They did not seem to see the government's role as being to steal from
the rich and give to the poor. They didn't include a right to food or
water or a job, so why would they include a right to medical treatment?
The adjustment that is needed is Constitutional amendment that
establishes the rules of interpretation far more narrowly than the
courts have done.
One idea I heard the other day (sorry, don't remember where) was a
Constitutional amendment allowing Congress, with a supermajority, to overrule
SCotUS decisions within a set amount of time (say, one year).
Can't the Congresscritters do that now? They can pass a bill that
revokes whatever the Supremes have said. If it becomes law, that should
have the same effect, unless the law is declared unconstitutional.
They can. Congress can, moreover, pass a law not reviewable by the courts.
Seldom happens, but it's possible.
For example, Section 8 of the $700 billion bailout in late 2008 reads:
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of the Act are
non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed
by any court of law or administrative agency."
Let start the cost analysis with the cost of government imposed
regulations. When I worked in a Pharmaceutical nearly a third of their
total staff was devoted to regulatory compliance.
That is just in on the manufacturing side. I have no experience with
the providers, but know they are also hit hard with government regulations.
Next let explorer the cost of law suits. The first thing some will do is
total the payouts in the current year and say that these cost are
insignificant. When considering these cost you have to consider the
preventive cost, adult resistant lids, label that say a fire is hot and
will burn you, and other nonsense. There are many expenses that a
company makes to avoid law suits.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:02:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
You forgot to mention the drug companies. You know that R&D expense
they're always harping on? Turns out most of it is spent analyzing how
to modify a competitors product just enough that they can bring out their
own version. Very little is spent on developing new drugs.
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
the drug through the FDA approval process, the cost of the required
testing to demonstrate the drug is effective, safe, and a host of other
things, such as the lethal limit testing, environmental test require for
manufacturing discharges, etc. When you consider that to get a drug
through FDA review and approval, there must be 100 of animal test, and
many people must use the drug and the data collected analyses.
If the drug is a biologic the organism must be created and it must be
characterized. Long chain protein characterization is not easy with
1000's of carbon atoms in the molecule.
Before a drug can become approved, multiple lots of the drug must be
manufactured by the planned procedures that are submitted to FDA review
and the manufacture drug shown it is equivalent to the lab drug. These
lots can not be sold and are destroyed.
Before manufacturing can begin other permits must be obtained, or
reviews made the EPA, OSHA, and a host of other alphabets agencies on
the local, state, and federal level.
This does not include the R&D expense of the many drugs that are found
and never make it to be consider as a possible candidate for the medical
system. For every one drug the is seen as a potential candidate for the
drug industry, 1000 are required to be chemically constructed, and
If these cost could not be deducted from the drug sales, new drugs would
be prohibitively expensive and would not come on the market.
YES there is a lot of patient avoidance research, but where do you think
the generic drugs that are approved comes from? They too have
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.