Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should of answered no then. The issue with regualtions of business boils down to quantity does not equal quality.In the example you provided If a company is going to put a product on the market like a drug that has potential deadly side effects but has great benefits as well you let the consumer decide. I believe the drug in question you mentioned was the same one I saw a woman pleading to Congress to keep on the market as it made her life livable, she was willing to take the risk. The only thing that is important is that she knows those risks. As far as the companies responsibilities go it should begins and end with them providing all the information they know about the drug, if they do not disclose that information then certainly jail time for those responsible would be justified.
Merck knew. After 10,000 cases reported, how could they not?
Merck knew. After 10,000 cases reported, how could they not?
I'm not disagreeing with you, if company is aware that a product they have is potentially dangerous that has to be disclosed and it should be a criminal offense if they don't. The point is that over regualtion of the pharmaceutical industry has created this situation. I'm not trying to justify Merck's actions but if they were able to put this product on the market with a giant warning that it could kill you do they go down the same path trying to hide that information?
I'm not disagreeing with you, if company is aware that a product they have is potentially dangerous that has to be disclosed and it should be a criminal offense if they don't. The point is that over regualtion of the pharmaceutical industry has created this situation. I'm not trying to justify Merck's actions but if they were able to put this product on the market with a giant warning that it could kill you do they go down the same path trying to hide that information?
There should be a point where a "warning" is insufficient, and the product must be pulled.
....but that goes back to what I said in another thread. American CEO's have no honor. None whatsoever.
1. A lot of our government is corrupt, both Republicans and Democrats. Which is why I am not pro-Republican or Pro-Democrat, Im Pro-American, and this needs to be fixed before we can move forward.
2. Our Government spends way too much money. This is very true, but even us The People spend to much money. It all corresponds to GREED.
3. Special interests both Republican and Democratic causes carry far too much weight in the decisions our leaders make. Again its Greed
4. The tax system is broke and taxes far too high both personal and business. Tax is high, but then again what did you expect when we, as a country, are in debt and The Politicians receive far to much money and benefits for their services.
5. The education system is broken. Education is being cut to dumb us down. If the people stay ignorant to what those in power do, they can do it for as long as they want, The People need to be educated.
6. Religion, Gays and other similar social issues..... Your business, not mine until you get in my face about it. None of mine or anyone else's business what people do behind closed doors, it is their right of freedom.
7. Both laws for citizens and regulations for business are far too many. Its a control factor.
Merck kills approximately 50,000 people with Vioxx, and nobody goes to jail.
We don't need more regulations to prevent killing 50,000 people. Killing people has been illegal (unless you are the government) for centuries. You should write to Obama. His job is to prosecute killers.
WHAT on earth would cause you to argue with ANY one of those points? Please, enlighten us.
I would suggest that most who vote no are going to be either ultra left or ultra right. For example going back to this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
This has nothing to do with common ground, it's just pretty standard Republican fare, setting aside half of # 3 and (debatably) # 6.
I'm going to assume that "setting aside half of # 3" would suggest the poster thinks that special interests on the Democrat/liberal side do not carry too much influence in policy decisons. That is absurd and it would be equally absurd to suggest Republican/Conservative special interests do not carry too much influence.
One of the largest problems we have within government is politicians pandering to special interests. They know that those in the center will most likely not change their vote over these smaller issues, the tail starts wagging the dog. With the vote talley as of now the 20% gets what they want and the other 80% who disgree get the shaft.
If you can't answer yes to everyone of these question please answer no. I've no doubt this will turn into political bickering but lets try an avoid that? What we need in this topic is finding out what the common ground is.
Which is what I did. As for turning this into a political bickering, you did that with OP (which, sort of reminded me of a Mitch Daniel interview on Jon Stewart from September, as I was catching up with old episodes) . Besides, the differences aren't limited to recognition of issues, but more importantly, solutions offered.
While I voted yes, I would have to add that the problem is not the issues but the ideas on how to fix them, something neither side can agree on and one side in particular (conservatives) has decided to take the stand of no compromise on anything, something which is, in my Opinion, Bad for the Nation as a whole and why they should not be given the opportunity to control both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse.
There should be a point where a "warning" is insufficient, and the product must be pulled.
....but that goes back to what I said in another thread. American CEO's have no honor. None whatsoever.
Capitalism does not rely on honor. In fact, no economic or political system can rely on honor. If it tries, it will be a total failure because human nature is not infallible. That's why we need checks and balances.
Obama's job is to prosecute criminals. Killing people is a criminal offense. Honor has nothing to do with this situation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
