Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/17/05 12:20 pm:
Excon,

Did you even read my answer?

1) I AGREED WITH YOU THAT THE SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED. So what is your issue?

2) My disagreement on that subject with you is that YOU want to blame Bush for it. It's not Bush's fault, and short of creating a new oversight body, or else shutting down the entire industry, there's nothing he can do about it. The fault is the FDA's, not Bush's.

3) You want to still blame Big Tobacco for what they did wrong 50 years ago? You want to hold them responsible today for people who KNOWINGLY choose to smoke today? This is your logical position?

What is your problem today?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/17/05 12:58 pm:

Hello El:

Bad hair. Or better yet, no hair.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/17/05 3:18 pm:

Hello again,

I sense denial regarding our addiction to drugs. Maybe it's because the drugs they've addicted us to aren't on the DEA's list and the dealer is your doctor and your pharmacist (white people).

However, I'm not fooled. If it looks like a duck...... It doesn't matter that these drug dealers wear suits. They are no different than the crack dealer on the street.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/17/05 4:11 pm:
Excon,

Sorry, I meant my second answer to be a clarification but I hit the wrong button. Here it is again:

You are laying the problem at Bush's feet as if he were able to do something about it. Bush doesn't operate in a vacuum. There's a Congress to deal with, there are established laws, and there are established bureaucracies. ALL of these are hurdles that need to be overcome before the system changes.

Even assuming that Bush COULD manage to overcome all of these obsticles, what changes should he make? What would be the best actions to take in order to improve the system? There's not even a real consensus that a problem even exists, much less an agreement on what action should be taken to fix it.

And please don't say that the President should be prosecuting the drug companies: that's not the job of the President. He's not a cop, and he's not a prosecutor. He's the President. Prosecutions are handled by other people. And I would say that no matter who was in office... prosecuting companies or individuals is simply not a Presidential responsibility.

I'm not saying that something doesn't need to be done. I agree with you that it needs to be fixed. But HOW?

You've pointed out the problem. Do you have any reasonable ideas for solutions?

Oh, and by the way, one of my friends from college is a chemist for a major drug company (I forget which one). He's black. My pharmacist is black. One of the doctors in the practice I go to is black. This is NOT a black/white race issue, and it is not about drug dealing of addictive and harmful recreational drugs. It's about safe prescription drugs for the treatment of illness. Trying to mix the two issues is a little over the top. There's no reasonable connection between the two issues.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/17/05 4:16 pm:

Hello Elliot:

I don't know specifically how the tobacco companies were brought to their knees, but I doubt it was the feds who did it. So, whoever did it needs to get cracking again.

Contrary to your suggestion, the Attorney General works for Bush. He's got a huge prison system standing behind him as a threat. If there was a will to do something about the problem, there certainly is a way.

Ok, they're going to fail us a second time. What else is new?

There are enough laws on the books to prosecute them. RICO, Conspiracy, price fixing, collusion. I KNOW they can do something about it if they want to. They don't.

You acknowledge the problem, but you don't see anybody around who can fix it. They’re all saying “not my job”, and you agree. Well, I don’t.

You asked for specifics. Ok. I believe the industry, and it’s executives in particular should be prosecuted. I think that alone might bring the other miscreants into line. If it doesn’t, while the idea of nationalization is an anathema to my conservative heart, I think the threat to our well being is sufficient enough to warrant it.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/17/05 4:39 pm:
>>>I don't know specifically how the tobacco companies were brought to their knees, but I doubt it was the feds who did it. So, whoever did it needs to get cracking again. <<<

What makes you think they were brought to their knees? They are still operating, and they don't show any sign of closing down any time soon.

But if anyone 'brought them to their knees' it was class action lawsuits by citizens, not anything the government did.

>>>Contrary to your suggestion, the Attorney General works for Bush. He's got a huge prison system standing behind him as a threat. <<<

You are assuming there is anything actionable to prosecute. Unlike the 'smoking gun' in the tobacco cases, where internal memos PROVED that they knew their products were addictive long before there were any warning lables, there is no evidence that the drug companies did anything they weren't supposed to be doing under FDA rules. Any dangers from Vioxx and Bextra became known only after decades-long studies revealed a corrolation between heart disease and their drugs. They can easily argue that there was no evidence in any test they performed under the rules of the FDA that their drug had any dangers that they didn't warn about as the law requires. And if that is the case, then there is nothing to prosecute... which seems to be the case. The class action suits that I have read about all seem to be arguing that the drug companies SHOULD have known, not that they did know and put the drugs out on the market anyway. At worst, tey get a slap on the wrist for not having done enough tests... and since the FDA rules didn't require any more tests than they performed, they probably won't even get that much. There's nothing actionable in this case as there was in the tobacco cases. There's nothing the AG can do about it, since the companies never broke the law.

In order for RICO to be used, you have to be able to prove that racketeering was taking place. If you could prove colusion, price fixing, or conspiracy to commit any sort of a crime at all, then yes, you could probably use RICO. But that all assumes that there was some sort of collusion or racketeering taking place. Considering the cut-throat nature of the pharmaceutical business, that would certainly be difficult to prove. Do you know of a single case where drug company executives got together and fixed prices? Neither does anybody else.

Criminal prosecution without a provable crime isn't going to fix this situation, excon. It's just going to waste tax dollars on a case the government can't win... and probably doesn't want to win, because any indictment they get is an indictment of the FDA, a government agency... it would be effectively the government prosecuting itself... without any evidence. That's not the solution.

As to the nationalization of the drug companies: that might actually solve the specific problem... maybe... if we managed to find people to run the program who weren't open to kickbacks, graft, bribery etc. But assuming you got a total boy scout to run the operation, how many other problems would it cause?

1) Lack of innovative new drugs. People only create new drugs if there's something in it for them. Nationalize the industry, and people will stop creating new necessary drugs.

2) Rising costs due to bureaucracy and red tape. There is no government agency that doesn't have red tape. Red tape means inefficiency. Inefficiency means higher costs.

3) Availability and waiting periods. The government doesn't know how to do anything quickly. Nationalize the industry, and you can expect shortages of common and necessary drugs.

All of this is observable in the national medical systems throughout the world. All of this was seen in Soviet Russia. I'm not coming up with any new concepts here. Nationalizing the industry will create bigger problems than the one it is meant to solve. And haven't we proven that government oversight doesn't work? So instead of the FDA, a federal agency, you are suggesting the creation of a new federal agency that would do the same thing, only moreso? And you expect it to work any better than the FDA did?

I asked for REASONABLE ideas, excon. I don't think criminal prosecution or nationalization of the industry are reasonable responses.

Elliot