Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Mom dying of cancer makes a plea to the FDA Options · View
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 2:04:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,190
Should this make a difference? Should the FDA let the drugs be used before they're tested fully and deemed to be safe? Is that what each patient has to do to get the drugs that might save their lives? Or are they being selfish and entitled because it's happened to them and to hell with all the tests that might make a difference in the long run involving these kinds of drugs?

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 6:29:50 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,190
There is no one that can put themselves in those shoes. And, no, the FDA should not try and do so. However, sad as it is to say, to let the flood gates open on this, there would be hell to pay for those still present. Steve McQueen went to Mexico, others try whatever they can to stay. And the FDA will only say, not on our watch.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 12:54:39 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,637
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Maybe what you can do is put a boot up the beaurocratic system's ass and tell them to speed up the process. Maybe the drug trials can't be speeded up, but I have serious doubt that the FDA are as quick as they can be(for whatever reason it may be). They are a government run organisation after all.
And no, this is not me bashing the US. We have the same shit here, where there are drugs used to treat cancer in Denmark that still aren't allowed here. I wish it could be blamed on beurocracy, but it's not. It's doctors with prestige who refuse to accept the new drug that can cure the fucking shit, probably because they have some personal interest in it. Sad to see.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 6:04:07 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,190
I thought about this a bit more today, and it just pissed me off. So, let me allude.

You have the cartel, and they have a nice little syndicate of pushers. You have the pharm reps who are basically the bag men. The cartel governs what, where and to whom the drugs will be dispensed. Sound like a Chris Rock piece, yes, it pretty much is. All these factors endeavour to "test", and "approve" certain drugs that they believe make the grade. And when the price is set, then it hits the streets.

Now, physicians/hospitals bear the burden of keeping people alive that probably don't want to be, and have expounded while of sound mind of their wants not to be, if and when certain disasters fall upon them. But due to the Hippocratic oath, and their interest is in preserving life to the best of their means and abilities, they will not pull the plug in many cases since there is a "possibility" of "life", but will not dispense drugs that are hindered by red tape. So, don't dispense drugs that might help a person fighting for life cognitively, as clearly and succinctly expressed in this video, but do keep alive a person that is, for all intensive purposes, gone.

It is just sad. Doctors, reps, administrators, and all involved can't see past themselves and see true possibility, and yet waft through administrative ability.

Buz
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 5:39:57 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 10,354
Location: Atlanta, United States
Supposedly the FDA is making sure the drugs do what they actually claim to do and are safe to take. The FDA is a government agency therefore there can be no doubt that their effectiveness is minimal and probably more of a hindrance than a help.

The pharmaceutical companies are huge and powerful and make some of the highest profits on the planet. They do know that if they make a product that really works that the profit potential is tremendous so they at least have incentive.

The entire system is infected by politics.





Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 7:02:44 AM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,543
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
A couple of responses here: the FDA extensively tests drugs and continues to watch drugs after they have been released. This is to protect us, the consumer, as well as the main reason many drs are hesitant to prescribe new drugs, to protect them from future law suits. Everyday on TV I see commercials for lawyers asking relatives to contact them if they have been prescribed various meds. I have seen drs change prescriptions away from meds that worked great to ones that are less effective because of the possibility of potential law suits.

Drs who continue to agressively treat and prolong a life do it not because of an oath, but rather because if you have not made your wishes expressly known in legal documents their hands are tied. To not agressively treat invites action against a dr by facilities, boards, and families. I cannot stress enough the importance of having a legal DNR/DNI/living will completed properly!!!!!!


naughtiestmommy
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 7:59:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/26/2012
Posts: 197
Location: Coastal, United States
I hate to be the antagonist here, but if anyone truly thinks the FDA has consumers' best interests at heart, I have to strongly disagree.

Firstly, when you contemplate the lobbying strength of pharmaceutical companies and the billions they spend each year on lobbying alone, it ought to make the average consumer question where the FDA's loyalty lies. A perfect example of this would be their approval of Accutane, which has been proven to cause myriad issues, ranging from psychological impairment, growth hormone deficiency and eye degradation to bone deficiency, rare gastrointestinal maladies and heart problems, etc. Yet despite all evidence indicating that its use (especially for the treatment of acne) created the potential for physical harm much greater than the malady it was marketed to treat, the FDA never actually pulled its approval for it. The drug company decided to remove their own product from market to minimize legal action; otherwise, it's likely the drug would still be available for use.

Contrast this example with the case of a simple, organic chemical like DMSO, which is very inexpensive to make (it's a byproduct if paper making) and has been effectively proven over the last fifty years as (for lack of a better expression) a truly modern panacea. Haven't heard of it? Not surprising.

Dimethyl Sulfoxide. It's been proven to increase the efficacy of cells in their daily function (hence, the synergistic property).

It also helps to:

* not only inhibit the growth of cancer cells, but also works synergistically with cancer treatments to improve their efficacy, as well as reduce the side effects of cancer treatments (isn’t this reason alone to have it available?!)
* restore bone mass
* repair tissue, cartilage and muscular damage
* is a damned great topical pain reliever
* Firms the skin
* Drastically reduce the appearance, discomfort and other problems associated with scars (especially keloids)
* Drastically minimize the damage of burns, especially when immediately applied to the affected area
* Treat both rare and general kidney infections
* Effectively treat herpetic infections/lesions, as well as associated pain. It's actually a known inhibitor of herpes-related viruses
* Drastically reduce recovery time of sports related injuries (physical therapists for professional teams world wide swear by it. Either used topically for general pain or injected for tears and other more significant injuries, it works almost immediately.)
* Drastically reduce the appearance and recovery time of bruises
* Is an amazing agent proven to assist in erectile dysfunction in both men and women (yes, women have a variation of this malady, where blood cannot properly flow to the clitoris), and enhance sexual reactivity

And, even more impressive: the only known side effect, despite fifty years of research, is that it leaves a garlic taste in your mouth!

I could go on and on about this simple, inexpensive chemical, but the point I want to make here is that despite its abundant use in veterinary medicine, despite overwhelming evidence that it, in some cases, is a more effective treatment than ANY current drug on the market, despite everything that is known about this chemical, the FDA continually refuses to give its approval to market it for anything other than treatment of a rare kidney disease that is mostly untreatable by anything else on the market. Think about that: it's been approved for treatment of a rare kidney disease. Isn't that the ultimate endorsement of its safety?

Aren't you asking yourself why you've never heard of this stuff? I use it all the time, and I've seen scars I've had for years and years literally almost disappear in a matter of days. I don’t recommend anything I haven’t had glowing results with, and I’m probably the toughest kind of consumer: I go in skeptical and want to see quick results. I do my research. I don’t take chances. And this stuff works. It’s the closest thing to a panacea that modern medicine can offer, and it’s being shoved away because if it receives endorsements from the FDA, it stands to devastate a very lucrative pharmaceutical industry (don’t you wonder why it’s ONLY been approved for use in a disease that the pharmaceutical industry has failed to create a decent treatment for?)

Sadly, DMSO will remain an elusive treatment as long as pharm companies wield the power they have. Though it is organic, easily produced and such an effective treatment for so many maladies, because the pharmaceutical industry cannot make money off of it and will also lose a devastating amount of business, you will never see it approved for anything even the least adequate designer drug claims to treat.

So….who is the FDA REALLY protecting here?


(I have absolutely no affiliation with this book, but I've found it a great resource for information about DMSO, just in case anyone is interested (and, really, who shouldn't be?)

DMSO: Nature's Healer


.
.

I'm a loner, Dottie. A Rebel...
.
.

lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:03:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,512
Location: Alabama, United States
This is a multi pronged problem. Like NaughtyNurse said, it's all about lawsuits and money. There are so many class action lawsuits against pharm companies and doctors. It's a wonder doctors prescribe anything but aspirin.

The cure for cancer will never see the light of day. There is WAY too much money to be lost if cancer goes the way of Polio. Billions of dollars would be lost. American Cancer Society, Susan G. Konen, St. Judes Hospital (which is a great organization, btw), the hundreds of Cancer Hospitals and Oncology doctors/surgeons/medical centers. They all go out of business if cancer is cured. Not to mention the money that insurance agencies would lose.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:24:04 AM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,543
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
LM: Aspirin can cause bleeding, many times patients are not allowed to take aspirin :D


naughtiestmommy
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:31:25 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/26/2012
Posts: 197
Location: Coastal, United States
naughtynurse wrote:
LM: Aspirin can cause bleeding, many times patients are not allowed to take aspirin :D


Aspirin can cause bleeding when taken in massive doses, sure. But it's nothing compared to the liver failure crap like Acetaminophen can cause. Plus, for many people--especially for those who are at risk for clots and heart attacks, aspirin is a wonderful and very safe (if not necessary) addition to their daily regimen.

The only real concern about aspirin is if the user has failure to clot. Hemophiliacs, clearly, should not take aspirin. Since Aspirin is acidic, it ought to be taken with food. Prolonged use of most anything acidic without a pH buffer can cause issues like ulceration. Even many juices can cause or exacerbate such conditions. That's a known issue with acidic products in general, and definitely NOT limited to aspirin.

Let's not give aspirin a bad name!

Are you actually a nurse, Naughty?

.
.

I'm a loner, Dottie. A Rebel...
.
.

Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:34:51 AM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,543
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
naughtiestmommy wrote:


Contrast this example with the case of a simple, organic chemical like DMSO, which is very inexpensive to make (it's a byproduct if paper making) and has been effectively proven over the last fifty years as (for lack of a better expression) a truly modern panacea. Haven't heard of it? Not surprising.


I have used DMSO quit a bit. It is very effect and used mostly as an agent to draw things through the skin. However when you say slight garlic odor, that is VERY misleading. This shit REEKS. Everytime I have ever administered it, I have gotten very sick from the smell(migraine headaches and nausea).

"DMSO is safe when used as a prescription medication. Don't use products that are not prescribed by your health professional. There is concern that some non-prescription DMSO products might be “industrial grade” and are not intended for human use. They can contain impurities that can cause health effects. To make matters worse, DMSO readily penetrates the skin so it carries these impurities rapidly into the body.

Some side effects of taking DMSO by mouth or applying it to the skin include skin reactions, dry skin, headache, dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, breathing problems, vision problems, blood problems, and allergic reactions. DMSO also causes a garlic-like taste, and breath and body odor.
Special Precautions & Warnings:
Pregnancy and breast-feeding: Not enough is known about the use of DMSO during pregnancy and breast-feeding. Stay on the safe side and avoid use.

Diabetes: There are reports that topical use of DMSO can change how insulin works in the body. If you use insulin to treat diabetes and also use DMSO, monitor your blood sugar closely. Insulin doses may need to be adjusted.

Liver problems: DMSO might harm the liver. If you have liver conditions and use DMSO, be sure to get liver function tests every 6 months.

Kidney problems: DMSO might harm the kidneys. Kidney function tests are recommended every 6 months if you use DMSO and have a kidney condition."

DMSO (dimethylsulfoxide) might increase how much medicine your body absorbs. Taking DMSO along with medications taken by mouth might increase how much medicine your body absorbs. Increasing how much medicine your body absorbs can increase the effects and side effects of your medicines.

However if you really want to use it on your own, it is commercially available without a prescription.


Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:38:54 AM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,543
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
naughtiestmommy wrote:


Aspirin can cause bleeding when taken in massive doses, sure. But it's nothing compared to the liver failure crap like Acetaminophen can cause. Plus, for many people--especially for those who are at risk for clots and heart attacks, aspirin is a wonderful and very safe (if not necessary) addition to their daily regimen.

Let's not give aspirin a bad name!

Are you actually a nurse, Naughty?


Yes I am, currently working on my masters.

I KNOW that Acetaminophen can cause other issues. Aspirin can and does cause bleeding issues for many people, even in smaller does sizes. The same action that workes to cause the break down of clot in the 81 mg daily dose works to cause other issues.

But my post was TIC to LM referring to Aspirin as a benign drug, which it is not. There are NO benign drugs. They all have side effects. Some are more serious then others.


naughtiestmommy
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:39:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/26/2012
Posts: 197
Location: Coastal, United States
naughtynurse wrote:


I have used DMSO quit a bit. It is very effect and used mostly as an agent to draw things through the skin. However when you say slight garlic odor, that is VERY misleading. This shit REEKS. Everytime I have ever administered it, I have gotten very sick from the smell(migraine headaches and nausea).

"DMSO is safe when used as a prescription medication. Don't use products that are not prescribed by your health professional. There is concern that some non-prescription DMSO products might be “industrial grade” and are not intended for human use. They can contain impurities that can cause health effects. To make matters worse, DMSO readily penetrates the skin so it carries these impurities rapidly into the body.

Some side effects of taking DMSO by mouth or applying it to the skin include skin reactions, dry skin, headache, dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, breathing problems, vision problems, blood problems, and allergic reactions. DMSO also causes a garlic-like taste, and breath and body odor.
Special Precautions & Warnings:
Pregnancy and breast-feeding: Not enough is known about the use of DMSO during pregnancy and breast-feeding. Stay on the safe side and avoid use.

Diabetes: There are reports that topical use of DMSO can change how insulin works in the body. If you use insulin to treat diabetes and also use DMSO, monitor your blood sugar closely. Insulin doses may need to be adjusted.

Liver problems: DMSO might harm the liver. If you have liver conditions and use DMSO, be sure to get liver function tests every 6 months.

Kidney problems: DMSO might harm the kidneys. Kidney function tests are recommended every 6 months if you use DMSO and have a kidney condition."

DMSO (dimethylsulfoxide) might increase how much medicine your body absorbs. Taking DMSO along with medications taken by mouth might increase how much medicine your body absorbs. Increasing how much medicine your body absorbs can increase the effects and side effects of your medicines.

However if you really want to use it on your own, it is commercially available without a prescription.


Just because you had an impression that it is very strongly odored does not mean it is for everyone. I use it daily and, the more I use it, the lesser the odor. I mix it with lotion, and it's great. And I have an extremely sensitive nose (as anyone who knows me could profess). As for the body odor: my entire family uses it, plus numerous friends, and that has never been an issue for anyone I know. My biggest complaint of it is that it causes food and drink to taste different right after use, but who cares? I don't have to take Flexeril for either my back or a motorcycle neck injury, and I think that's pretty phenomenal. I will always advocate the use of DMSO over pharmaceuticals, if appropriate.

Furthermore, your assessment of risks is curious. I would love to know your references for the information you provided. It is new and NOT what I'm familiar with, despite extensive research (via actual published medical studies).

I'm not here to flex my medical knowledge (I have no need to), but I also have a problem with unsubstantiated misinformation, as I believe your information about aspirin is.

.
.

I'm a loner, Dottie. A Rebel...
.
.

Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:07:16 AM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,543
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
Im not here to argue specific drugs. if you want to by all means PM me and we can continue, but I am returning to the subject at hand not the use of one drug. My references are from Medscape, but if you want more there are other sources I can pull from.

The point I was trying to establish is exactly as was stated by LM. This is a multi-pronged issue. It is very easy to sit her in our safe chairs and say the horrible drug companies, the awful FDA: they just are ruining peoples lives by pushing their own agendas. Do they have agenda's? Sure. The FDA is a govt org. they are large and slow as such always are. The drug companies want to make $, like Any other business or individual. They experience all the costs of developing the drugs that we take for granted and then are considered not good enough. There are amazing advances in medicine that allow us to live longer and better then ever before. But instead of appreciating what we have we point our fingers and gnash our teeth and say this horrible company is ruining everything. Lets sue them because the medicine I took for (insert medical condition here that most likely could have been helped by personal choice) caused (insert side effect). Do I think the drug companies are blameless? n.o But I dont think a witch hunt is the way to fix things.


naughtiestmommy
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:30:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/26/2012
Posts: 197
Location: Coastal, United States
naughtynurse wrote:


The point I was trying to establish is exactly as was stated by LM. This is a multi-pronged issue. It is very easy to sit her in our safe chairs and say the horrible drug companies, the awful FDA: they just are ruining peoples lives by pushing their own agendas. Do they have agenda's? Sure. The FDA is a govt org. they are large and slow as such always are. The drug companies want to make $, like Any other business or individual. They experience all the costs of developing the drugs that we take for granted and then are considered not good enough. There are amazing advances in medicine that allow us to live longer and better then ever before. But instead of appreciating what we have we point our fingers and gnash our teeth and say this horrible company is ruining everything. Lets sue them because the medicine I took for (insert medical condition here that most likely could have been helped by personal choice) caused (insert side effect). Do I think the drug companies are blameless? n.o But I dont think a witch hunt is the way to fix things.


We are in complete agreement that it is a convoluted issue, I assure you, and I appreciate and respect your perspective. I do. I should have made that clear, and I apologize for not doing so. In hindsight, I realize that I was not conveying my points in a non-judgmental way, and I am a decent enough person to admit that to you. I applaud your choice to serve others; it's a tough job and nurses often don't get enough credit. And just because we may disagree on some issues, I think we both have considerable understanding of the bigger issues here and I hope that, through reading this forum post, something we both offer will assist others.

But I think this situation speaks to the larger issue, which is that our medical policies and the bureaucratic systems governing medicine in America are greatly flawed. I can assure you that the quality of content taught in medical schools today is frightening. The emphasis is on symptom treatment (almost exclusively through pharmaceuticals), with little acknowledgement of cause. Sure, our doctors learn to give a patient a diagnosis (when they can) because it makes the patient feel a sense of regaining control to know what's wrong. But, in private, most doctors will tell you that they are not entirely sure of the diagnosis they give, and prefer to generalize diagnoses whenever possible.

Without giving too much information (for the sake of anonymity, obviously), I can tell you that one of my family members actually pioneered the HMO system. It was a response to the dilemma of non-integrated health care, a need to establish standards of care, and need to simplify billing. According to him, what our national health system has turned into appalls him. Something that was once the pride of his career has become a messy, monsterous entity that even he is negatively impacted by, and that causes him distress. It's become a bloated industry filled with companies that feel no ethical responsibility toward their customers, and those companies will often do just about anything to maximize profits and minimize expense.

My sister had thyroid cancer when she was 19. The pill to treat it cost my parents $25,000. ONE PILL. How can anyone justify that? It's a digression, I know, but everywhere you turn, there is evidence that our national healthcare system is broken and lame. I feel terrible for this mother, her child, and family. When I hear of these things, I often wonder if America will ever open its eyes and do something to curb the overwhelming apathy that has infested our society, but I don't have a lot of hope for that, sadly.

.
.

I'm a loner, Dottie. A Rebel...
.
.

WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 11:04:37 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,781
Location: Cakeland, United States
Buz wrote:
The pharmaceutical companies are huge and powerful and make some of the highest profits on the planet. They do know that if they make a product that really works that the profit potential is tremendous so they have very little incentive to actually create any cures.


Fixored It For Ya

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 3:25:31 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Buz wrote:
Supposedly the FDA is making sure the drugs do what they actually claim to do and are safe to take. The FDA is a government agency therefore there can be no doubt that their effectiveness is minimal and probably more of a hindrance than a help.

The pharmaceutical companies are huge and powerful and make some of the highest profits on the planet. They do know that if they make a product that really works that the profit potential is tremendous so they at least have incentive.

The entire system is infected by politics.


The government is bad, therefore anything they do is bad. This reminds me of a saying I read a while back:

Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.

I'd never claim that government is always good (far from it, to be sure), but I'm really supposed to believe that corporations, beholden to stockholders, are going to put the public well-being first, if only that pesky FDA would get out of their way? Don't make me laugh.

Corporations want government out of their way, for sure, but it's not to benefit any of us (unless we happen to be boardmembers or executives for said company). They just want a clearer path to fuck us over for their own wealth benefit.


lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 3:31:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,512
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:


The government is bad, therefore anything they do is bad. This reminds me of a saying I read a while back:

Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.

I'd never claim that government is always good (far from it, to be sure), but I'm really supposed to believe that corporations, beholden to stockholders, are going to put the public well-being first, if only that pesky FDA would get out of their way? Don't make me laugh.

Corporations want government out of their way, for sure, but it's not to benefit any of us (unless we happen to be boardmembers or executives for said company). They just want a clearer path to fuck us over for their own wealth benefit.




You're both right. Neither the government nor corporations care any more or less than the other about the public or the public's well being. The money is being put in someone's pocket. The government worker (Democrat or Republican workers or administrations) just gets to hide behind his office and use it as a ruse.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 4:01:36 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
lafayettemister wrote:


You're both right. Neither the government nor corporations care any more or less than the other about the public or the public's well being. The money is being put in someone's pocket. The government worker (Democrat or Republican workers or administrations) just gets to hide behind his office and use it as a ruse.


Granted. But can we put to bed this fallacy that if we only eliminate government, that we'll end up with a magical society with no unemployment, low crime, and pet unicorns? Government agencies are wasteful and difficult? I'm sure they often are, but they're also necessary. So you fix it, trim it down if need be, but you don't eliminate it!
Ruthie
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:58:59 PM

Rank: Moderator Emeritus
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 3,629
Location: The wilder parts. , United States
Drug companies and Universities get government grants to develop medications, which are then patented by the drug companies, who take the profits they make by marketing the drugs that the tax payers have paid for. They aren't magnanimous corporations doing good for the benefit of mankind, they are businesses trying to make a profit. Their contribution to the development of drugs usually begins late in the process, and most of their contributions are economic rather than creative. In exchange for this they get exclusive rights to sell the drugs for years.

What I don't understand is why is it so great for some people to make fortunes off of the misery of other people. By the time the drug companies get their hands on a drug the research is completed up through the testing stages. Wouldn't it be more economical for the world if governments financed the last stages also, and then allowed the drug to be marketed at cost? Why does everything have to make a profit?

The privatization of many government services was supposed to save money for the tax payer. Deregulation was supposed to make everything work great, lower consumer prices and give businesses the incentive to find new methods of doing things. Why hasn't it worked? How are private prisons better than public ones? Do you really want a for profit corporation controlling the water supply? Are health insurance companies and their profit taking stockholders really necessary?

Government has become a dirty word to conservatives for some reason. Government is supposed to work for us. If it doesn't it's our fault because we let it fail. We assume risks together as a society, pooling our money to provide defense, education, law enforcement, fire and disaster protection. How can we improve that by letting some people make a profit off the rest of us?
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:05:19 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
The 8-pound baby jeebus that wraps himself in the American flag and craps apple pie smiles upon those who thirst for big fat profit margins. Non-profits are for freedom-haters.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, May 4, 2012 7:20:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,512
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:


Granted. But can we put to bed this fallacy that if we only eliminate government, that we'll end up with a magical society with no unemployment, low crime, and pet unicorns? Government agencies are wasteful and difficult? I'm sure they often are, but they're also necessary. So you fix it, trim it down if need be, but you don't eliminate it!


Sure we can. But can we also put to bed the fallacy that governement, big and more government is full of altruistic do-gooders that will end all misery, poverty, crime, and hate? I don't think conservatives want to eliminate government. Not entirely. People on the right see the role of government differently than people on the left. The right wants government to protect us, educate us, give us good infrastructure, and responsibly take care of those that can't take care of themselves.

The left (from the viewpoint of the right) wants government to take control over every aspect of life. Where a person can go, when he can go, how he must get there, what he can do once he gets there. And for him to pay a heavy tax each step along the way.

There IS such a thing as TOO much government. We all know power corrupts. But it doesn't just corrupt dictators and monarchs singularly. It also corrupts groups of people.. our lawmakers. Both Democrat and Republican. Some examples of too much government...

Recycle bins in Cleveland, Ohio are fitted with tracking chips. If the recycle bin isn't moved to the curb often enough a "trash supervisor" will show up to your home to sort through your trash. If your trash as more than 10% recyclables in it, you'd be fined $100.==== People should recycle, and it's douchebag material to not recycle. But I don't think it should be illegal. And how much money must be wasted on that program.

TSA, that's a governmental clusterfuck if ever there was one. It is being reported that in many instances TSA agents are actually reaching down the pants of male travelers and up the skirts of female travelers. One retired special education teacher was left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an "enhanced pat-down" by TSA agents. Quite a number of women that have been through these "enhanced pat-downs" have used the phrase "sexual assault" to describe the experience. ==== An example of a much needed government agency that has far overstepped practicality and common sense.

How about a group of high school students being prohibited from singing the National Anthem at the Lincoln Memorial?===== Whoever made that law could have spent his time more wisely dealing with real issuess. I'd bet my left arm that money was involved in that law.

Or a school kid being forbidden from riding to school with the American flag on his bike?==== What school board wasted time and money deciding that should be banned?


The FDA is needed. But if they weren't in bed with pharm companies we could get stuff done better and quicker. Things that are governmental should not have any privatization involved or beholden to any strawmen or companies. Likewise, no free enterprise business should have governemnt over their shoulders telling them how to run their business (outside of safety concerns).

edit.... in my own home state of Louisiana, a person must be licensed to be a florist. The only state that has this requirement. What possible danger could a florist have to the public well-being that requires a state board of regulating/licensure? But guess who serves on the board that approves licensing? Yep, already licensed florists. If a person wants to open a florwer shop in the territory of a board member, the new florist is denied. It's all about protected one's turf. Getting a florist license in Louisiana is harder than getting a license to practice law. Government run amok.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Friday, May 4, 2012 9:09:30 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Agreed, we can go back and forth about egregious examples of both political extremes. The only thing I'd say in response is that the far right wing mostly imagines that the far left wants government to control everything. On the other hand, even mainstream Republicans are on record with their desires to eliminate the EPA, departments of energy, education, etc.

Yes, you can probably find dyed in the (organic) wool socialists and communists who truly believe in an all-encompassing federal government, but I just don't see evidence of a default-view among liberals that we just expect the gubmint to take care of and direct us in all our affairs. Though it does make a good scapegoat vs. the poor; it's much easier than considering the actual complexity of the situation.

Good points though, especially the part about big pharma's bought influence in the FDA.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, May 4, 2012 9:14:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,512
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:
Agreed, we can go back and forth about egregious examples of both political extremes. The only thing I'd say in response is that the far right wing mostly imagines that the far left wants government to control everything. On the other hand, even mainstream Republicans are on record with their desires to eliminate the EPA, departments of energy, education, etc.

Yes, you can probably find dyed in the (organic) wool socialists and communists who truly believe in an all-encompassing federal government, but I just don't see evidence of a default-view among liberals that we just expect the gubmint to take care of and direct us in all our affairs. Though it does make a good scapegoat vs. the poor; it's much easier than considering the actual complexity of the situation.

Good points though, especially the part about big pharma's bought influence in the FDA.


I agree that both sides have political extremes. There has to be some sort of middle ground. That's what our once powerful checks and balances system guaranteed. Seems we've lost that tool of government.

I also don't see Republican nor Democrats as the big bad boogey man either. Both sides are only in it for money. Total pandering all around.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
naughtiestmommy
Posted: Friday, May 4, 2012 10:11:23 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/26/2012
Posts: 197
Location: Coastal, United States
LadyX wrote:


I'd never claim that government is always good (far from it, to be sure), but I'm really supposed to believe that corporations, beholden to stockholders, are going to put the public well-being first, if only that pesky FDA would get out of their way? Don't make me laugh.

Corporations want government out of their way, for sure, but it's not to benefit any of us (unless we happen to be boardmembers or executives for said company). They just want a clearer path to fuck us over for their own wealth benefit.




Damn well said. Until the government begins to more properly police the corporations, I trust neither. I'm not a socialist, but until consumer corporations begin to incorporate some ethical standards into their daily practices, I'll scrutinize them. And until our government stops allowing lobbying by those same corporations, I won't trust the FDA's judgment, either.

.
.

I'm a loner, Dottie. A Rebel...
.
.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.