<p>As I said, the FDA is not perfect, nor is any human being or institution.</p>
<p>However, we are so much better off having the FDA than not. </p>
<p>Without the testing regimes required by the FDA, how would we even know if drugs are safe and effective? </p>
<p>As with any regulations, there has to be a balance between allowing for innovation/business freedom and securing health for the larger community. Long ago, American citizens decided some tradeoffs were necessary. In order to better preserve their health and the health of others, most people want to restrict businesses from doing anything and everything they want.</p>
<p>If Ron Paul doesn’t want these regulatory agencies, he is for freedom in a very restricted sense. Most Americans want the freedom that comes from not being exposed to dangerous, ineffective drugs. There are no guarantees that, even with the FDA, the food and drug supply will work great. But there’s certainly much more of a chance that real danger can be avoided.</p>
<p>^^And if you think that is these modern times that US companies won’t cut corners and endanger their customers for the sake of saving a little money, then perhaps you have forgotten the Ford Firestone tire scandal of just a few years ago:</p>
<p>"Turner has memos showing Ford was concerned about the risk of rollover for more than a decade, but that it rejected costly design changes that could have made the SUV safer.</p>
<p>Instead, Turner claims Ford forced Firestone to make a tire that might cut rollover risks, buit turned out to be weak and dangerously defective."</p>
<p>Regulatory agencies are just as corrupt as any other governmental agency. Economics is always a more determining factor than say, safety. Ron Paul has the guts to talk smack and I admire that. He has some very peculiar opinions, some may say a bit extreme even. I don’t see how getting rid of the FDA will do any good for anyone. It will just be replaced with another corrupt agency looking for bribes. Spare us the costs.</p>
<p>This is only one example. It’s done on a much larger scale than individual inspectors. Money will curve decision making against/for a specific agenda. It’s how capitalism works. </p>
<p>How about the head of the Chinese FDA who was executed for taking bribes? That’s not that far fetched. It happens in the U.S. just as much as anywhere else.</p>
<p>Re drugs and procedures-random thoughts- medical care.
Id like to see herbals/nutritional supplements/homeopathics regulated more along the they are in Europe so that consumers can be assured of more consistency and perhaps even have ins coverage for them.</p>
<p>I would agree that regulatory agencies aren’t perfect.
For example- my H works in conditions oftentimes that are unsafe- that is what the union is supposed to be advocate against- people know about the conditions- but even though this is a huge company with lots of $$$ & even though union supervisors know about it- it takes time and money to change anything- and even though it is a safety issue- it isn’t an “emergency level” issue and so it is being dealt with but slowly.
Whatta wanna bet that if we didn’t have OSHA standards even on the books, it wouldn’t be dealt with at all.</p>
<p>To go to FDA- some medications are approved before they are fully tested. Releasing heart medications for example that have never even been tested on women even though their treatment protocol is different than a mans.
Medications that are released but for limited conditions , but are prescribed for a wider range of conditions- which only have ancedotal evidence to back it up.
Drs are human- I know, I know, news flash.
Some are easily swayed by Pharma reps with glossy powerpoints on latest drugs. Whether or not an older medication might actually be plenty effective/cheaper and side effects better known, isn’t necessarily a benefit for those who think * new* equals * improved*</p>
<p>I agree that some medications and treatments might take a while to get approved, possibly because it is a new approach or even I admit because more established companies may be working on a competing product that they are trying to push through first.</p>
<p>Just like with car recalls- consumers may not be aware- even with the internets- that there are hundreds of similar reports of problems until a critical mass is reached.</p>
<p>We have a lot of media sources- but they all have a bias & it can be difficult to ascertain the legitimacy and accuracy of reports on the internet- or even more mainstream media.
Plus- who has the time and interest to be constantly evaluating all the drugs your family takes , let alone all the other products? We need some sort of watchdog that acts as a gate keeper, even if occasionally they let a party crasher in.</p>
<p>Medications are only one source of chemicals that end up in our drinking water. I toured our watershed and treatment plant a few years ago and was startled to learn that many hormones and chemicals we do not have the technology( or money) to filter out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some of these chemicals are also cumulative in our bodies.
everything is interconnected and if the internet is such a great resource for information & businesses will change their practices because of consumer demand- where is the uproar? </p>
<p>All of these examples point to the importance of the FDA and do not support the idea of dismantling it.</p>
<p>The whole U.S. system is based on the ideas of checking government power and limiting the power of special interests. </p>
<p>You can change regulations on speeding drug approval and monitor employees more carefully and make sure other govt officials are holding people accountable. </p>
<p>You will never get rid of corruption in any human institution. People embezzle and carry on corrupt acts in business as well. </p>
<p>In other words, for public health and safety, the best path is to improve and strengthen the FDA.</p>
<p>Ron Paul doesn’t want to replace the FDA. He wants to get rid of it.</p>
<p>Rep. Paul doesn’t think the federal govt should be involved in regulating food and drug safety. In his view, the Constitution does not give the national government the power to do that.</p>
<p>Also, I’d bet my house that Ron Paul’s objection to the FDA begins and ends with the F. He’s against federal government, and for state/local having the power to control anything not specifically given to the feds. (You know, like the Constitution says)</p>
<p>Of course not. Russert asked him that same question on Meet the Press, to which he emphatically replied “Amending the Constitution is constitutional!”</p>
<p>The Supreme Court also holds that a farmer who doesnt buy supplies or sell goods across state lines is covered by the Commerce Clause because by NOT engaging in interstate commerce, he’s AFFECTING interstate commerce. It took all the way until the Reagan appointees saw the bench that the Supreme Court admitted that their uses of the commerce clause were getting absurd, and thus declared in the Lopez case that the Lopez prosecution was unconstitutional under the commerce clause. With Roberts and Alito, I expect we’re going to see a return to the actual meaning of the commerce clause any day now.</p>
<p>Ron Paul sort of takes a different approach when reading the Constitution. He tries to figure out the original intent instead of looking for loopholes. He’s a strict Constructionist.</p>
<p>Explain to me why regulating food and drugs that cross state lines should not be covered under the commerce clause. These are often sold by international corporations, generally not by local farmers/manufacturers.</p>
<p>The facts of the Lopez case are quite unlike the sorts of activities regulated by the FDA, so the example is no precedent.</p>
<p>Interpreting general phrases in the Constitution in relation to a specific law and a specific set of facts is not “looking for loopholes.”</p>
<p>And, with all due respect, it seems to me that it’s not that obvious how one should “figure out the original intent” when reading the Constitution. There’s a wide array of originalist interpretations.</p>
<p>Yeah, Vyse, that last post was a fantastic avoidance of the point of what momfromme said.</p>
<p>The FDA regulates something that is certainly interstate commerce (as opposed to the “interstate commerce” used to justify drug laws and the Lopez judgment, for example). The interstate commerce of drugs, and the ability to regulate it, is something that clearly falls under the purview of the commerce clause.</p>
<p>So what is your constitutional objection to it, again?</p>
<p>Even aside from constitutional objections, are you really seriously suggesting that America would be better off without drug regulation?</p>
<p>Dr. Paul is not against public education itself, rather, the many growing flaws associated with. Secondary is by far the worst, while the only real problem with universities are financial. NY and CA have an excellent community college system, but not so much for other states.</p>
<p>People are deluding themselves in how effective the public educational system is. Our high schools operate under the NCLB Act, which basically means schools that score low on the star testing get less funding. The problem with this is many poor city schools are forced to enroll not-so-bright students, many children of illegal immigrants and many ordinary impoverished citizens. These schools cannot afford to provide accommodations for these kids, so it just becomes a vicious cycle. Poor schools get stupider while the wealthy schools get smarter. </p>
<p>The state also refuse to partition these prison-style campuses, so in addition to lacking academics, student life is pretty terrible. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fundamentalist private school? The public schools are the ones who spend hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding indoctrinating students, bickering and moaning about certain text and agendas while completely ignoring the foundation of education. Public school is no longer about learning. Kids are pumped out of the system with filtered knowledge and test-taking ability, nothing else. </p>
<p>Private schools offer more personal attention and often a better education. Kids range from all shapes and sizes, so one might thrive in a private school while crash at a public one. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The European public educational system is pretty bad too. Students are picked at an early age whether they will go on the vocational or academic track. The problem is, many kids develop later/earlier than the “average”, so for those who have yet to bloom are forced into vocational. Not to mention the whole concept of segregating students based on testing totally defeats the purpose of education. Educational equality should be a priority, and clearly Europe has yet to appreciate this. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think I ever want to contribute to the partisan political system (not voting age). </p>
<p>It’s hilarious how citizens repeat past political bickering, in propaganda, debating tactics, and overall emotional charge. They haven’t developed the ability to accept that the American political system was established to serve the government, not the people. </p>
</p>