Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky]
2. Open the market, part 2. Make drugs available at different phases of the clinical trial process, with prices commensurate with the level of testing. It takes a drug around 8 years to go through the trials. Consumers are absorbing 8 years of very expensive research at the end. If someone wants to try a drug, knowing that it has not yet been tested, early in the trial saga, he should be able to buy it and get it cheaper than if someone prefers to wait until the end of the 8 years. This also solves the orphan drug problems and experimental drug problems. Of course, it goes without saying the drugs should come with thoroughly informed consent of all the risks.

---

I think the reasons for all the exacting trials is because of the disasterous consequences - think of thalidamide and the outcomes for that. Half tested is kind of not good enough in a lot of cases.

However, I do believe that you can be part of clinical trials here - at the last phase and get free or cheap drug treatments.



QUOTE]

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

niki2-

Anti: I never attacked the Tea Party in the way you described, so I won’t address that.

---

i didnt say you did, specifically, im just commenting in general. ill be honest, i take offense because i am for personal liberty! why is that a crime? thats what the so-called 'tea party' is supposed to stand for. i want libertarianism- i dont care what you do with yourself, just dont bother me! as far as im concerned, that is the primary role of government- to protect this 'contract'. if thats the theme, ironing out the inconsistencies is a healthy part of the process. why not participate in defining a movement, rather than stand in opposition, and serve the interests of authoritarianism? unless thats what you promote personally, then we just have to agree to disagree

Quote:

---

i have to stop you right there. Do you want facts and figures showing that Republican administrations have grown the government far more than Democratic ones? I can provide them, and the cites, if you’d like. It’s a fact.

I hate to tell you, but it’s REPUBLICANS which are limiting the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body, via laws and other tactics, not the “liberals”.

---

i didnt claim the republicans are any better. but the democrats are a lost cause. ill probably have a heart attack if by some miracle the democratic party platform in 2012 included 'a return to constitutional, limitited government'! oh man... and if they followed through!? id switch parties in a heart beat! i question whether the republicans are truly serious; although ill die converting them to libertarianism. but the democrats? they are now totally committed to collectivism and statism! this is the party that in liberal areas, such as the coasts, they ban smoking on your own property! i mean lets be real. its a shame how far the democrat party has fallen. this was the party that 150 yrs ago, under people like senator Calhoon, suppported even slavery under the pretense of states rights. they would have agree with Goldwater, a republican, who was against the civil rights act because it infringed on states rights(and would likewise be against the current federal abortion law).

Quote:

---

We can disagree about that one, as I happen to think it is government’s job to protect EVERYONE, and given the situation of “poor, minorities, homosexuals and transgenders”—you’re forgetting women, by the way—I think the government trying to give them equal protection under the law is a good thing. We do NOT give them special rights; in fact, when it comes to homosexuals, we definitely PREVENT them from exercising their rights in several ways, especially marriage, serving in the military, and more, and transgenders are hugely persecuted. It’s not special treatmen to give all people the same rights. At least that’s what I believe; you obviously believe differently.

---

but people are already granted these rights, as individuals, under the constitution- we didnt need extra, federal laws. all youve done is infringe on the rights of private citizens, to restrict the manner in which they choose to operate their businesses. im against bans on gay marriage, or discrimination of gays in the military- because i believe everyone has a equal right, as an individual. someone else can do whatever he/she wants, they just dont have the right to force their views on me. but likewise, this is why we should be against affirmative action, since it interjects a presumed racial bias at its outset.

Quote:

---

Lobbyists USE the government to get special treatment, special laws; it’s not because government sticks its nose in for the most part, it’s to gain laws that increase their profits. There are tons of facts and cites on that one, too, if you want them.

---

lobbyists exist because the government assumes oversight of a particular industry. why are the health insurance companies, big oil, or big pharma so threatening? because government regulates these industries to the extent that special privelages are written into law. m

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Niki,

You are trying to misrepresent my position, again.

I'm just being objective. Govt. is usually wrong, I don't make it wrong, it does it all by itself. The taliban is usually wrong too, but I don't have to deal with them.

Here's a classic govt. story:

Burt Rutan builds a private space ship, a thousand times more efficient than nasa, on private money. No harm no foul.

The govt. gets interested, a defense contractor takes it over and starts a project for a B4 bomber, and kills three workers.

Almost every situation is going to come down like this where there' govt. involvement, because govt. handles things no one wants, which involves force, etc. I wouldn't have to color these stories in order to make them look bad, they look bad all by themeselves.

You are, of course, misrepresenting my position, which if you really, was in *favor* of the public option, *against* the corporate run healthcare system. However, I only want this to be a transitional stage because I distrust government, and while I don't trust corporations, I do trust the consumer, who I think will not endlessly overpay for something which doesn't work when something better is available, which I'm pretty sure govt. will.

No numbers or statistics were asked for or required.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I strikes me that people are too combative. Consider that everyone here is just trying to help.


CTTS,

I generally prefer drugs that have been field tested for a long time, if at all possible, I take a supplement instead. Only if i was pretty sure that I was going to die from something would I be interested in an experimental drug, but I agree that you should have access to them. Still, such cases will represent a minority of the fiscal burden on the healthcare system.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

CTTS: I didn't find your suggestions scary (I'm not sure what made you think I would). To respond:

1) I believe there are already many who aren’t doctors who practice medicine, if people want to utilize them. I could be wrong, I don’t know what licensing procedures there are for people like midwives, homeopaths, chiropractors, and people who advise others on herbal medicines. So I can’t speak to that. Me, I want a doctor licensed...even that doesn’t protect me from abuse, but it’s the best I can do, aside from choosing my own doctors, which I do.

My view of both doctor and p-docs is this: they are people with a lot of knowledge at their finger tips, so I will listen to what they say and take it into account. If I don’t like it, I discuss it with them and ask them to offer me alternatives. If they pull the “doctor as god” thing: “Do as I say, no questions” (terribly rampant in the p-doc field), I leave. If their treatment doesn’t solve the problem, I don’t go back. But I want them trained. I would worry about people practicing without some kind of licensing; as it IS, there are a million con artists out there with “degrees” who abuse their education. I think if it were cheaper, since many people now choose alternative health care, more would, and I’m not sure it would be good; give people something cheaper or for free, a lot of them will take it, and not think about the consequences. That’s just how I feel, I can’t speak for anyone else.

2) Magons covered for me. And yes, one can be part of clinical trials anytime one wishes, and whoever is DOING the trials pays for the medication, monitors it, and even pays transportation costs to and from the place of treatment.

3) I have no problem reforming education, as well as the cost of same, if it’s valid. It may well be, I don’t know enough to form a solid opinion. Anything that’s been done one way for a very long time probably needs reforming (government or otherwise).


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME