[flagged]
A few problems here...
It's hard to sue if you're dead. Yeah, your family can sue, but now they're dealing with that on top of you being dead. And there is nothing the court can do to un-dead you.
In addition to not being able to un-dead you, the court can't fix the disability or other permanent issues you're now dealing with.
Sure, the court can award you damages. While there are probably exceptions, most people would probably rather have their health and quality of life.
Dealing with it through tort law alone means that the damage must go all the way through to occurring. That damage can often not be undone to any real degree, only kinda covered up with cash. That presumes the poison peddler hasn't protected themselves with an army of shell companies, or siphoned the funds off into another country, etc.
Waiting until the damage happens for every single instance is sticking fingers in ears at societal scale.
Are we sure about this?
On instagram I’m getting blasted with GPL-1 weight loss prescriptions and testosterone prescriptions (even though I’m in my 30’s, athletic, not overweight… I think? But these ads make me question even that…)
If it weren’t for the “talk to a doctor” barrier and you could just click “get free sample” for wegovy or testosterone or whatever other drug, there will be a lot of abuse.
Companies, especially startups, will skirt the law. They already do it and they don’t get in trouble.
But the advertising industry + prescription drugs is a deadly combo. 1) convince people they have ailments that require treatment, 2) sell them an unneeded treatment.
Maybe I would benefit from Wegovy / GPL-1? According to these instagram ads I will. And add in testosterone because, why not.
You're acting like consumers of medication have a choice. They _need_ certain medication and if the only option doesn't include safety inspections then they can't exactly just pick a different medication, they have to put their trust in a profit-driven company's hands or suffer and maybe die.
Healthcare isn't something that should be sold as people are forced to buy it to survive. That allows crazy levels of exploitation, leading to insane prices like the U.S already has for medication, treatments, and medical insurance.
Every single company making products and services we all use is profit-driven.
> Healthcare isn't something that should be sold as people are forced to buy it to survive
Healthcare is far from being the only essential good that I have to buy to survive. It's a merchandise like any other - the market rules still apply. Maybe emergency care is different (since I could be unconscious when buying it) but that's what insurance is for. That's what I use in countless other domains as well: car emergency assistance, travel emergency, etc.
Hope the hospital your unconscious self is taken to happens to be in your insurance network, and that your insurance provider doesn't decide that what you went in for wasn't really an emergency.
How many resources are you willing to allocate to limit and control dangers and risks instead of using them for your kids, education or maybe simple enjoyment of life? What percent of your income are you willing to give those who promise that risk-reduction and how can you measure that they lived up to their promise?
And it's all getting shittier and shittier every year. The profit motive does not select for high quality products, it selects for the products that are as cheap as possible to manufacture, which includes lying about the contents and capabilities of the product in the absence of sufficient legal incentive to be honest. And for markets to work, consumers need accurate information. Thus, regulatory agencies are necessary in practice for efficient markets.
Simply not true. Under communism, where the profit motive was outlawed, we had the absolut crappiest and worst products. While in the west, capitalism and free markets were spoiling people for choice.
And as far as "spoiling people for choice", this is irrelevant as a refutation. A choice between a hundred shitty products is a shitty choice nonetheless.
You are writing your nonsense on a free-market created computer, publish on a free-market created website over a free-market created network.
Please point out the “better” not profit-driven computer, website and network you find less “shitty”.
> You are writing your nonsense on a free-market created computer, publish on a free-market created website over a free-market created network.
Yeah, no. The government and publicly-funded universities invented the internet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#History) and publicly funded CERN invented HTML and the Web.
Agreed - the only system I know of that takes human behavior into consideration is capitalism and free markets.
> ARPANET [...] CERN
You do realize that the Internet is not just a set of protocols, right? It's people, services and companies all coming together in this amazing web. How do you think that happened? Who brought them here?
There is a long distance from Arpanet and Cern to Johnny getting his Tiktok fix on his smartphone. And it took a lot of private money and initiative for this to happen. Nobody's denying DoD's role in funding the basic protocols Internet relies on, but compared to what was added on top of that since then - it's a tiny contribution, to be honest.
no customer individually has the capacity or resources to figure out which of a hundred companies are the ones selling adulterated foods or simply lying about medicines working and throwing narcotics in all of them.
I don't know if you're trolling or if you just don't care about anyone and would happily see millions poisoned for the sake of profits for liars and cheats.
You won't find effective medication in the mass of snake oil that would hit the market.
The FDA is killing people on a daily basis by being so slow and bureaucratic to review life saving drugs. But its the dog that does not bark so people are completely oblivious to it.
“Full abolition of the FDA would have domino effects on every other part of healthcare. You would have to reform the insurance system, the War on Drugs, the medical evidence system, the malpractice system, and the entire role of doctors. All of these other things are terrible and should probably be reformed anyway. But you’d have to do it all at the same time, and get it all exactly right.”
Nobody says that. Free markets are actually the best mechanism to deal with situations in which participants have partial/imperfect knowledge.
> I don't need to do a ton of research about what drugs I'm taking
I do, and I recommend all do. Just the other week my ear doctor gave me a prescription for an antibiotic that had as a side effect a significant chance of ligament fracture. I went back and he changed it to a milder, less aggressive medicine.
Why are free markets better at dealing with partial knowledge?
Come on this the very reason we have an FDA and its origin story - false labels were rampant before that and caused real harm.
Company gets sued because warning is missing, adds warning back, go back to square one (warnings are legally mandated).
Mind that a lot of those warnings come about after drug testing and subsequent pharmacovigilance work.
> Companies are welcome to have inspectors come in and certify that the drugs are safe, just like they do when ratings agencies rate their debts.
Yes, because that works wonderfully. I'm sure all AAA bonds are solid (and that even with the SEC). Oh wait
There's a reason I leave dead comments on. It's where all the interesting things are. This place is the perfect hybrid between 4chan and reddit, but sadly the reddit side is obsessed with censoring dissenting thought into oblivion.
Though I don't need to say that, that's the thing everyone will keep regurgitating as prime reason to stay here.
What I don't understand is why we don't just colour code the opinions instead of hiding them.
Simply make the thoughts of people that are considered alternative red and everything else green or something. Use an llm to assign the colours.
I also don't understand why arguing in bad faith is unsupported. Bad faith actors are the people you need to convince, why would you need to convince the borg, you are already among them.