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: Joe NYC who wrote (4235)	2/4/2008 1:32:21 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 42652

Before I explain why, let me just state my opinion that overwhelming majority of drugs prescribed don't help and in fact do more harm than good. Based on this opinion, I think that the less drugs prescribed the better. I wouldn't agree with the % but I do agree that there are a lot of drugs that are more harmful than helpful out there. Anecdote: a friends wife was a pharmaceutical rep. I can't remember the name of the drug... but you may as it was heavily advertised. It was supposed to cure a fungus under your toenails... purely cosmetic as this fungus, however disgusting, wasn't harmful. In her training she learned that this stuff was very dangerous to the liver in many, many people. She refused to promote it, but never told anyone or she would have been fired. As I said, above is just a "no FDA" hypothesis. With FDA in place, I would make it a more difficult to approve new drugs, so that there are fewer disasters like we have had recently. There was a very good article in the New Yorker a few weeks ago about the protocols of drug testing. You might be surprised how shoddy it is. I would have posted the article here but it wasn't available on line (I get the hard copy). If you come across it it's worth the time to read.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (4235)	2/4/2008 1:47:22 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

With FDA in place, I would make it a more difficult to approve new drugs, so that there are fewer disasters like we have had recently. I'd head in the other direction. The FDA already has incentives to not approve drugs (if they approve and people die, they get much worse press, than if they don't approve and people die from not having an important drug available to them). Or if you keep drug approval the same (or make it harder) than I would remove or reduce many restrictions on the use of unapproved drugs (with the approval becoming more "a seal of approval" rather than a way of making the use of something legal, which would otherwise be forbidden)