100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: FDA may let patients buy drugs without prescriptions | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
FDA may let patients buy drugs without prescriptions
In a move that could help the government trim its burgeoning health care costs, the Food and Drug Administration may soon permit Americans to obtain some drugs used to treat conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes without obtaining a prescription. ... I'm liking this idea. Finally, the Obama administration is making a policy move, not copied from the previous administration, with which I can agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if this will cause big pharms to lower their outrageously bloated prices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if this will cause big pharms to lower their outrageously bloated prices. No, probably not. Allowing the sell of all drugs over the counter without testing for effectiveness would really lower the costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if this will cause big pharms to lower their outrageously bloated prices. No, probably not. Allowing the sell of all drugs over the counter without testing for effectiveness would really lower the costs. That's what happens now, no real testing. This is why drug ads are conducted by auctioneers so they can get all or most of the side effects into that 30 second commercial. The republicans have made sure to cut the FDA's funding so they can't do their job and make sure all these drugs are actually safe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if this will cause big pharms to lower their outrageously bloated prices. No, probably not. Allowing the sell of all drugs over the counter without testing for effectiveness would really lower the costs. That's what happens now, no real testing. This is why drug ads are conducted by auctioneers so they can get all or most of the side effects into that 30 second commercial. The republicans have made sure to cut the FDA's funding so they can't do their job and make sure all these drugs are actually safe. The drug companies have to pay for the testing, not the FDA. And they currently test a little over 8 years per drug. If the drug is rejected by the FDA, then the company spent 8 years and millions of dollars for nothing. When they finally produce a drug that gets past the FDA, they have to jack up the price to pay for the cost of drugs that failed to pass the process as well as the successful drug's testing costs. How it should work is that a drug company can release any drug that they want, but if they release one that is dangerous, they can get sued out of business. Self preservation would ensure that they tested the drugs for safety before sale. We could elminate the FDA. We currently see the people who are killed by drugs that shouldn't have made it past the FDA, but we don't know how many die prematurely, because the FDA took too long to approve a life saving drug or refused to approve a drug which actually works for some reason. If you don't believe that happens, look around the web. You will find plenty of drugs used successfully in other countries, but they failed the FDAs testing process for one reason or another. This results in unnecessary suffering and deaths. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if this will cause big pharms to lower their outrageously bloated prices. No, probably not. Allowing the sell of all drugs over the counter without testing for effectiveness would really lower the costs. That's what happens now, no real testing. This is why drug ads are conducted by auctioneers so they can get all or most of the side effects into that 30 second commercial. The republicans have made sure to cut the FDA's funding so they can't do their job and make sure all these drugs are actually safe. The drug companies have to pay for the testing, not the FDA. And they currently test a little over 8 years per drug. If the drug is rejected by the FDA, then the company spent 8 years and millions of dollars for nothing. When they finally produce a drug that gets past the FDA, they have to jack up the price to pay for the cost of drugs that failed to pass the process as well as the successful drug's testing costs. How it should work is that a drug company can release any drug that they want, but if they release one that is dangerous, they can get sued out of business. Self preservation would ensure that they tested the drugs for safety before sale. We could elminate the FDA. We currently see the people who are killed by drugs that shouldn't have made it past the FDA, but we don't know how many die prematurely, because the FDA took too long to approve a life saving drug or refused to approve a drug which actually works for some reason. If you don't believe that happens, look around the web. You will find plenty of drugs used successfully in other countries, but they failed the FDAs testing process for one reason or another. This results in unnecessary suffering and deaths. I disagree with the first part. The FDA physically does not have the man power to check over all the drugs that are released due to deliberate under funding. I fully agree that if they release any and all drugs they should be subject to massive single action lawsuits, you are correct on self preservation. Unfortunately the republicans will be paid quite handsomely to never let a bill like that get passed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FDA may let patients buy drugs without prescriptions In a move that could help the government trim its burgeoning health care costs, the Food and Drug Administration may soon permit Americans to obtain some drugs used to treat conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes without obtaining a prescription. ... I'm liking this idea. Finally, the Obama administration is making a policy move, not copied from the previous administration, with which I can agree. I don't see the problem with this other then insurance companies not covering the medications because they are over the counter. I also think Codene should be an over the counter medicine in low doses like it is in a lot of countries. They could monitor it just the they do with Sudafed by having to show a Drivers License every time you buy it and putting you into a computer database and it not letting you buy more then three or four packages in a month. Codene is a very helpful medication for quite a few things like pain, sore throat, tooth aches and even coughing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if this will cause big pharms to lower their outrageously bloated prices. No, probably not. Allowing the sell of all drugs over the counter without testing for effectiveness would really lower the costs. That's what happens now, no real testing. This is why drug ads are conducted by auctioneers so they can get all or most of the side effects into that 30 second commercial. The republicans have made sure to cut the FDA's funding so they can't do their job and make sure all these drugs are actually safe. The drug companies have to pay for the testing, not the FDA. And they currently test a little over 8 years per drug. If the drug is rejected by the FDA, then the company spent 8 years and millions of dollars for nothing. When they finally produce a drug that gets past the FDA, they have to jack up the price to pay for the cost of drugs that failed to pass the process as well as the successful drug's testing costs. How it should work is that a drug company can release any drug that they want, but if they release one that is dangerous, they can get sued out of business. Self preservation would ensure that they tested the drugs for safety before sale. We could elminate the FDA. We currently see the people who are killed by drugs that shouldn't have made it past the FDA, but we don't know how many die prematurely, because the FDA took too long to approve a life saving drug or refused to approve a drug which actually works for some reason. If you don't believe that happens, look around the web. You will find plenty of drugs used successfully in other countries, but they failed the FDAs testing process for one reason or another. This results in unnecessary suffering and deaths. I disagree with the first part. The FDA physically does not have the man power to check over all the drugs that are released due to deliberate under funding. I fully agree that if they release any and all drugs they should be subject to massive single action lawsuits, you are correct on self preservation. Unfortunately the republicans will be paid quite handsomely to never let a bill like that get passed. I can see the layers lining up now. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
newarkjw
on
Tue 05/01/12 06:35 PM
|
|
FDA may let patients buy drugs without prescriptions In a move that could help the government trim its burgeoning health care costs, the Food and Drug Administration may soon permit Americans to obtain some drugs used to treat conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes without obtaining a prescription. ... I'm liking this idea. Finally, the Obama administration is making a policy move, not copied from the previous administration, with which I can agree. I like it too. I have high blood pressure. The drugs are fairly reasonable. I have been on the same prescription for 15 years and it works. Why should I have to pay 75 bucks every six months to get a prescription?...... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if this will cause big pharms to lower their outrageously bloated prices. No, probably not. Allowing the sell of all drugs over the counter without testing for effectiveness would really lower the costs. That's what happens now, no real testing. This is why drug ads are conducted by auctioneers so they can get all or most of the side effects into that 30 second commercial. The republicans have made sure to cut the FDA's funding so they can't do their job and make sure all these drugs are actually safe. The drug companies have to pay for the testing, not the FDA. And they currently test a little over 8 years per drug. If the drug is rejected by the FDA, then the company spent 8 years and millions of dollars for nothing. When they finally produce a drug that gets past the FDA, they have to jack up the price to pay for the cost of drugs that failed to pass the process as well as the successful drug's testing costs. How it should work is that a drug company can release any drug that they want, but if they release one that is dangerous, they can get sued out of business. Self preservation would ensure that they tested the drugs for safety before sale. We could elminate the FDA. We currently see the people who are killed by drugs that shouldn't have made it past the FDA, but we don't know how many die prematurely, because the FDA took too long to approve a life saving drug or refused to approve a drug which actually works for some reason. If you don't believe that happens, look around the web. You will find plenty of drugs used successfully in other countries, but they failed the FDAs testing process for one reason or another. This results in unnecessary suffering and deaths. The trouble with this idea is that forgoing testing of drugs puts millions of people at risk for death or serious injury, and the only remedy is through lawsuits, which are after the fact. Whatever damage has been done can't be corrected by money. It's very poor medical practice, it seems to me. I also wonder if it would really benefit the drug companies so much. Doctors would be reluctant to prescribe these untested drugs since they knew nothing about potential side effects; their primary guidelines to "do no harm" couldn't be followed. Also, my hunch is that victims would tend to sue for EVEN MORE than they do now, since they would feel the company was irresponsible. Having the drugs undergo testing and then being officially approved by the government actually shields the companies from a great deal of harm, I think. It's like saying, let the auto companies dump new cars on the market without any safety testing. Who would dare to buy them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But to respond to the original post directly, I'm not clear exactly how this is different from using generic drugs? No, I didn't read the link, I'm lazy and short of time. How does this save money?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But to respond to the original post directly, I'm not clear exactly how this is different from using generic drugs? No, I didn't read the link, I'm lazy and short of time. How does this save money? You don't have to get a prescription. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trouble with this idea is that forgoing testing of drugs puts millions of people at risk for death or serious injury, and the only remedy is through lawsuits, which are after the fact. Whatever damage has been done can't be corrected by money. It's very poor medical practice, it seems to me. I also wonder if it would really benefit the drug companies so much. Doctors would be reluctant to prescribe these untested drugs since they knew nothing about potential side effects; their primary guidelines to "do no harm" couldn't be followed. Also, my hunch is that victims would tend to sue for EVEN MORE than they do now, since they would feel the company was irresponsible. Having the drugs undergo testing and then being officially approved by the government actually shields the companies from a great deal of harm, I think. It's like saying, let the auto companies dump new cars on the market without any safety testing. Who would dare to buy them? The trouble with your objection is that those millions of people aren't your kids. Their doctors can tell them the risks and they can make up their own minds. Adults are not children. Adults shouldn't need adult supervision. Can you tell me of any motivating factor that is greater than self-preservation? If a company knowingly released an untested or dangerous drug, those responsible would be looking at prison time. That is motivation enough to test the drugs for safety. |
|
|
|
|
