6 ms·

It’s easy to hand out money when you are not the one paying, and have no consequences for success or failure. Feeling justified and righteous is the icing on th

It’s easy to hand out money when you are not the one paying, and have no consequences for success or failure. Feeling justified and righteous is the icing on the cake

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
[flagged]
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society. Anyone who has worked for or dealt with the government for extended periods of time will clearly know how fucked it is
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Anyone who has worked in drug development knows how vital FDA is. The FDA costs taxpayers less than $4 billion per year. If FDA is a net negative, next time you need a medication you're aware you can go participate in a Phase I study, and get paid to take a cutting edge drug for it? Why bother looking at the stuff on the medicine shelf that costs you money? Can you give us all an idea of your experience working with government, and especially FDA?
    - monero-xmr 1y ago
      Should allow pharma to sell drugs to the market. Allow people to sue if they are harmed. Do not care about a government agency preventing access to new drugs. They can gatekeep government funds at best, limiting Medicaid / Medicare to those that want to pass their hoops My experience is in selling tech to government. Disgusting and corrupt.
      - jcranmer 1y ago
        The more-or-less unregulated drug industry that you envision is something that already exists: it's called "health supplements." And it's a disasters; there's been quite a few studies that show that many of the companies selling health supplements can't even be bothered to put in their claimed active ingredients. This isn't some hypothetical "well, we haven't tried to see what it would look like without regulation;" this is something that is already in existence and whose effects can be measured today!
      - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
        > Should allow pharma to sell drugs to the market. This was the case pre-FDA. IIRC, that is how heroin was sold in drug stores. See also OxyContin[0]. > Allow people to sue if they are harmed. So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations? > Do not care about a government agency preventing access to new drugs. See previous reference to heroin once being an over-the-counter product. 0 - https://apnews.com/article/purdue-pharma-sackler-settlement-opioid-lawsuits-ea6c89aa9cafc8fdd18fabfad503eeea https://apnews.com/article/purdue-pharma-sackler-settlement-...
        terminalshort 1y ago
        > So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations Absolutely. Such solutions tend to be much cheaper and more effective. It's how we deal with the vast majority of problems for a good reason. If we sold oxycontin over the counter we would have much less of an overdose problem than we do. Would also take a lot of stress off our emergency medical care system which spends an inordinate amount of time just dealing with addicts looking for drugs. It's a funny example to use to justify the current regulatory framework because oxycontin got approved by the very same.
        AdieuToLogic 1y ago
        >> So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations > Absolutely. Such solutions tend to be much cheaper and more effective. This is not supported by any credible analysis I am aware of, as the cost of rectifying a problem post hoc has historically been far greater than preventing it in the first place. > If we sold oxycontin over the counter we would have much less of an overdose problem than we do. This assertion is demonstrably wrong and could easily be categorized as insulting to people struggling with OxyContin addiction.
    - terminalshort 1y ago
      The actual budget of the FDA is $4 billion. The overly restrictive regulations it puts on drug development and manufacture of generic medication costs 10-100x that.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        "If you think safety is expensive, try an accident!"
  - nine_zeros 1y ago
    > Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society. Anyone who has worked for or dealt with the government for extended periods of time will clearly know how fucked it is This is only true of republican governments. Republican-led governments are truly appalling in their spending, and wasteful tax cuts. Democrat governments are far far more efficient, effective, and work for the people. An example of this is one beautiful bill which literally increased deficits while giving nothing of value to people but the biden-led inflation reduction act literally created new energy infrastructure without increasing deficit.
    - monero-xmr 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - nine_zeros 1y ago
        > The funds then are redirected to a sclerotic and uncaring state, and then the productive people are shamed when they ask for less of it to be taken. In republican governments, yes this is real. In democrat governments, the vast majority of taxes goes into productive issues such as education, transportation, and healthcare. Even the type of bills passed by democrats are friendly towards building a society. Now, YOU may not want to pay for other's education, transportation, and healthcare. But a lot of people appreciate that access to high quality is not merely limited to the wealthy. This is why you'll see amazing companies in blue states vs red, you'll see amazing companies starting during blue federal governments vs red. The data is very clear on what produces great outcomes for society. You might not want others to get a decent life but you need to admit your selfishness.
      - tsimionescu 1y ago
        You know so little about how the world actually works that it's funny you even try to speak about it. Society would literally cease to function if the government stopped providing the services that your "friction" funds. Roads, the court system, police, waste and water, defense - these barely scratch the surface of what the US government provides, and yet remove any one of them and it would be enough to bring down the entire economy.
  - mcphage 1y ago
    > Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society. I’ve spent my entire career working for wasteful companies who accomplish nothing and are net-negative for society. The government at least picks up my garbage every week.
    - monero-xmr 1y ago
      The private company can fail. The government will only reform very very rarely, and do so kicking and screaming and shrieking like we see now
      - mcphage 1y ago
        > The private company can fail. Unfortunately, they don't fail often, and we've seen the government bailing companies out so they don't fail. But in the end, it's a moot point—even when companies fail, they are replaced with companies that either are equally wasteful, or as the replacement companies grow, their wastefulness increases.
  - op00to 1y ago
    Weird. I worked for and dealt with the government for extensive periods of time, namely cancer and basic biomedical research. We did fucking awesome things. Go hide in a lot cabin in the wilderness or something and leave the rest of us to our civilization. Don’t take us all down with you.
mcphage 1y ago
> you are not the one paying We are, though. > have no consequences for success or failure Oh, the consequences for the failures of this administration will be felt by everyone, for decades.

It’s easy to hand out money when you are not the one paying, and have no consequences for success or failure. Feeling justified and righteous is the icing on the cake

sorcerer-mar 1y ago

[flagged]

monero-xmr 1y ago
Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society. Anyone who has worked for or dealt with the government for extended periods of time will clearly know how fucked it is
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Anyone who has worked in drug development knows how vital FDA is. The FDA costs taxpayers less than $4 billion per year. If FDA is a net negative, next time you need a medication you're aware you can go participate in a Phase I study, and get paid to take a cutting edge drug for it? Why bother looking at the stuff on the medicine shelf that costs you money? Can you give us all an idea of your experience working with government, and especially FDA?
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    Should allow pharma to sell drugs to the market. Allow people to sue if they are harmed. Do not care about a government agency preventing access to new drugs. They can gatekeep government funds at best, limiting Medicaid / Medicare to those that want to pass their hoops My experience is in selling tech to government. Disgusting and corrupt.
    - jcranmer 1y ago
      The more-or-less unregulated drug industry that you envision is something that already exists: it's called "health supplements." And it's a disasters; there's been quite a few studies that show that many of the companies selling health supplements can't even be bothered to put in their claimed active ingredients. This isn't some hypothetical "well, we haven't tried to see what it would look like without regulation;" this is something that is already in existence and whose effects can be measured today!
    - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
      > Should allow pharma to sell drugs to the market. This was the case pre-FDA. IIRC, that is how heroin was sold in drug stores. See also OxyContin[0]. > Allow people to sue if they are harmed. So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations? > Do not care about a government agency preventing access to new drugs. See previous reference to heroin once being an over-the-counter product. 0 - https://apnews.com/article/purdue-pharma-sackler-settlement-opioid-lawsuits-ea6c89aa9cafc8fdd18fabfad503eeea https://apnews.com/article/purdue-pharma-sackler-settlement-...
      - terminalshort 1y ago
        > So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations Absolutely. Such solutions tend to be much cheaper and more effective. It's how we deal with the vast majority of problems for a good reason. If we sold oxycontin over the counter we would have much less of an overdose problem than we do. Would also take a lot of stress off our emergency medical care system which spends an inordinate amount of time just dealing with addicts looking for drugs. It's a funny example to use to justify the current regulatory framework because oxycontin got approved by the very same.
        AdieuToLogic 1y ago
        >> So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations > Absolutely. Such solutions tend to be much cheaper and more effective. This is not supported by any credible analysis I am aware of, as the cost of rectifying a problem post hoc has historically been far greater than preventing it in the first place. > If we sold oxycontin over the counter we would have much less of an overdose problem than we do. This assertion is demonstrably wrong and could easily be categorized as insulting to people struggling with OxyContin addiction.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    The actual budget of the FDA is $4 billion. The overly restrictive regulations it puts on drug development and manufacture of generic medication costs 10-100x that.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      "If you think safety is expensive, try an accident!"
- nine_zeros 1y ago
  > Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society. Anyone who has worked for or dealt with the government for extended periods of time will clearly know how fucked it is This is only true of republican governments. Republican-led governments are truly appalling in their spending, and wasteful tax cuts. Democrat governments are far far more efficient, effective, and work for the people. An example of this is one beautiful bill which literally increased deficits while giving nothing of value to people but the biden-led inflation reduction act literally created new energy infrastructure without increasing deficit.
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - nine_zeros 1y ago
      > The funds then are redirected to a sclerotic and uncaring state, and then the productive people are shamed when they ask for less of it to be taken. In republican governments, yes this is real. In democrat governments, the vast majority of taxes goes into productive issues such as education, transportation, and healthcare. Even the type of bills passed by democrats are friendly towards building a society. Now, YOU may not want to pay for other's education, transportation, and healthcare. But a lot of people appreciate that access to high quality is not merely limited to the wealthy. This is why you'll see amazing companies in blue states vs red, you'll see amazing companies starting during blue federal governments vs red. The data is very clear on what produces great outcomes for society. You might not want others to get a decent life but you need to admit your selfishness.
    - tsimionescu 1y ago
      You know so little about how the world actually works that it's funny you even try to speak about it. Society would literally cease to function if the government stopped providing the services that your "friction" funds. Roads, the court system, police, waste and water, defense - these barely scratch the surface of what the US government provides, and yet remove any one of them and it would be enough to bring down the entire economy.
- mcphage 1y ago
  > Government agencies that spend massive amounts of tax dollars while accomplishing nothing and being net-negative for society. I’ve spent my entire career working for wasteful companies who accomplish nothing and are net-negative for society. The government at least picks up my garbage every week.
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    The private company can fail. The government will only reform very very rarely, and do so kicking and screaming and shrieking like we see now
    - mcphage 1y ago
      > The private company can fail. Unfortunately, they don't fail often, and we've seen the government bailing companies out so they don't fail. But in the end, it's a moot point—even when companies fail, they are replaced with companies that either are equally wasteful, or as the replacement companies grow, their wastefulness increases.
- op00to 1y ago
  Weird. I worked for and dealt with the government for extensive periods of time, namely cancer and basic biomedical research. We did fucking awesome things. Go hide in a lot cabin in the wilderness or something and leave the rest of us to our civilization. Don’t take us all down with you.

mcphage 1y ago

> you are not the one paying We are, though. > have no consequences for success or failure Oh, the consequences for the failures of this administration will be felt by everyone, for decades.