The Census is invasive, says Michigan

[agzg]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

That's the one. It ended up being ruled as a suicide but due to the very odd way of his physical condition authorities looked at it as a homicide at first.

Right... but there were also reports that he took out two life insurance policies that would not pay out if his death was ruled a suicide, so I'm sure he had extra incentive to make it look like a homicide.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I call mega-BS on that! Without the FDA, we would have pharmaceutical companies putting out any medication without properly testing them then withdrawing them from the market before the cost of litigation gets too high. That may be okay from a business perspective, but from a medical and an ethical perspective, it's not okay! We already don't like when drugs get past our strict testing with the FDA, and we end up with drugs like VIOXX, or Phen/Fen causing problems. Don't even get me started on the "health supplements" that don't even have to be regulated but have major health risks, are falsely advertised and routinely removed from the market. I for one thank our government for doing it's job with the FDA. We have the safest drug market in the world thanks to their work.

That's basically how it works now. They get released on the market and then if there's a problem the FDA pulls it, if they haven't gotten their bribe money from GSK yet.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You did notice the banking problems we've had the last few years?

Yeah, due to the federal governments regulation of our money, yes I have seen them.

She's not confusing things rather badly, you didn't read. She said public libraries -- libraries funded with public funds.

Yes. But she makes the assumption that those are the only libraries available (when she sarcastically says "because everyone has professional journal and historic works at home"). If the only other option to public libraries, was professional journal and historical works at home, that would concede that there were no private libraries. Private libraries can provide the same service at a cheaper price with greater availability.

This displays your complete ignorance of what the FDA actually does. Since I actually know people who have worked for the FDA, know what the agenda of the FDA is, know what medications are actually coming out, what medications have been withdrawn from the market and why, which medications have not been approved here that are approved in other countries and why, I might have a little better understanding of the intricacies of this issue.

I'm not sure this puts you in a better place.

The FDA has a very important role in our country that a "free market" would NOT replace. You ask, "Why the hell would they put out bad products especially in this climate of advance litigiousness?" They do it because in a lot of cases it is very hard to PROVE that their drug caused a problem when a lot of illness are multi-factorial.

Yeah. But the FDA doesn't catch these. So what is it's use again?

They also are willing to accept a certain amount of liability to profit ratio, ie. the Vioxx fiasco (the company had the information that the drug increased the risk of heart attacks and stroke but hid the data!)

So, the FDA couldn't stop them. What, again, is the FDA's point?

At least with the FDA approved medications, there is science to back them up, and the FDA has made sure that the insurance company has lined all their ducks in a row to make sure that the drugs are as safe as possible without obstructing the flow of new medications. If you poll physicians, I think you'll find an overwhelming majority who support the FDA and its work.

You're not quite understanding the issue. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a process for drugs to be validated as good drugs. I'm saying the government doesn't need to have any part of it. Undoubtedly, the drug companies or an independent agency will likely be formed (possibly by consumers) in order to test the product, which will then be certified through that measure. Society naturally forms these organizations, a government doesn't need to create it. Perhaps there will be several of these organizations each with different levels of credibility and safety. A doctor might say "Oh, this drug is XYZ certified but it's not ABC certified, so I won't recommend it." That would be the likely nature of things without an FDA.

edit: In my utopia, this sort of system I would prefer for many types of certification, including lawyers, surveyors, and other occupations where some sort of certification of learning is necessary for practice.

[RU OX Alum]

I don't think Michigan doesn't like the census because they greatly oppose the FDA.

I think that loosing a congressional seat thing might be more pertinent.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I call mega-BS on that! Without the FDA, we would have pharmaceutical companies putting out any medication without properly testing them then withdrawing them from the market before the cost of litigation gets too high. That may be okay from a business perspective, but from a medical and an ethical perspective, it's not okay! We already don't like when drugs get past our strict testing with the FDA, and we end up with drugs like VIOXX, or Phen/Fen causing problems. Don't even get me started on the "health supplements" that don't even have to be regulated but have major health risks, are falsely advertised and routinely removed from the market. I for one thank our government for doing it's job with the FDA. We have the safest drug market in the world thanks to their work.

That's basically how it works now. They get released on the market and then if there's a problem the FDA pulls it, if they haven't gotten their bribe money from GSK yet.

[AGDee]

May I point out that the only reason this article is Michigan focused is because it was done by The Detroit News. It, in no way, says that Michigan people feel differently than other people in the country. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find groups of people in every state who feel the census is invasive.

My feelings on the FDA will be expressed AFTER they audit one of our clinical trials for gene therapy this week. I'll let you know what I think of them afterward..lol. Seriously though, I totally see them as a needed government function. Some things are better done by the government.

[ree-Xi]

This thread has turned into this:

[PiKA2001]

Just mailed mine out-

There are people from all over the country who feel that the census needs only to know the number of occupants in the residence and that's all. I didn't find the census intrusive but I did feel that the questions of how I am related to whom I live with And if I own or rent unnecessary. Also think it's stupid that they didn't ask if the person was a citizen, permanent resident or temp visitor. Any person on a temp visa renting a house or apt is going to be counted as a citizen.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Just mailed mine out-

There are people from all over the country who feel that the census needs only to know the number of occupants in the residence and that's all. I didn't find the census intrusive but I did feel that the questions of how I am related to whom I live with And if I own or rent unnecessary. Also think it's stupid that they didn't ask if the person was a citizen, permanent resident or temp visitor. Any person on a temp visa renting a house or apt is going to be counted as a citizen.

People also aren't thinking this through. There has to be a way to check the numbers reported against another database, ie SSN to make sure that no one claims fake citizens to keep congressional seats or federal money. Also, the census is an expensive process that gets done only once a decade so it gives us a rare opportunity to collect demographic information like race, home owner ship that gives us a "snapshot" of the nation in 2010. We've done it forever, and I hate to say it, but opposing the census IS unAmerican!

[summer_gphib]

I have a problem with all the mail that they send out that is unnecessary--
I got a letter telling me they were sending a packet... um ok, but wouldn't I know that when I got the packet?
I got the packet and found it rather annoying, especially all the race questions. But I filled it out and sent it in.
Then I got a letter telling me that they had sent me a packet and hopefully I sent it back in. Ok... was that necessary?

Why not send the packets and then only send follow ups to people who don't respond in a month?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Yeah, due to the federal governments regulation of our money, yes I have seen them.

Uh, yeah. 'Cause if the big banks have demonstrated anything, it's that if just left to their own devices, they'll do everything the right way and the market will keep it all under control. Sure.

edit: In my utopia, this sort of system I would prefer for many types of certification, including lawyers, surveyors, and other occupations where some sort of certification of learning is necessary for practice.

As a lawyer, I'm afraid that doesn't sound much like a utopia to me.

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

This thread has turned into this:

My favorite Far Side of all time. I have a co-worker we call "Ginger" for this very reason.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by summer_gphib

I have a problem with all the mail that they send out that is unnecessary--
I got a letter telling me they were sending a packet... um ok, but wouldn't I know that when I got the packet?
I got the packet and found it rather annoying, especially all the race questions. But I filled it out and sent it in.
Then I got a letter telling me that they had sent me a packet and hopefully I sent it back in. Ok... was that necessary?

Why not send the packets and then only send follow ups to people who don't respond in a month?

The methods they use are for a very good reason. This is like an Intro to Survey Methods class.

There is a lot invested in the Census so they'd rather annoy you than have some others try to excuse their lack of participation; or try to say that "certain groups of people" had more access to the Census than others. That's why they alert you of the Census mailing (so people will check their mail and not discard it for any reason); and send 2-3 bilingual follow-up postcards. It takes more time and money to narrow it down to those who didn't mail it back than it takes to just alert everyone who received it in the first place.

I mailed back my Census the same day. It took about 5-10 minutes to complete. There was nothing invasive about it (since when are race questions invasive?). I didn't like "Negro," but I made a note of it for the Census people and moved on. GOOOOOOO CENSUS!

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It takes more time and money to narrow it down to those who didn't mail it back than it takes to just alert everyone who received it in the first place.

I was watching a news story on the Census follow up letters and how it cost $64 million to send them out.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I was watching a news story on the Census follow up letters and how it cost $64 million to send them out.

Are you surprised?

Now how much time and money would it take to wait for everyone to send it back...whenever they sent it back, allow a grace period, figure out who didn't return it and THEN send follow-up postcards?

Small-time survey researchers sometimes wait to check addresses off of a list before following-up with a postcard. I wouldn't expect the Census massive survey researchers and employees to do that.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Are you surprised?

Not at all, but $64 mil just for one set of follow up letters...damn. I'm familiar with how the typical U.S. Government agency works and efficiency isn't exactly a high priority.