by Softswine

Created on: December 02, 2009

"You can't see the forest for the trees". It seems as simple as to concentrate our energy on the laws and practices of the two (2) government organizations most involved with the operation of our current health-care system. The Federal Trade Commission in regards to advertising the intention to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease is a real fine place to start and the Food and Drug Administration regarding how they interpret that intention would be the perfect follow up.

Inasmuch as I fully agree with the very many who write that educating the public is a high priority for improving the health-care system I am compelled to add that the manner in which they gain the necessary knowledge needs to be addressed as well. America has become a nation consumed with access to information and it's love for advertising has provided a captive audience for the achievement of such a priority.

There are very many methods and products that have enjoyed a high rate of success in research, trials and results not only for our ongoing health but also for a means to address adverse health issues. I would consider a disease an adverse health issue while I would not necessarily class an adverse health issue as a disease. Do you think that the definition of "disease" has been too easily construed to include less serious health issues? Since the law says that only a "drug" can be advertised with the intent to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, I wonder if we are overlooking a bevy of possibilities for the improvement of our health. Industry finds it difficult to justify the expenses involved to label it's product a "drug" when they cannot patent that product to protect it's financial return. Hell, I don't blame them, it's a business! But is our health responsible for the profits of industry? Hmm, what was the origin of that law?

After the countless dollars invested in a product receiving the drug classification the product still needs to provide a return to its investors. What's enough return? If the product is "intended" to genuinely (with the health of a human life a higher priority than profit) address the disease then each consumer of that product should sooner or later meet the end of their need for it. I don't reckon that pitch would make it very far in the Board Room. There are a lot of highly financed concerns involved in our current health-care structure and I welcome argument that those investments are for products with predicted obsolescence. Would they wish to defend their honor?

With the prelude behind me I would mandate a complete, no holds barred investigation. Yes, another investigation. This time by several independent concerns responsible for a thorough transparency of the research, development and production of every "drug" on the market. With this I would require a record of any and all lobbying activities remotely related to those associated with the investments behind the R and D along with the disposition of their campaign contributions and associations with any political figures. The findings would be made readily available to the general public while our Legislators enact ceilings on health-care costs that could be "reasonably" sustained by the moderate income population and insure that anyone without the means be provided the same level of care currently enjoyed by their public servants.

I will not speculate as to the outcome of the findings in these reports but I would venture to guess that the answers to what ails us regarding health-care will be much easier to see and much closer to a viable solution.

Learn more about this author, Softswine.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.