3 ms·

The idea that we can just take our tax dollars elsewhere and get better outcomes for less money doesn't seem realistic to me. At worst, these essential service

The idea that we can just take our tax dollars elsewhere and get better outcomes for less money doesn't seem realistic to me. At worst, these essential services just fall apart because not enough people would be willing to spend their tax refund on them. At best, we'll end up with the same thing because corporations are greedy and there's not really a good reason to have competition in pharmaceutical oversight. Do you really want to have to shop around for a service that tells you which drugs are safe? You can't pick the cheapest because they probably cut corners or took industry kickbacks, but are you throwing away money if you pick the most expensive one? Do you just pick the average-priced option and hope they are trustworthy?

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> At worst, these essential services just fall apart because not enough people would be willing to spend their tax refund on them. That would imply that these "essential services" are worth less to people than the cost it takes to provide them. Especially when the primary customers for such a service would be doctors, so the typical patient wouldn't even have it as an independent cost separate from the doctor's visit. > At best, we'll end up with the same thing because corporations are greedy and there's not really a good reason to have competition in pharmaceutical oversight. Why would you not expect competition? We don't have a monopoly provider for credit reporting or product reviews. > Do you really want to have to shop around for a service that tells you which drugs are safe? Do you really want to not be able to? What happens when the FDA approves Vioxx or the dozens of other drugs they've approved, often on the market for decades, that will give you a heart attack or liver damage or cancer or birth defects? Or even worse (since you can't opt-out), when they fail the other way and don't approve the only drug that would save your life?

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> At worst, these essential services just fall apart because not enough people would be willing to spend their tax refund on them. That would imply that these "essential services" are worth less to people than the cost it takes to provide them. Especially when the primary customers for such a service would be doctors, so the typical patient wouldn't even have it as an independent cost separate from the doctor's visit. > At best, we'll end up with the same thing because corporations are greedy and there's not really a good reason to have competition in pharmaceutical oversight. Why would you not expect competition? We don't have a monopoly provider for credit reporting or product reviews. > Do you really want to have to shop around for a service that tells you which drugs are safe? Do you really want to not be able to? What happens when the FDA approves Vioxx or the dozens of other drugs they've approved, often on the market for decades, that will give you a heart attack or liver damage or cancer or birth defects? Or even worse (since you can't opt-out), when they fail the other way and don't approve the only drug that would save your life?