but an asshole. (This time.)
A number of liberals are angrily defending liability by arguing that the FDA is underfunded, incompetent, the victim of regulatory capture, and staffed by life bureaucrats more interested in preserving their jobs than protecting the public health. Quite possibly true. Only one question: if it doesn't keep us safe, and the liability system does, then why do we have the regulatory agency in the first place?I don't care if she has tits, I'd be hard pressed not to at least give her a bad charlie horse for that.
Jesus fucking christ.
That's like asking an AIDS patient why they ever bothered having an immune system in the first place.
I don't think Megan is THAT dumb, but she is that big of an asshole. If she is that dumb, she should not be considered a legal adult, and needs to be moved to a managed care facility.
As always, thank you for not reproducing, Megan.
Posts
6 comments:
Well, she hit several of the points I raised in my comment a few posts down, so I will assume she's talking - at least in part - to me.
Megan, it's quite simple. The FDA could protect us from Big Pharma greed / error / whateva if they had 1) adequate funding and 2) adequate enforcement authority. They don't, of course, mainly because of the efforts of your heroes at Big Pharma.
I realize that you think we should all just put our trust in Corporate America to do right by us. Whether you truly believe this - and are therefore overlooking certain market failures like asymmetric information, barriers to entry, etc, etc, etc - or you are just advancing a line of argument that you think will be good for your career doesn't matter all that much in the end. You simultaneously manage to look like a moron and a tool by going down this road. Nice job.
Furthermore, who said that liability works? We don't prefer a liability system over a regulatory agency (not necessarilly). At the risk of sounding like Megan, I will say that the FDA suffers from the same problems as the FCC and OSHA. Industry regulatory agencies are headed by people who either just came from, or are on their way back to the industries they were assigned to regulate. But in addition to that fact, the FDA is also currently influenced by the GOP's war on science (see Chris Mooney's excellent book). It took them how long to approve Plan B? How long to ban Fen-Phen?
Seriously, why prevent deaths when you can just get money for them? Makes sense to me, but then again, I fell down the stairs this morning... 52 times.
The whole debate doesn't matter much as the current Supreme Court will likely do away with product liability in the context of prescription medicine just as they have for medical devices. The gradual erosion of tort is of a piece with the erosion of all individual freedoms and liberties under the GWB/Roberts regime. The rather crude use of "lawyers are greedy" to eliminate debate on this topic echoes the Jack Bauer take-down of the torture debate. Insert your favorite crazed "wake up people" slogan here, I have given up.
And what's the need for all these traffic signs,lights,and cops? All unnecessary as people drive safely and rationally because they know they can be sued in case of an accident.
Dhalgreen
"Fen Phen"wasn't banned.It was two,two two drugs in one.Wyeth voluntarily withdrew dexfenfluramine(Re dux),but just ahead of the posse.Phentermine(Adipex,Fastin) is still on the market ;it was never linked to any pulmonary HTN.
And Spence,some of my best friends were Liberal Arts majors.I don't expect youguys to be bright.But ,you should at least know you're not bright
Post a Comment