5 ms·

>Milton Friedman was in favor of government regulation to protect the population from contagion. I'm gonna call source since none of the literature I've read f

by Xdes 13y ago

>Milton Friedman was in favor of government regulation to protect the population from contagion. I'm gonna call source since none of the literature I've read from Friedman holds such a position. If anything the whole prescription drug system should be abolished and drugs should be marketed directly to consumers.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
I think Milton would agree with you regarding abolishing the prescription drug system. The (only?) exception being antibiotics, which contributes to contagion. Source was an interview which I watched, so... it'll be hard to find. EDIT: Never count out Google! "FRIEDMAN There is room for some public health activities to prevent contagion, such a thing as for example.." http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26936 http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26936
- Xdes 13y ago
  >FRIEDMAN There is room for some public health activities to prevent contagion, such a thing as for example.. And then Friedman gets cut off when he is about to get into the examples. Knowing Friedman I would assume his examples would consist of incidents that the the private industries have quite a deal of trouble handling such as a violent outbreak or an extreme vaccine shortage. I would not play off Friedman's words to call for regulation, taxation, or any other restriction of free trade for antibiotics.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    Antibiotics do constitute a violent outbreak, or at least direly threaten to release one.
    - fleitz 13y ago
      An antibiotics tax won't solve anything. About the only effective thing you can start doing is MSRA wards in hospitals and a system of rotating antibiotics. Developing new antibiotics would probably also be a good idea, no idea what the situ looks like there.
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        A tax won't solve anything, agreed, unless it's on the order of 10,000% or more. Restricting antibiotics (further than they are currently) may or may not help, but is certainly within the purview of a limited libertarian state. Restricting most (all?) other medications is not.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Antibiotics are used in commercial farming because they increase weight. The tax simply needs to be enough that (weight(antibioticked cow) - weight(non-antibioticked cow))*(price of beef) < (cost of antibiotics). Maybe that's "on the order of 10,000% or more", but I'd like to see numbers.
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Antibiotics are overused outside of commercial farming too.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Yes, but commercial farming is the single largest use of antibiotics. Cutting out that use would significantly improve things. We should continue to address other issues (educational campaigns hammering home the fact that antibiotics do nothing for viruses, and encouraging completion of the full course when you are taking antibiotics).

by Xdes 13y ago

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

I think Milton would agree with you regarding abolishing the prescription drug system. The (only?) exception being antibiotics, which contributes to contagion. Source was an interview which I watched, so... it'll be hard to find. EDIT: Never count out Google! "FRIEDMAN There is room for some public health activities to prevent contagion, such a thing as for example.." http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26936 http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26936

Xdes 13y ago
>FRIEDMAN There is room for some public health activities to prevent contagion, such a thing as for example.. And then Friedman gets cut off when he is about to get into the examples. Knowing Friedman I would assume his examples would consist of incidents that the the private industries have quite a deal of trouble handling such as a violent outbreak or an extreme vaccine shortage. I would not play off Friedman's words to call for regulation, taxation, or any other restriction of free trade for antibiotics.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Antibiotics do constitute a violent outbreak, or at least direly threaten to release one.
  - fleitz 13y ago
    An antibiotics tax won't solve anything. About the only effective thing you can start doing is MSRA wards in hospitals and a system of rotating antibiotics. Developing new antibiotics would probably also be a good idea, no idea what the situ looks like there.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      A tax won't solve anything, agreed, unless it's on the order of 10,000% or more. Restricting antibiotics (further than they are currently) may or may not help, but is certainly within the purview of a limited libertarian state. Restricting most (all?) other medications is not.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        Antibiotics are used in commercial farming because they increase weight. The tax simply needs to be enough that (weight(antibioticked cow) - weight(non-antibioticked cow))*(price of beef) < (cost of antibiotics). Maybe that's "on the order of 10,000% or more", but I'd like to see numbers.
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Antibiotics are overused outside of commercial farming too.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Yes, but commercial farming is the single largest use of antibiotics. Cutting out that use would significantly improve things. We should continue to address other issues (educational campaigns hammering home the fact that antibiotics do nothing for viruses, and encouraging completion of the full course when you are taking antibiotics).