EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8241
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 29 2017 03:22 warding wrote: One way to move forward on drug approval would be to create synergies between the US and the European drug approval processes - ie. Drugs approved in the US automatically become approved in the EU and vice versa. That could help reduce the load on these agencies, reduce costs to pharma companies and get new drugs to the market quicker. I wonder if that was one of the things those trade treaties were doing; I honestly don't recall; it's one of the kinds of things they tend to do. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On July 29 2017 02:59 KwarK wrote: The supplement industry has killed people and at one point the FDA did try to bring it under control. Unfortunately the supplement industry bought enough politicians (and Mel Gibson oddly enough) to defend their Wild West of "technically we're not medicine". I'm referring to homeopathy specifically sorry if that wasn't clear. It's basically water with a few molecules of whatever added in so in and of themselves not dangerous. The supplements that are dangerous are Hydroxycut like Zero mentioned. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On July 29 2017 03:07 Gorsameth wrote: If you believe 'identity politics' is in any way, shape or form comparable to actively trying to harm your citizens by denying them health insurance then you are as delusion as I already believe you are. The fact that you don't see that the factors that caused this week's health care debacle are parallel, in spirit (if currently lesser in magnitude), to identity politics only goes to show how much you're willing to ignore reason in favor of tribalism. Large decentralized organizations (such as political parties) full of otherwise intelligent and successful people don't suddenly start producing harmful outcomes out of incompetence. They do so out of misaligned incentives or other systemic problems. Competition increases efficiency, and efficiency reveals the outcomes that the system incentivizes. Politics has become more "competitive", so politicians can no longer act of goodwill as they did before. That you think the Democrats are somehow immune to this belies all logic. They're sane only as long as electoral circumstances allow them to be so. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23254 Posts
On July 29 2017 03:30 xDaunt wrote: Igne, do you really think that the consumer protection statutes that are in effect are insufficient for policing the supplement industry? The private remedies and public penalties/powers that are available in most of those are pretty damned punitive. I'm confused. Has there been laws passed that address this or do you just think this indicates "sufficient policing"? An investigation found that nearly four of five herbal supplements do not contain the ingredients listed on labels, and many supplements—tested from among leading store-brand products sold at GNC, Target, Walmart, and Walgreens—contain no plant substance of any kind at all. Source | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21713 Posts
On July 29 2017 03:38 mozoku wrote: The fact that you don't see that the factors that caused this week's health care debacle are parallel, in spirit (if currently lesser in magnitude), to identity politics only goes to show how much you're willing to ignore reason in favor of tribalism. Large decentralized organizations (such as political parties) full of otherwise intelligent and successful people don't suddenly start producing harmful outcomes out of incompetence. They do so out of misaligned incentives or other systemic problems. Competition increases efficiency, and efficiency reveals the outcomes that the system incentivizes. Politics has become more "competitive", so politicians can no longer act of goodwill as they did before. That you think the Democrats are somehow immune to this belies all logic. They're sane only as long as electoral circumstances allow them to be so. It's almost as if my regard for the Democratic Party might plummet if they actively sought to hard people for their political seat. But no, it must surely be tribalism... Calls of "But your side would do it to if given the chance" kinda fall flat when 'my' side didn't go insane last time they were in power. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 29 2017 03:38 mozoku wrote: The fact that you don't see that the factors that caused this week's health care debacle are parallel, in spirit (if currently lesser in magnitude), to identity politics only goes to show how much you're willing to ignore reason in favor of tribalism. Large decentralized organizations (such as political parties) full of otherwise intelligent and successful people don't suddenly start producing harmful outcomes out of incompetence. They do so out of misaligned incentives or other systemic problems. Competition increases efficiency, and efficiency reveals the outcomes that the system incentivizes. Politics has become more "competitive", so politicians can no longer act of goodwill as they did before. That you think the Democrats are somehow immune to this belies all logic. They're sane only as long as electoral circumstances allow them to be so. your argument doens't work. we can blame people for misconduct even if we understand the situational factors that lead them to engage in it. likewise we can blame robbers for robbing people, even if we understand the desperation and plights in their life that led them to try it. furthermore, the republican politicians in quesotin aren't dealing with a truly desperate situation, the worst that might happen is, they have to leave congress and get rich in the private sector (which I'm sure all of them are capable of doing). | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 29 2017 03:30 xDaunt wrote: Igne, do you really think that the consumer protection statutes that are in effect are insufficient for policing the supplement industry? The private remedies and public penalties/powers that are available in most of those are pretty damned punitive. yes i think so. a serious look at the supplements market and the widespread fraud in it should convince anyone. there should really be proof of purity (at reasonable cost) to even bring a supplement to market and procedures for regular proof of purity w serious consequences for failure to maintain it | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 29 2017 03:49 Gorsameth wrote: It's almost as if my regard for the Democratic Party might plummet if they actively sought to hard people for their political seat. But no, it must surely be tribalism... Calls of "But your side would do it to if given the chance" kinda fall flat when 'my' side didn't go insane last time they were in power. Gonna go ahead and quote this so anyone who reads the thread sees this twice. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Yes, consumer awareness, lawsuits and competition would eventually get rid of shady companies selling fake (or harmful) medicines, supplements, etc. But that doesn't stop those businesses from popping up in the first place, making a quick buck then bailing once their scam is found out. It also doesn't stop legitimate businesses from cutting corners to rush for profits. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 29 2017 04:06 JinDesu wrote: With regards to supplements, isn't it specifically because they do not fall under FDA's regulation that they get away with so much? Where the FDA can regulate, I do believe they do it pretty well. I believe that's the general discussion underway, if the market would be more consumer friendly if it were regulated. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11355 Posts
Getting rid of it altogether doesn't make much sense: it takes a long time to write a book and is quite hard. It is very easy and quick as a book publisher to take that book and sell it without any money making it back to the author. I don't think all authors would necessarily stop writing books, if as soon as they tried to publish, their story was snatched up and sold by someone else because a lot of authors have a drive to tell stories regardless. However, we'd get less stories because less and less of them could afford to work to write full time or else work part time and write. IP laws are supposed to incentivize creators to make more of the things we want by allowing them to profit from their things, allowing them more time to make more things. I really like the original purpose given for the granting of limited monopolies: "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." By the same measure, the current IP laws in the US and elsewhere, makes no sense: 70 years from the authors death? 120 years from a publication's creation? One cannot incentivize creators to make more things when they are dead. Twenty-eight to forty two years from publication (depending on choosing 1790 or 1831 act) is plenty of time to make your money from the product you created with a granted monopoly. The Public Domain needs to be protected these days from the hording dragons of corporations, who sit on IP, but having little use for a great many of them. (When's the last good and interesting movie that Disney created featuring Mickey Mouse? The 90s? Somebody could attempt an interesting story with the Rescuers (Down Under, etc), but that's safely locked away.) But there is little sense in blowing apart the entire IP framework because it went too far. Reformation, not revolution is what is required. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
Nicotine will now be at the center of the Food and Drug Administration's effort to regulate tobacco, the agency said, announcing that it will aim to lower the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to a level that will help curb addiction. It would be the first time in the agency's history that it has sought to regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. "The overwhelming amount of death and disease attributable to tobacco is caused by addiction to cigarettes — the only legal consumer product that, when used as intended, will kill half of all long-term users," FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said Friday. "Unless we change course, 5.6 million young people alive today will die prematurely later in life from tobacco use." The plan had an immediate effect on the stock market. Source A good example of the FDA doing what they need to do. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 29 2017 03:55 IgnE wrote: yes i think so. a serious look at the supplements market and the widespread fraud in it should convince anyone. there should really be proof of purity (at reasonable cost) to even bring a supplement to market and procedures for regular proof of purity w serious consequences for failure to maintain it Alright, so I am an enterprising trial attorney, and, whenever I catch a whiff of a company violating consumer protection statutes, I start to get a little hard. What would be a good example of a company that sells a supplement nationally and falsely advertises what that supplement does and no one has sued them yet? | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
On July 29 2017 04:11 Falling wrote: I think a good case could be made to bring IP laws back to the duration of either the 1790 Copyright Act (14 years with one renewal) or the 1831 Copyright Act (28 years and one renewal). I don't know about patents so well because I'm more concerned about copyrights. Getting rid of it altogether doesn't make much sense: it takes a long time to write a book and is quite hard. It is very easy and quick as a book publisher to take that book and sell it without any money making it back to the author. I don't think all authors would necessarily stop writing books, if as soon as they tried to publish, their story was snatched up and sold by someone else because a lot of authors have a drive to tell stories regardless. However, we'd get less stories because less and less of them could afford to work to write full time or else work part time and write. IP laws are supposed to incentivize creators to make more of the things we want by allowing them to profit from their things, allowing them more time to make more things. I really like the original purpose given for the granting of limited monopolies: "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." By the same measure, the current IP laws in the US and elsewhere, makes no sense: 70 years from the authors death? 120 years from a publication's creation? One cannot incentivize creators to make more things when they are dead. Twenty-eight to forty two years from publication (depending on choosing 1790 or 1831 act) is plenty of time to make your money from the product you created with a granted monopoly. The Public Domain needs to be protected these days from the hording dragons of corporations, who sit on IP, but having little use for a great many of them. (When's the last good and interesting movie that Disney created featuring Mickey Mouse? The 90s? Somebody could attempt an interesting story with the Rescuers (Down Under, etc), but that's safely locked away.) But there is little sense in blowing apart the entire IP framework because it went too far. Reformation, not revolution is what is required. You are my hero. Thank you for explaining it better than I did. | ||
| ||
