophical rather than anything really related to FDA regulations, other than needing an IRB.

 

Is there a reason they didn't set up an IRB other than they didn't want to?

 

Would an IRB have not let a similar study go forward?

 

Thiel is an extreme libertarian.  He probably doesn't think there should be an FDA.

 

I honestly don't know and would be curious to find out. But as opposed to lazily attempting to lump him in with the human rights violations of past governments, why not interview him and ask him that? (edit: not you personally, the writer of the article)

 

The answer comes back to they have no desire to reevaluate the existing set of government regulations with an eye towards helping business and in turn like to take every opportunity to link Libertarians / free market people to fascists.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Weganator

[visionary]

 

[PeterMP]

On 8/29/2017 at 9:05 AM, Weganator said:

 

I honestly don't know and would be curious to find out. But as opposed to lazily attempting to lump him in with the human rights violations of past governments, why not interview him and ask him that? (edit: not you personally, the writer of the article)

 

The answer comes back to they have no desire to reevaluate the existing set of government regulations with an eye towards helping business and in turn like to take every opportunity to link Libertarians / free market people to fascists.

 

But nobody has presented evidence that we should re-evaluate the FDA to help businesses to the point that the creation of an IRB should be completely circumvented.  The health care industry certainly isn't struggling from an economic stand point.

 

He just up and ignored existing regulations that were put there to prevent unethical practices that did happen (and not just in other countries or at other times) because of his personal biases.  (The US Pharma history has a long track record of questionably ethical activities.  You don't have to back to Nazi Germany to see the benefit of the FDA.)

 

FDA regulations recently have under gone a significant amount of studying and alterations.

 

The orphan drug process was altered in 2014

http://pharmaceuticalcommerce.com/brand-marketing-communications/the-business-of-orphan-drugs-is-booming/

 

And there is talk about doing it again.

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm565148.htm

 

To suggest that the FDA and its practices aren't essentially constantly being scrutinized has no basis in reality.

Edited August 31, 2017 by PeterMP

[Weganator]

48 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

But nobody has presented evidence that we should re-evaluate the FDA to help businesses to the point that the creation of an IRB should be completely circumvented.  The health care industry certainly isn't struggling from an economic stand point.

 

He just up and ignored existing regulations that were put there to prevent unethical practices that did happen (and not just in other countries or at other times) because of his personal biases.  (The US Pharma history has a long track record of questionably ethical activities.  You don't have to back to Nazi Germany to see the benefit of the FDA.)

 

FDA regulations recently have under gone a significant amount of studying and alterations.

 

The orphan drug process was altered in 2014

http://pharmaceuticalcommerce.com/brand-marketing-communications/the-business-of-orphan-drugs-is-booming/

 

And there is talk about doing it again.

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm565148.htm

 

To suggest that the FDA and its practices aren't essentially constantly being scrutinized has no basis in reality.

I repeatedly mentioned the US governments crimes (Guatamala crimes from article)in various posts. Others also helped find other US government examples (Tuskegee). 

 

I'm glad we agree that FDA practices should be constantly reevaluated.. some previous poster had used the argument 'the rules are in place for a reason' which is a lazy argument since we always gain new information to reevaluate our practices

Edited August 31, 2017 by Weganator

[FanboyOf91]

 

[Cooked Crack]

Expect Trump to bring up that Obamacare is failing when less people sign up for it. Also, it's too complicated. If only we had people who could help folks with selecting insurances.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Cooked Crack

[LadySkinsFan]

I hate them, they are ruining this country for human beings.

[visionary]

 

[tshile]

Not surprising.

 

I believe they stopped the commercials months ago.

[visionary]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

We can do our own advertising to help people get affordable health insurance. Put it to the Republicans and Trump.

[Weganator]

Thanks for helping save my taxes on advertising, it's appreciated.

[LadySkinsFan]

They are not saving your taxes, they are giving those savings to corporate welfare.

 

Get a clue!

Edited September 4, 2017 by LadySkinsFan

[FanboyOf91]

 

The Maverick entering Zero ****s Mode.

[LadySkinsFan]

Otherwise, McCain votes no. Collins and Murkowski will stay strong too. 

[visionary]

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by visionary

[Larry]

57 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

A lot of ticked-off Bernie-ites might change that, though.  

[Fergasun]

I worry that it is the Democratic party version of "Repeal and replace..."

 

 

[gbear]

I worry Democrats will make the same mistake Republicans made thinking that simply saying "single payer" is descriptive enough.

 

Single payer for what? Everything?  Does this mean if the government won't pay for it, nobody but the patient will, if it is even available?  Are we talking communist medicine or socialized medicine, and yes there would be a difference.

 

Does this mean the government will pay X for procedure y and if you want to go to somebody who charges X + $1,000 then the patient must pay the $1,000?

 

Part of me looks at these types of questions and thinks Medicare for all is the simplest solution because we and the market understand it, and it allows for people to buy and use secondary insurance. 

 

The other part of me still longs for Hillary/Tsongas care where the government says we can afford to treat A through M.  These are the treatments with the best quality of life improvements for the dollar.  Our goal is based on strict Utilitarian values of "provide the greatest good for the greatest number." If we get more money, we will try to cover N through S, but really if you want coverage for anything beyond M, you had best purchase supplemental insurance.  However, I am well aware this approach of using mathematics in an effort to quantify social good will be seen as heartless by many.  I am just a math geek, so solving large problems with an eye toward maximization of some good seems natural to me, sometimes to the point I feel guilty thinking about the healthcare resources my family uses.

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Single payer is pretty clearly the way to go.