The Post reports: The Obama administration intensified its public campaign against health-care fraud Wednesday … as prosecutors unveiled a record $2.3 billion settlement with Pfizer. Except this “fraud” is suggesting to doctors that they do things that it is completely legal for
More accurately, the government could regulate what the "marriage" says, not what the individuals involved in the marriage say. At this point, most marriages don't have spokespeople, so this is not a problem.
I like how you give no explanation, no examples... nothing. Maybe I should employ this method next debate I have. Instead of stating counter-arguments, or attacking one's logic, I'll instead just spin some silly insult about space and whatnot, and list half a dozen countries with several of them misspelled (Rwanda*, Russia*).
Yes, some drug companies lie. Fraud is illegal. But the law also makes true statements illegal.
An analogy:
"Some corporations and newspapers and people commit slander and libel. Therefore, to prevent this, only op-eds and books judged as true by government censors can be published. Don't worry, we'll have an independent body of experts judge them."
Regarding “off-label” use, there is a reason it is off-label, the claims has not been proven through clinical trials.
Untrue. Look up the clinical studies on prazosin and treating nightmares from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's been proven by independent research to anyone's scientific standard; it's just not approved for that use because of how expensive and time-consuming it is to get through the FDA process.
So the Dept. of Veterans Affairs sort-of officially recommends the off-label use, except that they can't entirely do that legally.
You left out some of the story, as below. Your faith in the benevolence of drug corporations is touching. Read your history. Laws of this sort were passed for a reason--pharmeceutical fraud was rife before they existed--and exit in more stringent form in other developed countries.
The Pfizer unit Pharmacia & Upjohn pleaded guilty to a single felony charge that accused the company of marketing its anti-inflammatory drug Bextra for broader uses and higher dosages than those approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The company allegedly enticed doctors to prescribe the drug for pain relief by taking them on lavish trips, created sham requests for medical information as an excuse to send unsolicited advertising materials to physicians, and drafted articles promoting the pills without disclosing its role in preparing the stories.
"off-label" ONLY means that the drug is not approved for a given use. It does not mean that claims are unproven.
If the use of a drug to treat a certain condition is not proven through clinical trials... the answer sometimes should be, "so what"? Take a look at modafinil, for example. It is known to be an effective treatment for many of the same conditions for which amphetamine/methylphenidate are approved, but modafinil does so with less side effects. Modafinil is also believed to have less of a potential for abuse. But modafinil is not approved for some of the conditions it can treat. (on the other hand, this means that more people get prescriptions for methylphenidate and amphetamine - which are available as cheap generic drugs.)
Some individuals have tried to get around gun laws by saying they have formed their own militias, and such arguments have been rejected by courts which claim the National Guard has superseded all militia. Corporations DO own guns obviously: how can a gun manufacturer (or retailer) sell guns if it doesn't own them in the first place?
Free-speech is the transmitting of any ideas, my blog comments are not subject to Authenticity Police.
Newspapers, television stations and schools all pay people to transmit information, often with those paying the piper calling the tune. The first amendment covers freedom of the press as well.
Anything the government does, the private market can do better
I know you are trolling, but in case you don't, let me salute you, brave interdimensional traveler.
Let me also give you some advice: remember that the laws of physics are different in this reality. You must resist the temptation to assume everything works the same here and your distant home.
I'd begin my journey here on earth by visiting countries as diverse as guatemala, honduras, finland, ruanda, usa, france, rusia, etc etc. You'll be shocked to see such diverse histories, cultures, ideologies, and outcomes, as to render your simplistic statement completely idiotic.
Curt Adams: What special advantages? Like I said before, the only special advantage is limited liability and it doesn't add up to much in this context.
So now you believe in thought crimes - people have to “actually believe” what they say or the gov’t can restrict it.
That sentence is illogical, if a person says something they don't believe in there is no independent thought involved, thus impossible to engage in any "thought crime" . Maybe you were meaning a flapping-of-the-lips crime ?
"it is the transmission of ideas you actually believe in to others that chooses to receive it"
So now you believe in thought crimes - people have to "actually believe" what they say or the gov't can restrict it. Also, you might be a ****** ****** who will lie for money (are you a lawyer by chance?) but that doesn't mean everyone is.
I agree. The corporate "free speechers" thinks they have some bullet-proof argument, until you think a bit about it. After all the corporations "speech" must be projected through a person or individual and if we limit or regulate that big evil government is trampling all over the poor little individual...
Except, free speech is not flapping your lips non-autonomously, it is the transmission of ideas you actually believe in to others that chooses to receive it...
So yeah tell me a corporation that is going to pay me to say what I really believe with no pre-condition or coercion, No I will say exactly what they tell me or I will get fired (payment will be withheld,which is definitely not "free speech" it is a commercial action). There is no autonomous individual just an appendage/agent performing actions of the body (actually corporation comes from the latin meaning Body)
This little silly edifice collapses even more as we know that speech is not even prohibited for individuals, but commercial actions for remuneration.…
A Corporation is not capable of "speech" only commercial actions that is definitely subject to restriction and regulations.
It is definitely within the rights of the government to restrict and regulate the commercial activities of individuals. I don't know about you but it is trivial for me to separate my commercial activities from my individual/leisure/personal/political ones.
A good rule-of-thumb is that i don't get paid for the latter by my employer... if I get paid I am actually required by contract to advance my companies commercial interests.…
Everything is politics
More accurately, the government could regulate what the "marriage" says, not what the individuals involved in the marriage say. At this point, most marriages don't have spokespeople, so this is not a problem.
Juan Pablo,
I like how you give no explanation, no examples... nothing. Maybe I should employ this method next debate I have. Instead of stating counter-arguments, or attacking one's logic, I'll instead just spin some silly insult about space and whatnot, and list half a dozen countries with several of them misspelled (Rwanda*, Russia*).
Yes, some drug companies lie. Fraud is illegal. But the law also makes true statements illegal.
An analogy:
"Some corporations and newspapers and people commit slander and libel. Therefore, to prevent this, only op-eds and books judged as true by government censors can be published. Don't worry, we'll have an independent body of experts judge them."
Regarding “off-label” use, there is a reason it is off-label, the claims has not been proven through clinical trials.
Untrue. Look up the clinical studies on prazosin and treating nightmares from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's been proven by independent research to anyone's scientific standard; it's just not approved for that use because of how expensive and time-consuming it is to get through the FDA process.
So the Dept. of Veterans Affairs sort-of officially recommends the off-label use, except that they can't entirely do that legally.
You left out some of the story, as below. Your faith in the benevolence of drug corporations is touching. Read your history. Laws of this sort were passed for a reason--pharmeceutical fraud was rife before they existed--and exit in more stringent form in other developed countries.
The Pfizer unit Pharmacia & Upjohn pleaded guilty to a single felony charge that accused the company of marketing its anti-inflammatory drug Bextra for broader uses and higher dosages than those approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The company allegedly enticed doctors to prescribe the drug for pain relief by taking them on lavish trips, created sham requests for medical information as an excuse to send unsolicited advertising materials to physicians, and drafted articles promoting the pills without disclosing its role in preparing the stories.
"off-label" ONLY means that the drug is not approved for a given use. It does not mean that claims are unproven.
If the use of a drug to treat a certain condition is not proven through clinical trials... the answer sometimes should be, "so what"? Take a look at modafinil, for example. It is known to be an effective treatment for many of the same conditions for which amphetamine/methylphenidate are approved, but modafinil does so with less side effects. Modafinil is also believed to have less of a potential for abuse. But modafinil is not approved for some of the conditions it can treat. (on the other hand, this means that more people get prescriptions for methylphenidate and amphetamine - which are available as cheap generic drugs.)
Some individuals have tried to get around gun laws by saying they have formed their own militias, and such arguments have been rejected by courts which claim the National Guard has superseded all militia. Corporations DO own guns obviously: how can a gun manufacturer (or retailer) sell guns if it doesn't own them in the first place?
Free-speech is the transmitting of any ideas, my blog comments are not subject to Authenticity Police.
Newspapers, television stations and schools all pay people to transmit information, often with those paying the piper calling the tune. The first amendment covers freedom of the press as well.
Anything the government does, the private market can do better
I know you are trolling, but in case you don't, let me salute you, brave interdimensional traveler.
Let me also give you some advice: remember that the laws of physics are different in this reality. You must resist the temptation to assume everything works the same here and your distant home.
I'd begin my journey here on earth by visiting countries as diverse as guatemala, honduras, finland, ruanda, usa, france, rusia, etc etc. You'll be shocked to see such diverse histories, cultures, ideologies, and outcomes, as to render your simplistic statement completely idiotic.
Curt Adams: What special advantages? Like I said before, the only special advantage is limited liability and it doesn't add up to much in this context.
They can pay for it on their own *without taking advantage of the substantial special advantages granted to corporations*.
So now you believe in thought crimes - people have to “actually believe” what they say or the gov’t can restrict it.
That sentence is illogical, if a person says something they don't believe in there is no independent thought involved, thus impossible to engage in any "thought crime" . Maybe you were meaning a flapping-of-the-lips crime ?
:-)
"it is the transmission of ideas you actually believe in to others that chooses to receive it"
So now you believe in thought crimes - people have to "actually believe" what they say or the gov't can restrict it. Also, you might be a ****** ****** who will lie for money (are you a lawyer by chance?) but that doesn't mean everyone is.
I agree. The corporate "free speechers" thinks they have some bullet-proof argument, until you think a bit about it. After all the corporations "speech" must be projected through a person or individual and if we limit or regulate that big evil government is trampling all over the poor little individual...
Except, free speech is not flapping your lips non-autonomously, it is the transmission of ideas you actually believe in to others that chooses to receive it...
So yeah tell me a corporation that is going to pay me to say what I really believe with no pre-condition or coercion, No I will say exactly what they tell me or I will get fired (payment will be withheld,which is definitely not "free speech" it is a commercial action). There is no autonomous individual just an appendage/agent performing actions of the body (actually corporation comes from the latin meaning Body)
This little silly edifice collapses even more as we know that speech is not even prohibited for individuals, but commercial actions for remuneration.…
A Corporation is not capable of "speech" only commercial actions that is definitely subject to restriction and regulations.
It is definitely within the rights of the government to restrict and regulate the commercial activities of individuals. I don't know about you but it is trivial for me to separate my commercial activities from my individual/leisure/personal/political ones.
A good rule-of-thumb is that i don't get paid for the latter by my employer... if I get paid I am actually required by contract to advance my companies commercial interests.…