Originally Posted By: paul

why would anyone view it as a tax at all?


Umm because you are paying for something you may never use or need. Besides taxes on various things, name any other situation in which that is true?


Originally Posted By: paul

if insurance companies pay to do the studies / testing
and cures are found or alternate medicine is found to
replace several high dollar treatments and medicines then wouldnt the insurance companies profit from that lower cost?


So why wouldn't the insurance companies choose little or no testing?

I mean lots of people dying, lots of people claiming. Your premiums are set on likelyhoods the insurance companies simply make profit on turnover.

You need to remember insurance companies are just as greedy and problematic as pharma I am not sure giving them this role is a great idea :-)


Originally Posted By: paul

big pharma is constantly being sued because people are always dying or become severely ill due to taking their barely tested new medicines.


I am not convinced it would be any less under your idea infact I would say it's going to be a hell of a lot more deaths.


Originally Posted By: paul

if they are not barely tested then why do people die or get severely ill?


Becuase someone stuffed up but thats the point they are held accountable.

You criticise the FDA for not telling drug companies what to do but if they did so they would be legally responsible. It is supposed to be that drug companies foillow any scientific leads on possible problems with drugs ... that is ther moral obligation imposed on them.

If the FDA setout testing then you can guarantee that drug companies would only do the prescribed testing which is the weakness of your idea. If people died because of something that the FDA didn't set as a test for the drug companies who does a person sue the FDA?

The FDA v Pharma interaction works the way it does because all the responsibility is put squarely on the drug companies.


Originally Posted By: paul

and cost is becomming a real problem , so much that people cant afford insurance.


I don't see it getting any cheaper under your idea infact I would argue the current system is very close to your idea

FDA = your concerned peoples group
AMA/Doctors board = you control group or board
Medical Indemity Insurance = Your insurance


I don't see you suggest anything radically different to what already exists and alright it may not work that well according to you.

TWO QUESTION FOR YOU:

1.) Why are so few alternative doctors and remedies meeting the current drug/doctor schema.

2.) If we created your version of the drug schema people and companies not complying can't practice or supply drugs I assume.

Last edited by Orac; 08/14/12 04:04 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.