Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fresc who wrote (558)	2/21/2005 4:43:30 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

What do you do? Mop floors? But it is well documented that the FDA and Big Pharma have there hands in each others pockets. A large chunk of the funding of the FDA comes from Pharma. That automatically creates a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, that sort of problem is growing worse in American (and Canadian) gov't. The more you tax licquor, the more dependent gov't becomes on licquor sales. The more you tax tobacco, the more dependent gov't becomes on tobacco sales. The more you tax gambling, the more dependent gov't becomes on gambling revenue. Basically, gov'ts should not get funding from dirty sources. We have pulled many drugs off canadian markets Before or after the FDA? <You've told us how vigilantly they protect you and how honest they are> I never said that! You've told us how much better you are. That's a corollary. How much does the Canadian gov't spend vetting drugs anyway? You should be defending seniors! What about infants? They deserve nothing? Young children? Teenagers? Mature adults? The greatest portion of medical costs are incurred keeping people alive at the very end of their lives. I'll find backing for that in a bit. And, again, you can achieve more through public health measures at lower cost than all the doctors and drugs you have COMBINED.