Government Regulations

[just Warren]

Of course we need to remember that you don't have a right to safe products and pure foods any more than you have a right to those products or food in the first place.

This is the same premise behind you don't have a right to health care, a job, a minimum wage, housing or any other thing.

Product safety is just another part of the bundle of attributes you examine before making a decision to purchase a product or service.

If someone doesn't provide what you want, find someone else.  This tendency to find more value is what drives providers to do better.

[Perd Hapley]

Was it dc 10's that had the cargo door trouble? That the builder ignored even after it was brought to their attention? What made em act right again?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Another non-argument. That's just an anecdote. If some govt. entity saved the day in that particular case, it tells us nothing about whether said entity was necessary, or whether the problem could not have been just as effectively solved by the consumers themselves, or by some private organization.

[Perd Hapley]

I have an answer to Fistful's question:

Thalidomide.  And that's just for starters...

I don't follow.

Of course we need to remember that you don't have a right to safe products and pure foods any more than you have a right to those products or food in the first place....

Product safety is just another part of the bundle of attributes you examine before making a decision to purchase a product or service.

If someone doesn't provide what you want, find someone else.  This tendency to find more value is what drives providers to do better.

Well said.

[Tallpine]

I am actually in the dark there. Is that like the rest?

Pretty much.  The state CPA society sets all the rules.

They have this mystical air when all that a CPA is really required for is auditing.  Most people don't even have a clue what auditing is, anyway.

[Sergeant Bob]

I don't follow.

Read this and I think it will explain his meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

[Perd Hapley]

Read this and I think it will explain his meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

Not so much.

[zxcvbob]

I have an answer to Fistful's question:

Thalidomide.  And that's just for starters...

A treatment for leprosy, except everyone is afraid to take it -- even people at no risk of having a baby named "Flipper".

[charby]

A treatment for leprosy, except everyone is afraid to take it -- even people at no risk of having a baby named "Flipper".

Leprosy is caused by bacteria, its gram positive and can be treated with a mixture several antibiotics (dapsone, rifampin, and clofazimine)which need to taken for a lengthy cycle.

I read that Thalidomide was synthesized/derived into a potential blood cancer treatment a while back.

[roo_ster]

I have an answer to Fistful's question:

Thalidomide.  And that's just for starters...

Actually, that's pretty much the enders, too.

[Scout26]

.Gov regulations are nothing more than a hammer used by one group to keep another group from operating.

[brimic]

Actually, that's pretty much the enders, too.

About the only thing the FDA has got is Thalidomide and a 'scary' case of ethylene glycol being put in cough medicine in the 1930s.

As of recent history, they pretty much act as roadblocks and sometimes pull a treatment (that they had previously endorsed) off the market after the landsharks start filing suits over personal injuries.

[Gewehr98]

Actually, that's pretty much the enders, too.

No, it's not. I could start a new thread rattling off big names who got their pee-pees smacked for endangering their customer's lives.

As somebody who works in the medical device and biopharm field, and the quality division thereof, there's plenty of reason why companies cannot be trusted to stay honest. 

I've gone toe-to-toe with manufacturing and accounting on more than one occasion, shutting down production to prevent the FDA from shutting us down. 

IMHO, I feel that nearly everyone needs a Form 483 reality check thrown in their face from time to time. 

Sometimes, even an "Adverse Effect" complaint doesn't get the idea across.  I wish we were all thinking "Patient Safety First!", but unfortunately, businesses are businesses to make profits.

Everything else is secondary.

[charby]

A little blog entry on life before the FDA.

http://medivizor.com/blog/2013/07/10/meat-packers-and-patent-medicines-welcome-to-life-before-the-fda/

[Perd Hapley]

No, it's not. I could start a new thread rattling off big names who got their pee-pees smacked for endangering their customer's lives.

As somebody who works in the medical device and biopharm field, and the quality division thereof, there's plenty of reason why companies cannot be trusted to stay honest. 

I've gone toe-to-toe with manufacturing and accounting on more than one occasion, shutting down production to prevent the FDA from shutting us down. 

IMHO, I feel that nearly everyone needs a Form 483 reality check thrown in their face from time to time. 

Sometimes, even an "Adverse Effect" complaint doesn't get the idea across.  I wish we were all thinking "Patient Safety First!", but unfortunately, businesses are businesses to make profits.

Everything else is secondary.

A little blog entry on life before the FDA.

http://medivizor.com/blog/2013/07/10/meat-packers-and-patent-medicines-welcome-to-life-before-the-fda/

And a privately-run organization that consumers could check could prevent all of those things at least as efficiently, could it not?

[charby]

And a privately-run organization that consumers could check could prevent all of those things at least as efficiently, could it not?

Sounds great in theory, but look what some private industry has done to people. Hell just look at the asshats and their shenanigans in the rise up to the great depression.

Maybe the press should do their job as the fourth estate like they used to instead of reporting on how republicans suck and Snookie got drunk the puked on a naked Lindsay Lohan. How about some NGOs to police the actions of the Feds?

[brimic]

Product liability lawsuits have pretty much made the FDA irrelevant.  The FDA is just as likely to play regulatory footsie with big pharma as they are to fine them. Ambulance chasers, love them ir hate them, are the only true big stick keeping pharma semi honest.


I'll admit to my animosity towards and bias against the fda- they cost me a realy good job in the past when the pharma plant I wrked for had to lay off 2 full shifts due to a loss in income. The loss was due directly towards the fda's assdragging on approving Drug Master Files and holding pharma cos hostage due to an upcoming new federal budget cycle.  We had reverse engineered a lucrative drug coming off patent, and our ability to sell it was delayed for over a year. A small company having millions if cashflow tied up in inventory because if a bureacratic action was in a tiugh spot.

[Perd Hapley]

Sounds great in theory, but look what some private industry has done to people. Hell just look at the asshats and their shenanigans in the rise up to the great depression.

This isn't a test. You don't have to make up answers. You could have just said that you don't know, or hadn't thought about it before.

Government regulatory bodies sound great in theory. Look at what governments have done to people. Just look at their shenanigans after the great depression.

I'm not asking if not having an FDA-type group would be better. I'm asking why it couldn't be private, and voluntary.

How about some NGOs to police the actions of the Feds?

You want to police the FDA?

[charby]

This isn't a test. You don't have to make up answers. You could have just said that you don't know, or hadn't thought about it before.

Government regulatory bodies sound great in theory. Look at what governments have done to people. Just look at their shenanigans after the great depression.

I'm not asking if not having an FDA-type group would be better. I'm asking why it couldn't be private, and voluntary.


You want to police the FDA?

I said why private couldn't be the only option.

[Perd Hapley]

Of course private wouldn't be the only option. Even with no FDA of any kind, laws against fraud, murder, etc, would still exist. Courts would still hear liability lawsuits, or torts, or what-have-you. As I've already mentioned, people often make the mistake of thinking that a lack of business-specific legislation means that corporations are then above the law. You seem to be making that mistake.

So far, you've said that the private sector has been mean to people in the past. Which is not persuasive, as governments have been worse.

The only other objection you've raised is the question of who would enforce truthfulness on the part of some privately-run FDA. To which the obvious response is, who enforces truthfulness on the part of the current FDA? Who is going to be easier to police or to sue, a government body, or a private organization? Wouldn't it be the latter? At best, isn't it a toss-up?

[Tallpine]

I hate to agree with fistful, but another thing about private quality ensurance is that there would likely be more than one organization.  Now you have competition to see which one provides better service and protects people better.

It's sort of hard to imagine that for most of history, there really wasn't much government regulation even under absolute monarchies.

[charby]

Of course private wouldn't be the only option. Even with no FDA of any kind, laws against fraud, murder, etc, would still exist. Courts would still hear liability lawsuits, or torts, or what-have-you. As I've already mentioned, people often make the mistake of thinking that a lack of business-specific legislation means that corporations are then above the law. You seem to be making that mistake.

So far, you've said that the private sector has been mean to people in the past. Which is not persuasive, as governments have been worse.

The only other objection you've raised is the question of who would enforce truthfulness on the part of some privately-run FDA. To which the obvious response is, who enforces truthfulness on the part of the current FDA? Who is going to be easier to police or to sue, a government body, or a private organization? Wouldn't it be the latter? At best, isn't it a toss-up?

Individuals in the private sector have been not so nice in the past for the sake of making money. What would keep the same thing from happening with private regulatory?

Also there are lot of private companies/organizations that currently certify consumer products. Good Housekeeping is one, Society of Engineers is another, etc.

One would hope with a regulatory agency like the FDA that they couldn't be bought or surround themselves by a bunch of lawyers to keep the courts tied up for years and bleed the plaintiff dry.

My main gripe with regulations in the OP is that some of them are so stringent/expensive that it keeps new players from entering a industry. Look how much of a pain the ass it is to get an FFL and start a firearm business in your house. Now you have to make sure your residence is not prohibited by zoning regulations. That just happened last year in the town I lived it, a bunch of neighbors were angry at a neighbor for his home based businesses and he wanted to expand with an FFL, change of zoning sign went up and the neighbors objected, this stirred up the local liberals and then the city council acted to ban home based firearms businesses in Ames, IA.

And, yes I did my part by arguing for home based FFLs in Ames, if it was any other guy then the guy who applied probably wouldn't of happened. Neighbors were straight up pissed about the guy because he had four cars and parked three of them in the street. Wasn't even a HOA neighborhood either.

[Perd Hapley]

Individuals in the private sector have been not so nice in the past for the sake of making money. What would keep the same thing from happening with private regulatory?

Individuals in the government have been not so nice in the past for the sake of making money. What keeps this from happening in the FDA?


The point is, you're not coming up with any dangers of the private sector that don't exist in government. Are you saying government can't be bought, or make lawsuits not worth pursuing?

[charby]

A US gov agency is supposed to have some sort of oversight, such as congress or supreme court. Would private industry have oversight or would it be controlled by market?

[Balog]

A US gov agency is supposed to have some sort of oversight, such as congress or supreme court. Would private industry have oversight or would it be controlled by market?

LOL...

How's that working out for you? Nothing says "able to be held accountable" like faceless bureaucrats with sovereign immunity wielding unlimited fed.gov money and power.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

This isn't a test. You don't have to make up answers. You could have just said that you don't know, or hadn't thought about it before.

Government regulatory bodies sound great in theory. Look at what governments have done to people. Just look at their shenanigans after the great depression.

I'm not asking if not having an FDA-type group would be better. I'm asking why it couldn't be private, and voluntary.


You want to police the FDA?

perhaps if you showed an example of your proposal actually at work in real life

damn phone