The Greatest Depression

[Stevinator]

A very thoughtful reply. cheers to you.

If there were such a organization (non-governmental FDA), how would it address it's lack of authority? Would it be something like a consumer reports? A quasi-press like organization? Where would its revenue come from?

I think the reason we (I--probably shouldn't be talking for anyone else) prefer the government doing that, even though the state has its own drawbacks, is that getting its revenue from tax dollars partially (not perfectly--I'm not going to pretend that's true) shields it from some of the problems we see with organizations like the better business bureau and its competitors. Furthermore, because it's the state it has the teeth to stop activities that are deemed unhealthy, and impose standards directly instead of indirectly. I buy so many things that i can't possibly research all of them and know which ones were made in a way i'd find acceptable. I'd love to be able to tell you that I had the time to research which providers were the greenest (or healthiest, or whatever), but I can't and I wouldn't believe anyone who said they did. Even if the info and videos of the process were available online, I'm still not sure many would bother. Not to mention the trade secret issues that would bring up.

no, at some point you have to trust that there's sufficient controls in place in enough places that you don't go into an infinite research loop whenever you're hungry. I suppose you might argue that the FDA is ineffectual, and bought out by interest groups (like the OCC and SEC leading up to the banking crisis), but it just seems to me that as imperfect the system is, we'd be worse off without it.

I'm sure you've got some ideas though, and i'd be glad to hear them.


oh, and as for your junkie and universal single payer healthcare, that example it a big part of why so many americans don't want to go to a government controlled healthcare system, despite our current system being terribly inefficient and overly expensive. We (i don't think this one is an "i") are just not convinced that universal single payer would be any better. I am particularly concerned because as it is, one of the problems I see with our current system is the encouragement of people to go to the doctor all the time by offering these tiny or non-existent co-pays. If you make everything free, people are going to go even MORE. What we really need is a lot LESS money spent on healthcare. We should be incenting people to use the system less. Especially when we're healthy, but also (and this is a big part of the vast expense of medicare) when there's nothing we can do to save a patient.

[Glurin]

Please, quote me then.

Wow, ok, you really need to see an optometrist then.

By the way, you can hack at the straw-man all you want, you're still wrong. Actually, come to think of it, looking at your posts it seems that you yourself almost worship evolution. So offended by a perceived attack on the subject where none exists. So in essence, you are exactly the kind of person I was talking about.

If you wish to discuss the merits of evolutionary theory, fine, but I believe that that would be more appropriate in another thread created for that purpose, yes?

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Steve, fine, you can keep this one but don't go feeding any others, OK?

[Fizoo]

A lot of the issues being dealt with in this thread are 20th century issues that are on the verge of irrelevance thanks to science. neither democrats nor republicans will find some magic law that gives all of us cheap quality healthcare. science will provide that and probably in 2-3 decades. Politicans will never solve our energy problems. Science will solve that in 2-3 decades. Im sure whichever political party is in office at the time will try to take credit when it happens, like al gore trying to take credit for inventing the internet.

[Glurin]

A lot of the issues being dealt with in this thread are 20th century issues that are on the verge of irrelevance thanks to science. neither democrats nor republicans will find some magic law that gives all of us cheap quality healthcare. science will provide that and probably in 2-3 decades. Politicans will never solve our energy problems. Science will solve that in 2-3 decades. Im sure whichever political party is in office at the time will try to take credit when it happens, like al gore trying to take credit for inventing the internet.

Nah. If the pattern continues, it will be the Democrats that try to take all the credit and once again accuse Republicans of being anti-science, whether they are the ones in power or not. They've put a lot of work and effort into creating that false narrative, so I doubt they'd just let it go so easily.

[SaroDarksbane]

Furthermore, because it's the state it has the teeth to stop activities that are deemed unhealthy

And thank god for that! Can you imagine if I were able to purchase and drink raw milk without anyone around to threaten the farmer and I with being kidnapped and locked in a cage?

You and people like you are heroes, Steve. Without your wisdom, none of us would be able to decide what kinds of things to ingest, and I know that you only hurt us because you just care soooo much.

[stillman]

If there were such a organization (non-governmental FDA), how would it address it's lack of authority? Would it be something like a consumer reports? A quasi-press like organization? Where would its revenue come from?

That's the beauty of it; if the organization is useless or can't generate money to operate itself, it would sink. Kind of like the horse-drawn buggy example mentioned a while back. There's no need to prop up (forcefully, with laws) something that is outdated. But as you said, if many people lack time to research safe products, they might pay to have these well-known organizations do it for them. A company that rejects the safety approval process looks awfully shady and will likely suffer from competition.

I think the reason we (I--probably shouldn't be talking for anyone else) prefer the government doing that, even though the state has its own drawbacks, is that getting its revenue from tax dollars partially (not perfectly--I'm not going to pretend that's true) shields it from some of the problems we see with organizations like the better business bureau and its competitors.

I'm not familiar with those, but it's all part of the current system where they can use government backing to get away with anything. So of course there are problems.

A lot of the issues being dealt with in this thread are 20th century issues that are on the verge of irrelevance thanks to science. neither democrats nor republicans will find some magic law that gives all of us cheap quality healthcare. science will provide that and probably in 2-3 decades. Politicans will never solve our energy problems. Science will solve that in 2-3 decades. Im sure whichever political party is in office at the time will try to take credit when it happens, like al gore trying to take credit for inventing the internet.

I have my doubts b/c we know everything about growing food, yet we can't make this simple issue a priority. In 2-3 decades, we will have prettier gadgets for hipsters and that's about it. Those are our priorities. Oh, and fog machines with lasers, and more explosions in Batman movies.

no, at some point you have to trust that there's sufficient controls in place in enough places that you don't go into an infinite research loop whenever you're hungry. I suppose you might argue that the FDA is ineffectual, and bought out by interest groups (like the OCC and SEC leading up to the banking crisis), but it just seems to me that as imperfect the system is, we'd be worse off without it.

I'm sure you've got some ideas though, and i'd be glad to hear them.

You're trusting people with the safety of your food one way or the other. In one setup, the handlers are threatened with a fine they can easily pay. In the other setup, they are threatened with losing their consumer base to 100 companies that haven't harmed anyone yet and are desperate for your money. They are desperate to make the food as safe as possible.

There would also be insurance companies that pay a huge amount if you get sick, and it's up to them to make sure your food is safe. They could be the ones to do all the safety research on companies and send it to you, seeing how they have huge incentive for you not to get sick. These sorts of controls are not allowed to crop up b/c the government makes 100,000 new laws each year. You're stuck with their bum buddies.

We (i don't think this one is an "i") are just not convinced that universal single payer would be any better.

It's hard to imagine systems in a free world. Right off the bat, you'd have a boatload more money from not being taxed. Again, competing insurance companies would be desperate to get you as a customer, so that would drive prices down. They would also want you not to get sick so they don't have to pay you anything. In some parts of the world, people pay their doctor small amounts when they are healthy and stop paying when they are sick! This gives the doctors huge incentive to keep all their clients healthy. The history of medicine before government took it over is also quite interesting and worth researching.

[BobCox2]

[Stevinator]

That's the beauty of it; if the organization is useless or can't generate money to operate itself, it would sink. Kind of like the horse-drawn buggy example mentioned a while back. There's no need to prop up (forcefully, with laws) something that is outdated. But as you said, if many people lack time to research safe products, they might pay to have these well-known organizations do it for them. A company that rejects the safety approval process looks awfully shady and will likely suffer from competition.



I'm not familiar with those, but it's all part of the current system where they can use government backing to get away with anything. So of course there are problems.

The BBB is a private company. Here's some back story.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/busine...ry?id=12123843

I was wondering how your system would prevent this type of thing from becoming prevalent.

Ratings agencies are another one where the market has trouble self regulating.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013...wsuit-worries/

I have my doubts b/c we know everything about growing food, yet we can't make this simple issue a priority. In 2-3 decades, we will have prettier gadgets for hipsters and that's about it. Those are our priorities. Oh, and fog machines with lasers, and more explosions in Batman movies.

I also doubt it, we may be better at stuff, but the goalposts will just move.

You're trusting people with the safety of your food one way or the other. In one setup, the handlers are threatened with a fine they can easily pay. In the other setup, they are threatened with losing their consumer base to 100 companies that haven't harmed anyone yet and are desperate for your money. They are desperate to make the food as safe as possible.

in my setup there would be both forces.

There would also be insurance companies that pay a huge amount if you get sick, and it's up to them to make sure your food is safe. They could be the ones to do all the safety research on companies and send it to you, seeing how they have huge incentive for you not to get sick.

hmm, that sounds a lot like a healthcare insurance company, and they don't spend any time or effort on keeping people healthy. They do spend a lot of time and money finding healthy people to insure though....

It's hard to imagine systems in a free world. Right off the bat, you'd have a boatload more money from not being taxed. Again, competing insurance companies would be desperate to get you as a customer, so that would drive prices down. They would also want you not to get sick so they don't have to pay you anything. In some parts of the world, people pay their doctor small amounts when they are healthy and stop paying when they are sick! This gives the doctors huge incentive to keep all their clients healthy. The history of medicine before government took it over is also quite interesting and worth researching.

That basically makes the doctor the insurance company. interesting approach. I'd like to read more about that sometime. Do you know where a system like this is in place?

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

[...]
It's hard to imagine systems in a free world. Right off the bat, you'd have a boatload more money from not being taxed. Again, competing insurance companies would be desperate to get you as a customer, so that would drive prices down. They would also want you not to get sick so they don't have to pay you anything. In some parts of the world, people pay their doctor small amounts when they are healthy and stop paying when they are sick! This gives the doctors huge incentive to keep all their clients healthy. The history of medicine before government took it over is also quite interesting and worth researching.

I can imagine doctors falling over themselves, and each other, trying to take on patients that fall within the categories of high risk - the poor, workers in the air traffic control sector, teachers. other industries that have a history of causing health problems, etc.
They'll be desperate to take on a broad spectrum of patients, some of whom statistically are of a high risk of illness/low profit margin profile.