On the Benefits of A Consumer Focused Government
Blubs of Verbs, Commentary Comments Off on On the Benefits of A Consumer Focused Government
The people will save their government, if the government itself will allow them. -Abraham Lincoln
On a whim, i tried to find some inkling of when “Free Market” became “Free Corporation.” and not “consumer Benefit.” I realize now that the economist in me has been annoyed that consumers were not first for some time.
Governments exist for the protection of the masses which has endowed them with many powers powers. One of those powers is the power to regulate and monitor things which should -in idyllic form- be based on advancing the protection of its citizens (from others and themselves) and yet still allowing these same citizens to advance themselves in any way they chose. Yet as any economist knows, any corporation tends toward a Monopoly and in its’ on self interest, will eventually be inherently unfair to its own customers.
As Corporations are also citizens (as they are entities and by court rulings) I would argue that regulation that halts them from becoming monopolies is useful to them, because competition leads to streamlined efficient companies and markets channels.
I would also argue a system based on “It’s already been checked” would insulate many companies from many of the class action lawsuits and litigation they presently face. Cars are not “safe” per say, yet , so rigorously are they tested, litigation based on specific accident failures are lower than say chemicals litigation because Chemicals don’t have to tested to be safe. Chemical can only be challenged after harm has been cost and even then that is difficult. The EPA can’t even block Asbestos, which is a known carcinogen, yet a company that releases it (even accidentally) can surely get sued for it. Yea! more litigation.
Drug Companies seem to face the double blow of Regulation Hurdles upfront and Lawsuits on the Backend. First they must prove their drug is safe (or withing acceptable limits of safe) yet, if more testing later proves it’s not as safe as can be or an increase risk has developed, they are instantly facing a class action lawsuit. Again, you know where this page falls.
But what If The company has taken all the required precautions? My problem is some government required precautions are SO low, so negligible, the argument of “We followed the rules.” is both a travesty and a joke. The Hurdle to get a car on the Road is High, the Hurdle to get a energy supplement into my body is uselessly low. Even Some medical equipment is laughable in the extreme. If i convince a doctor a hose and a pen can clean blood i can sell it as such and to any other doctor that believes me.
Most would say “The market will detect the bad machinery and prove it false and therefor not buy it”. People who love this argument like to site perfect Knowledge. But suppose an Insurance company is making the choice? Not a doctor? Well, surely the Insurance company has a doctor on staff! Not always so. Doctors are expensive, auditors are not. What about criminal courts catching it? Fraud, false advertising and all that? Now the government is wasting tax dollars prosecuting someone who would have been caught upfront with a bogus machine; a waste of tax dollars.
The problem of inadequate study is especially serious for medical devices and imaging equipment like scanners, which typically are not as strictly regulated as prescription drugs. Under Food and Drug Administration regulations, the makers of CT scanners — CT is short for computed tomography — do not have to conduct studies to prove that their products benefit patients, as drug makers do. The manufacturers must certify only that the scanners are safe and provide accurate images.
Once the F.D.A. approves a test or device, Medicare rarely demands evidence that it benefits patients before agreeing to pay for it. But last year, Medicare officials raised questions about the benefits of CT heart scans and said it would demand more studies before paying for them. But after heavy lobbying by cardiologists, Medicare backed down. Private insurers, while initially reluctant to pay for the tests, are also covering them. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/business/29scan.html
It is fact that many “consumer” governmental organization have nearly zero power; the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) can’t regulate chemicals. And when it’s told what it can regulate it won’t. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) flits between mass supermarket shelf cleaning of tainted products to “suggestions” of what people should or shouldn’t do. Pretty damn useless suggestions.
The current regulation cloud we live under is a mess and there is no magic bullet of course, but a proactive consumer focused approach, like cars and drugs, are under, seems to work better for people and the government as a whole. Regulations people can believe in allows people to forgive mistakes and i suspect would lower litigation. Erin Brockovich became famous trying many chemical cases because the government does not -and to a large extent- does not regulate chemicals before they are no the market.
Funny thing is, I’m for deregulation of market restrictions and controls on corporation as long as competition is stiff and ever-present, but I am all for Governmental Agency’s having the power to help me stay alive. (As opposed government to bitching about what i watch on TV or listening to.) Prove -to the best of the corporations ability- it’s safe and how they sell and market it, is up to them.
OceansOfThought @ June 16, 2008