The issue with any supreme court decision is pretty simple, they were not meant to decide on the law, it should not be the supreme court's ultimate power to determine the leigtimacy of the ACA, it should be the people, ultimately the people are sovereign, and should be able to alter the constitution where the supreme court determines alterations must be made.

Unfortunately that has become politically unfeasible, because the constitutional mechanism for altering the US constituion is not fit for purpose. You should really be asking what the founders thought about constitutional amendments, and the power given to the supreme court...

Not that i'm saying it should be easy, but it should be practical and doable. You want to overturn citizen's united or the ACA, instead of whinging about SC decisions, you should petition to amend the US constitution.

The reason for the 1 in 3 stat was that until the Obama FDA changed the rules, companies only needed to submit 3 drug trials (about 6 weeks of testing) that showed the new drug was better than an existing one or a placebo. All negative trials or ones showing no better than a placebo could be hidden. Also long term testing could be no done or withheld even showing extreme adverse effects like Merck's Vioxx.

Now all testing must be disclosed which will probably lead to fewer tests. There are more drugs that have been stopped at the testing stage when there are deaths.

@eandomizer, does that mwan Obama's FDA rules ended up pulling lots of drugs passed under orevious FDA regulations?

*randomizer, even and 'does that mean...'

Not as many as they should since some were coming off patent and replaced with new versions that required fewer doses like anti-ulcer drugs. Companies got better at avoiding negative trials and hiding adverse side effects. The main result was companies had to publish all studies and they got reviewed to warn patients. Dr. Wolfe, who was appointed to an FDA panel, used to recommend not using any drug for 5 years after it was released in order to have other patients be the lab rats to find undisclosed problems.

The old system was doctors had to inform the FDA of adverse results seen by patients if they believed the patient and bothered to report them. It took years for the warnings to appear in drug inserts. Also adverse results were broken down into subcategories to make them appear rarer. So instead of damage to the digestive system it was damage to one of a dozen sections in the digestive system,

I got disgusted after spending hours reading medical studies that concluded they didn't learn anything useful because they didn't consider this in designing the study or didn't include this parameter. That doesn't include all the ones that use too small a sample to tell if there was a real result or random variation.

http://www.worstpills.org

I used to read his newsletter just to find out what to avoid taking. The worst were the ones still on the market that just got a warning added to them.

@Ogion,

Non-profits are protected via limited liability. That a so-called "lawyer" doesn't know that is quite amazing. The court ruled that limited liability does not result in a forfeiture of free speech rights. It is not a particularly difficult case to understand, so I am bemused that you struggling so much. The question is clearly expressed in your recitation of the questions of the case and was resolved by the court.

@ND,

The issue at hand in Citizens United is essentially a non-issue anyways. Bribery and the like is already fully regulated, so the question is simply whether the Federal government has the right to impede core political speech due to the owners of an entity being protected by limited liability. The idea that a non-profit corporation can be restrained from releasing Hillary: The Movie, within a certain period of time preceding an election, but a Partnership can't be, is just silly.

It is an easy constitutional case that is really not close and has been wildly exaggerated by the radicals.

@Civwarbuff, where do you get the idea that freedom of speech rules should apply to the spending of money?

@JY, ok, i know you're analyzing the issue from a positive/negative rights pov and a individual vs states vs federal responsibilities/powers pov.

But there are other ways of looking at the world, and i think being able to see things from different perspectives is useful to complement our understanding. So i will advance one.

The Marxist analysis, which will necessarily be based on class - because though many other theory have been built on his ideas of conflict within society, like feminism, anti-colonialism/anti-rascism, and the queer rights movement - Marx was limited to seeing things through the lens of class.

From this perspective, the state is an institution of power, a manifestation of the interests of the powerful. Mainly the ruling classes. And the working classes are required to serve and pay for state functions.

There is a fair arguement to say the the US has more social mobility than the Germany/Prussia which Marx was writing about; but it is still a given that the division between employer and employee exists in the US. That 'tax breaks for the rich' because they are the 'job creators' is still an idea because the rich and powerful still act as a ruling class (it is possible to imagine a society where corporations are democratic, and individual workers have a say in executive level decisions, but this is not the case, so i will continue with the Marxist analysis for now - despite acknowledging it has weaknesses).

From this perspective, the wealthy and powerful have healthcare and the poor working classes do not. It is a clear divide - even if there are shades of grey, with various levels of coverage, different co-pay options, and costs - but in simplified terms, there are those who can afford good healthcare and those who fear being bankrupted by illness.

In this analysis the working poor, and unemployed must fight to maintain their current entitlements, and to expand them. Now Marx would likely go on to claim that revolution was inevitable, and that the people will rise up in solidarity to claim what they are entitled to... but of course Marx continues to have been very bad at predicting the future (which is a pity because his analysis of what was true remains pretty good).

You've seen US workers fight for the right to employers paying for health insurance. And there is nothing, in this view, which alters the 'right' or 'wrong' of this fight from a fight to generalise to all citizens receiving health insurance/healthcare - though i know Marx would be upset at the idea of individual unions fighting for rights for their members only... the democrats in the ACA attempted to do a little bit better than Unionized workers managed in the 30s.

Now, for your perspective, sure, there is a difference - between the collective bargaining of a Union with the Industry leaders. That is a private agreement between two negotiating parties. While the people coming to a compromise among themselves to provide healthcare for all citizens is clearly some violation of property rights... Oh wait, it is only something you could oppose if (in the Marxist view) you are one of the wealthy members of the ruling class.

Of course "the people coming to a compromise" is exactly what is supposed to happen if your republic is democratic. Except in my view (influenced by Marx) the power has shifted away from the people and into the hands of the few lobbying corporations and deep state powers concerned with national security.

As with all ideological perspectives, there are flaws and limitations to the Marxist view, but no more so than any other perspective.

Covvwarbuff again show why trying to have rational discussion with a conservative is pointless.

Read the fucking opinion, including the dissents, genius.

Rand's quote is absolute sophistry, like most of what's called libertarianism in America. It uses the rhetoric of freedom to advocate for a system vast inequality. Comparing a) doctors working in private hospitals that are payed for by the government in a medicare-for-all system or b) doctors working for the government in a nhs-style system to slaves is both offensive and laughable on it's face to me.

People can't be meaningfully free unless they have their basic needs taken care of, ie they are free from want. People who currently don't have health insurance or can't pay to afford to get tests or are in massive credit card debt for healthcare don't feel particularly free.

@orathaic

i still maintain that the banking crisis was far different, as there was SO little oversight.

for a relative perspective, i still want banking regulation. not just the old stuff, we need to keep up with the technological age. in this sense i am MUCH more liberal.

for pharmaceuticals i hold a different opinion. i still want regulation, but we have seen live saving drugs kept off the market due to superfluous regulation. don't forget that it took over 3 years after aspirin was proven by trials to help people during a heart attack for this to be officially condoned by the FDA.

millions could have been saved if the FDA had acted smarter and more efficiently.

as it is right now, it is a large part of why are drug prices are soaring.

however, i still want to control the profit incentive, so as i said: temporary price caps, and some destruction of intellectual rights. what i'm proposing isn't at all a free market solution.


point number 2, i think you've drastically misread Marx, he had actually very few disagreements with Adam Smith with government, his primary delineation was WHAT people would do with their individual freedom.

he assumed a commune-like state would emerge with all citizens working for one another. Smith doesn't actually entirely repute this, although he does think that material wealth is a more permanent facet of society.


and as for "collective bargaining" well that's perfectly fine: and it doesn't impede property rights. first of all, am i not allowed to give away my property if i so choose? rights are not a tyranny that you must insist upon. i'm even allowed to be persuaded to give up my property. however, you cannot use threat of force to take something from someone else, that is extortion.

@Ogion

Always convenient when nothing of substance is forthcoming.

I explained the holding of the court to you already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

What happens when a drug is approved without adequate testing. If you think that it only happened in the past then look at Fen-phen and other more recent drugs withdrawn from the market. Most really serious side effects don't even show up in the short term (6 weeks) drug approval trials and they are deliberately kept short to avoid seeing them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=118016

Marx assumed many things about the future, and was almost exclusively wrong. But his analysis for understanding social systems, or the ideal social system, is still useful.

I don't think he was so good a predicting the dynamics of social change, but the statics of power relationships are still pretty interesting to look at.

In reality, we saw several concurrent socialist/nationalist/liberal uprisings across europe in 1848, but the monarchies of europe put them down fairly effectively. Power always strive to retain their own position, and so the revolution failed, even if it was almost 60 years before all the great monarchies of europe were gone. The first world war ended every one of those empires, and left inly neutrred 'constitution monarchies' - which are effectively democracies - in place.

Marx would have predicted a much faster change over to communist/socialist living, and a class-less utopia, yet even were communistic ideas did come to power (the red army in russia) they never came close to being classless; (though russia was particularily backward, and not the industrial economy marx was thinking of).

Mostly democracy, the art of the compromise, managed to retain many power structures, the new powerul capitalist class replacing an older aristocracy. And in many european countries today the very poor now have a 'social welfare net' to keep the comfortable (like a bribe to prevent the workig class from getting too uppity and threatening the wealthy).

This infringes on the 'rights' you would defend, but it is part of the compromise which preserves the power structures... It is not the simplistic ideological utopia, it is a compromise of ideas and ideals to keep things going.

That is the people agreeing, in principle. It is far from perfect, government doesn't represent the people perfectly. The people don't agree entirely with the state, the powerful capitalistic class have more share of power than the average voter, but it is a compromise which most people accept, most of the time...

The biggest change since the times of Marx, in my opinion, is this: there are no material differences between the working class and the middle class any more. They are more or less equally well off. So where is the difference now?

The members of the middle class, comprising at most 10% of the population, have their own political and cultural opinions. It runs in the family.

The members of the working class (or rather "the proletariat", with all the negative connotations of the word) have the political and cultural opinions which they hear on TV (or internet, or the papers). They are not able to think by themselves. They comprise about 80% of the population.

Is the proletariat growing? Is the middle class shrinking? I'd say it is happening, but I'm not sure. It's hard to tell.

Oh man I could say so much about Marxism and Cultural Marxism, but I know that no one is going to listen so what's the point.

Or ND you could actually engage with the conversation...

sure thing

@ND,

Fairly recently, I was put on a huge dose of antibiotics to combat an infection that only a little more than a century ago may have claimed my life. The drugs at my disposal were the result of the power of the market system, which is driven, in part, by profit motive. On a purely ethical level, why should those would dedicated their time and expertise and/or their capital in the development of these drugs not be able to profit from them? Yet, people like Ogion are of the position that it is obscene that pharmaceuticals are generating substantial profits off of drugs that save lives. Well, if we follow that line of thought to its logical conclusion, what we get is an economic system that disincentivises research, development and production of life saving medicines and equipment and incentivises all of the same things in industries where profits are not being attacked. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

@civwarbuff you realise that there is a lot of research done in the world. Take the phone i'm writing this message on. Who developed the technologies for it? And how many of them were paid for by the US tax payer for use in military technology (before being spun out to private companies which make private profits off of thos public investment?)

Just wondering, cause you imagine a world where it is only market driven forces which can invent new things... And i suspect most basic research is done at the tax payer's expense. (Basic research is not known for producing much profit).

@Orthaic

Except that your argument completely disintegrates when confronted with the most basic of facts. The fact is, that in the entire period from the formation of the country through about 1900, while government did intervene in certain situations, total government spending (Federal, state and local) never exceeded three percent of the national income other than in wartime. In that period, the United States became the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world, by miles.

So, it is very clear what the driving force is.

@orthaic,

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that it is wrong for you to hold the opinion that you do, I just can't see how you reconcile it with the historical record.

During that time the US was way behind on things like intellectual rights, look at how Dicken's was so annoyed by copyright laws not applying in the US, so hundreds of knockoffs passed around (though he ended up using this to his advantage by doing a speaking tour of the US...).

The point being, either your story is right, and intellectual property rights should he abolished - because they prevent the super fast development that you saw in the US. Or there were other factors at play - including freely stealing the ideas of other developed nations (other factors include unlimited land expansion, massive exploitation of natural resources, exploitation of slave labour... Ect.). You can't claim to understand US history while ignoring this...

But it has only been this century that we see massive public spending on the military industrial complex.

The space race, the cold war, the exponential increase in computing power, the massive advances in the aerospace industry. Teflon?

Maybe it started during the great depression. The 'new deal' didn't pull the US out of the depression, but massive war spending did, and it hasn't stopped since.

So yeah, apologisies for you missing my point, i could perhaps have been clearer.

Except, that again none of that can be accurate because the U.S. government had to pay for the overwhelming majority of land purchased in the 19th century and the current land of contiguous United States was essentially completed with the Gadsden Purchase in 1854. Furthermore, with the culmination of the American Civil War, slavery in America died permanently. Yet, the nation would subsequently resume growth and enjoy an extraordinarly prosperous ensuing seventy-five years. It is very difficult to reconcile these realities with the thrust of your position.

Slavery in america continues today. Just to prove how wrong you can be...

There was one exception to the law banning slavery, i'll let you figure it out.

And sure sone of that land was acquired from other european countries without war, most of it was stolen. All of Florida? Taken from the Spainish. Texas? White americans moved in and settled, then started a violent revolt to kick the mexicans out - likely hoping they would be allowed to join the US where they came from - sure that wasn't sanctioned hy the federal government, but the land was effectvely stolen.

Hawaii? Puerto Rico? Need i go on?

Also, you can't buy land from a culture which doesn't recognise property rights. You say "we want to buy this land!" And they say "that doesn't make sense", so you say, "i'll give you money if i can farm here", and they say "sure, anyone can farm here, but if you're giving money away..." Then you murder his family to protect your investment and call it 'purchasing land'?

Seriously? Are you really that naive??

Also, my position never claimed slavery was the only or vital component of growth before the civil war. There were many very successful non-slave states. And there are those who called wage slavery what it is at the time. The fact that factory workers could be exploited - but were paid some horrendously bad wage, so technically weren't slaves - doesn't mean the US magically didn't oppress people after the civil war.