- Joined
- Sep 28, 2018
- Messages
- 33,724
- Reaction score
- 16,122
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The whole world besides the US and New Zealand is a mommy state?
Will disagree on this one. The doctor is the person who is actually looking at test results and physically evaluating the patient in person. The doctor has the patient's medical history and information about the patient's general wellbeing and any medications and supplementation they're taking. A doctor is providing information based on his expertise and what he knows about the patient's situation. Generally speaking, in this sort of provider-consumer relationship, you want the provider to the one driving the consumptive behavior, not the other way around.
What the hell are you talking about?The left wants a socialist state. Something that has never worked and always has that little elite group at the top with the money and the power telling the rest of us what they should have and can have.
LolYes.
I would agree if the majority of people weren't wholly unqualified to have an opinion on the subject. And those that are - the people who bother to educate themselves and take an active part in managing their own healthcare - aren't getting their info from commercials.I agree with all of that, I guess I just think banning direct-to-consumer advertising puts consumers more at the mercy of salesman/drug-pushing doctors. They are less likely to be aware of and ask their doctors about alternative options.
I'd rather ban the other kind of advertising you are talking about.
The advertising is done to bribe the media companies not to report anything negative about big pharma and thats why just about every country in the world doesn't allow it.Banning drug ads is government censorship of legal speech. If a pharmaceutical company is selling a state-approved drug, it has every right to advertise it. As consumers we deserve access to information - not just what mommy government approves of. A ban treats adults like children and you can bet it won't stop with just drugs.
Right wing bsThe left wants a socialist state. Something that has never worked and always has that little elite group at the top with the money and the power telling the rest of us what they should have and can have.
Right wing bs
Seems to work pretty well in other parts of the world where there isn't drug advertising.So you want to censor information about health care to the private individual? Why shouldn't we be aware of what's out there?
Which makes its incentive to not improve health since that affects its profits.Healthcare is a business. All business is profit driven. Why we dont' want government running it? Because they don't run anything very well, waste money, favor their donors, and pay far too much for everything. The only true business the government runs is the USPS and it's always in debt and mismanaged.
I like it. Doctors should tell patients what medications would help, not patients telling their doctors they need something because they saw a slick add produced by the pharmecutical company that is trying to increase sales to maximize proffit not to help.patients.Bernie Sanders and Angus King co-sponsor a bill that would prohibit consumer drug ads, echoing calls by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during his presidential campaign
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Angus King (I., Maine) introduced a bill Thursday that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, including social media, to promote their products.
The bill would prohibit any promotional communications targeting consumers, including through television, radio, print, digital platforms and social media. It will apply to all prescription drug advertisements.
“The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television,” Sanders said in a statement. “They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads.”
Bravo to Sanders and King! This should be a bipartisan issue. Only one other country in the world allows pharmaceutical advertising on television.
vs.If a pharmaceutical company is selling a state-approved drug, it has every right to advertise it.
Huh?As consumers we deserve access to information - not just what mommy government approves of.
...I will miss ads for products that will relieve eczema but whose side effects include suicidal ideation, diarrhea, and genial warts.
Yeah, seeing people frolicking on the beach while a voiceover lists the sometimes fatal side effects at 1.5x speed to a cheerful song has its entertainment value.I don't have a strong opinion on this. I suppose I support it but mainly because those advertisements are annoying and weirdly ironic as they show happy smiling people while the voice over lists 20 horrific maladies that are side effects of the drug. Then again, that part is somewhat entertaining and if the advertisements were banned, I'd lose that source of entertainment.
On the flip side I'm struggling to understand the legal basis for banning such advertising.
It's a question of what some want "mommy government" to help out with.vs.
Huh?
Then there are countries without a mommy government, where she says "you're on your own kiddos!" then you're fighting jerk baby daddy warlords coming to eat your lunch every day and take a dump on your front porch. Have you lived in that kind of environment to give us first hand information on the trade offs?Yes.
Then there are countries without a mommy government, where she says "you're on your own kiddos!" then you're fighting jerk baby daddy warlords coming to eat your lunch every day and take a dump on your front porch. Have you lived in that kind of environment to give us first hand information on the trade offs?
Elite group at the top blah blah blah the whole post was just right wing vague bsNo it isn't. Something like 3/4 of all democrats have a positive view of socialism and for the left it's 100%.
Hence it is not unreasonable to presume the left wants a socialist state.
If there is a good reason to do this, it is NOT to decrease their expenditures so that they can pass the savings on to consumers. Have you looked at their profit margins of late, over the last two decades? If there is 2025 naivete award, congratulations, you have won it.Fully support this
No other country has direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising - and this would decrease expenditures by pharmaceutical companies significantly and therefore, also (hypothetically) help decrease the cost to consumers for pharmaceuticals.
Ya might have a point re: censorship if I could control what commercials I'm subjected to but I can't.Banning drug ads is government censorship of legal speech. If a pharmaceutical company is selling a state-approved drug, it has every right to advertise it. As consumers we deserve access to information - not just what mommy government approves of. A ban treats adults like children and you can bet it won't stop with just drugs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?