The Centers For Disease Control: What is the Free Market Alternative?

[clb09]

Most government agencies are pointless but I wonder what could replace the CDC in the world of free trade and liberty?

 

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Shamans ?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

We can't predict that, because the market is (mostly) unpredictable. There would probably be a non-profit organization something like Underwriters' Laboritories (though specializing in disease control). Yay, freedom!

 

[KCIndy]

We can't predict that, because the market is (mostly) unpredictable. There would probably be a non-profit organization something like Underwriters' Laboritories (though specializing in disease control). Yay, freedom!

That's an interesting point.... even in today's "hardly-free-market-world" there are groups like UL, and Consumer Reports, and many other nonprofit consumer advocacy groups.

I wonder how many more there might be in a truly free market economy.

 

[Kludge]

Guns and masks for the rich and able, likely death for the poor and disabled.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Pharma would control all the information and supplies in a free, unregulated market.

 

[raystone]

Pharma would control all the information and supplies in a free, unregulated market.

Big Pharma has its power due to regulation in the form of legislation they bought and paid for, and the FDA/big pharma execs revolving door. In a truly FREE market, big pharm wouldn't have its power.

It's tough to fathom, but in a truly free market, we may have a reliable independent media network we could rely on for all the pandemic information we need.

 

[tpreitzel]

Big Pharma has its power due to regulation in the form of legislation they bought and paid for, and the FDA/big pharma execs revolving door. In a truly FREE market, big pharm wouldn't have its power.

Correcto mundo.

 

[axiomata]

The CDC is one of those bottom of the list agencies to cut. A true pandemic is a national threat and would fall under the general welfare clause IMO.

 

[Vessol]

Sorry. I believe a the CDC is necessary, unlike many agencies. They follow the principles of Paine's limited government. A government responsible for protecting rights and protecting it's land from threats: not just armies, pandemics too.

You all are starting to sound like a bunch of anarcho-capitalists.

 

[Crash Martinez]

You all are starting to sound like a bunch of anarcho-capitalists.

[Thanks? ]

 

[angelatc]

Sorry. I believe a the CDC is necessary, unlike many agencies. They follow the principles of Paine's limited government. A government responsible for protecting rights and protecting it's land from threats: not just armies, pandemics too.

You all are starting to sound like a bunch of anarcho-capitalists.

ON one hand, the CDC could be justified by the general welfare clause, otoh - having the government control it means it is less effective than it could be because of the politics and beaucracy.

I vote no.

 

[johnrocks]

There are probably literally hundreds if not thousands of regulations,laws,agencies and Departments I would abolish before even considering abolishing the Center for Disease Control, to me, that seems like a justifiable agency since it is in all of our *General Welfare* to do things such as breathe, a pandemic can kill millions, I think perhaps;and I pray I'm right; that this is being blown out of proportion however, if 300 million vials of anti virus needs to be dispensed quickly, I had much rather my tax dollars go to that,which will guard all of us, than to send that money to some distant land like Tel Aviv.

 

[Feenix566]

Hollywood always portrays the CDC as a group of ultra-professional doctors and medics who can sweep in and quarantine and entire area in a matter of a day. They might even be able to cure a disease in a week or two. The fact of the matter is that they have no such capability. It's never happened in real life, and it won't happen. It's just logistically impossible. It's kinda like the notion that FEMA can solve a hurricane.

My girlfriend is a medical researcher, so I can actually speak on this topic with some knowledge. Right now, the government decides where the money goes. This has a double edged drawback of both misinvesting research funds and making the research process inefficient.

Small and particularily horrible diseases get a lot of attention. This sounds like a good idea until you look at the numbers. Small diseases that may only kill about a hundred people a year end up getting a lot more funding per patient than major problems, like cancer, which kill millions. In a free market economy, the money would go to where it would be the most likely to bring a profit. The cure for cancer could be worth trillions. In a free market economy, we would probably already have a cure for cancer. But instead, millions of dollars are being spent each year on diseases that affect very few people.

Also, government funding makes the research less efficient. When the politicians decide who gets the money, they base it on the reputations of the scientists. Again, that sounds great on the surface, until you consider the fact that many scientists maintain very high reputations without ever actually curing or discovering anything. My girlfriend's lab has been open for twelve years, and has never published a single paper. Let me repeat that in case it didn't sink in. Twelve years with no results. But they stay open because their boss is the head of transfusion medicine at a major hospital. There's no motivation for them to publish a paper. The people in charge are self-righteous pricks who feel no need to prove themselves to anyone. The funding just keeps rolling in, because no politican wants to suggest cuts in medical research. In a free market economy, they would have either produced some results by now, or they would be out on their asses.

Trust me, the CDC isn't doing you any favors.

 

[weslinder]

Sorry. I believe a the CDC is necessary, unlike many agencies. They follow the principles of Paine's limited government. A government responsible for protecting rights and protecting it's land from threats: not just armies, pandemics too.

You all are starting to sound like a bunch of anarcho-capitalists.

Quoted for truth. The CDC, National Weather Service, and a couple of others are good federal programs. Their primary objective is to inform, and they do a good job of it.

 

[Feenix566]

Also, there are already a lot of deseases that have been identified by the medical community as potential pandemics. My girlfriend is writing her master's thesis on one called Chickengunya. It causes deblitating pain and lasts for a few months. It once infected a third of the population of an island in the Pacific. It is spread by mosquitos. It could potentially spread to the US, and there isn't much we can do about it aside from developing a vaccine. But that takes years of research, and it's not done yet.

Now, there's a lot of profit opportuntity for any company that develops the vaccine for that disease, and many others, if a pandemic were to occur. There are many, many diseases like that.

Who do you want directing the research to produce vaccines for that sort of thing? The government, or private industry? For me, I'd feel a whole lot safer knowing that a greedy capitalist with a profit motive was working on it than a sleazy politician.

 

[Working Poor]

Guns and masks for the rich and able, likely death for the poor and disabled.

I don't think they want to kill all the poor because after all the poor are the backs that the the rich stand on. Who would clean their toilets and sever them tea?