We have to totally destroy it, and try to build a new institution that actually uses science to guide policy, and realizes that You can never follow the science. Science can just articulate trade-offs, but all trade-offs must be decided by citizens.
basically can never exist. Even if it truly starts off that way, within one bureaucratic generation (for lack of a better word) it will start moving back to what we have today. The state always just ends up working to empower the state.
Vinay doesnt seem to realize that MANY countries function BETTER without these easily corrupted institutions.
In mexico - if you want a medicine- you buy it from your pharmacist. They don’t have to get sign off from Fauci (who first requires millions in royalty payments from big pharma).
So in Mexico almost all generic drugs are available to buy in seconds. In the “land of the free” the bureaucrats will always be captured by pharma kickbacks. So we can’t buy any medicines. Even if they might save our lives.
I'm not sure how it's done in Mexico but this is a perfect example of an industry where Truth in Advertising and strong liability laws would be enough "regulation" or public involvement in care. Licensing and labelling doesn't need to be regulated by the state. Laws that say "You can't cut someone's healthy genitals off." would be reasonable.
My healthcare should be between me and my doctor. As long as everything is explained to me I should be able to take any experimental treatments I want. If he does something weird or unconventional that harms me - and the risk wasn't properly explained and waived beforehand - then my family or I could sue him for all he's worth.
As far as public health goes, all you need is an advisor or council of practitioners advising executive decision makers. (President, Governors, Mayors) Once they start asking for and getting money from gubmint then there will always be an incestuous relationship of control and advocacy. Also Pfizer was bribing everyone. That's a problem with giant influential state-subsidized corporations in general, and not pharmaceuticals specifically.
This. What Vinay doesn't seem to get is that
basically can never exist. Even if it truly starts off that way, within one bureaucratic generation (for lack of a better word) it will start moving back to what we have today. The state always just ends up working to empower the state.
Vinay doesnt seem to realize that MANY countries function BETTER without these easily corrupted institutions.
In mexico - if you want a medicine- you buy it from your pharmacist. They don’t have to get sign off from Fauci (who first requires millions in royalty payments from big pharma).
So in Mexico almost all generic drugs are available to buy in seconds. In the “land of the free” the bureaucrats will always be captured by pharma kickbacks. So we can’t buy any medicines. Even if they might save our lives.
I'm not sure how it's done in Mexico but this is a perfect example of an industry where Truth in Advertising and strong liability laws would be enough "regulation" or public involvement in care. Licensing and labelling doesn't need to be regulated by the state. Laws that say "You can't cut someone's healthy genitals off." would be reasonable.
My healthcare should be between me and my doctor. As long as everything is explained to me I should be able to take any experimental treatments I want. If he does something weird or unconventional that harms me - and the risk wasn't properly explained and waived beforehand - then my family or I could sue him for all he's worth.
As far as public health goes, all you need is an advisor or council of practitioners advising executive decision makers. (President, Governors, Mayors) Once they start asking for and getting money from gubmint then there will always be an incestuous relationship of control and advocacy. Also Pfizer was bribing everyone. That's a problem with giant influential state-subsidized corporations in general, and not pharmaceuticals specifically.
Real public health has never been tried