What matters is not whether something is "illegal" according to some nonsense law the FDA enforces, but whether it actually works.
This whole story is totally warped by government intervention:
1) A company is unjustly fined not by whether a drug actually works, but whether it got approval. Those are not the same thing.
2) Drug companies should not be subject to advertising restrictions in the first place, so in fact they did nothing wrong.
3) The same bullying government that won't let drug companies do business as they see fit, doesn't want to shortchange its poor captive Medicare and Medicaid audience. Rather than worrying about that, they should be worrying about the veritable slaves it is ripping off to pay for those programs (taxpayers). All we hear about is the poor people who won't be getting drugs if the government enforces its own nonsensical, arbitrary laws.
What about the producers? What about those of us who don't want to pay into Medicare and Medicaid, but wish to provide for ourselves? We are obviously regarded as rightless serfs not worthy of comment.
I'm sorry you feel that 30 million fellow citizens and counting without health insurance suddenly being able to get insurance is such a burden for you when you probably already have health insurance and so the only way it will affect you is by lowering your premiums, oh the corruption!
The only problem is, you forget to mention the galley of slaves underneath rowing the Good Ship Coverage.
Yes, it is corrupt. It is morally corrupt to forcibly employ some of the population for a public purpose such as health care.
We are not slaves, we are thinking humans, and therein lies the difference in viewpoint between advocates of security and socialism at any cost, vs. those who think that freedom and individual rights are the only proper guiding principles for society. Socialists -- and I am including supporters of the health care bill in this group -- view humans as mindless beasts of burden to be harnessed. Advocates of freedom view humans as capable of flourishing without being forced. Oh, the corruption!
There is no right to health care, just as there can be no right to something that requires others to produce it, because it requires the enslavement of the latter.
What is compassionate about brute force? What is caring about ignoring people's voluntary choices as if they had no brain, and forcing them to follow the policies of people who know nothing about them?
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Too bad no one listened to him.
Sorry, I don't think Jefferson would be a big fan of the socialism that passes for "government" now. He would be absolutely horrified.
He would also realize that it is business that is being threatened, not our government, which has nearly unlimited power when it comes to commerce.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole story is totally warped by government intervention:
1) A company is unjustly fined not by whether a drug actually works, but whether it got approval. Those are not the same thing.
2) Drug companies should not be subject to advertising restrictions in the first place, so in fact they did nothing wrong.
3) The same bullying government that won't let drug companies do business as they see fit, doesn't want to shortchange its poor captive Medicare and Medicaid audience. Rather than worrying about that, they should be worrying about the veritable slaves it is ripping off to pay for those programs (taxpayers). All we hear about is the poor people who won't be getting drugs if the government enforces its own nonsensical, arbitrary laws.
What about the producers? What about those of us who don't want to pay into Medicare and Medicaid, but wish to provide for ourselves? We are obviously regarded as rightless serfs not worthy of comment.
I'm sorry you feel that 30 million fellow citizens and counting without health insurance suddenly being able to get insurance is such a burden for you when you probably already have health insurance and so the only way it will affect you is by lowering your premiums, oh the corruption!
The only problem is, you forget to mention the galley of slaves underneath rowing the Good Ship Coverage.
Yes, it is corrupt. It is morally corrupt to forcibly employ some of the population for a public purpose such as health care.
We are not slaves, we are thinking humans, and therein lies the difference in viewpoint between advocates of security and socialism at any cost, vs. those who think that freedom and individual rights are the only proper guiding principles for society. Socialists -- and I am including supporters of the health care bill in this group -- view humans as mindless beasts of burden to be harnessed. Advocates of freedom view humans as capable of flourishing without being forced. Oh, the corruption!
There is no right to health care, just as there can be no right to something that requires others to produce it, because it requires the enslavement of the latter.
What is compassionate about brute force? What is caring about ignoring people's voluntary choices as if they had no brain, and forcing them to follow the policies of people who know nothing about them?
ObamaCare is wrong from top to bottom.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Too bad no one listened to him.
Sorry, I don't think Jefferson would be a big fan of the socialism that passes for "government" now. He would be absolutely horrified. He would also realize that it is business that is being threatened, not our government, which has nearly unlimited power when it comes to commerce.