It's not really a surprising ruling. Leave it to Obama to make something unconstitutional the centerpiece of his legislation.

I heartily agree with your last line. Though I think any large organisation is inherently dangerous and requires control, whether it's a government or a corporation.

Government is dangerous and needs to constantly be curbed.

Like fire, a useful tool, but a fearsome master. And anyone who doesn't think we have been stripped of just about every inalienable right, just doesn't care.

The main hole in the Car Insurance argument is that you buy car insurance to protect other dirvers. The state doesn't require you to buy comprehensive insurance, rather LIABILITY insurance.

Iff the Supreme Court determines that it is unconstitutional to require health insurance, then they need to address that health care itself is not an inalienable right, at least if you are over 18. No insurance and you break your spine in a motorcycle accident? Oh well.

> Though I think any large organisation is
> inherently dangerous and requires control,
> whether it's a government or a corporation.

(headspin)

Uh, Dood, listen... I recommend you set aside time in the days ahead to weave bright, coarse threads of irony and paradox into your weltanschauung.

Or as Postrel tweeted this very morning....

Erwin! He taught me Con Law for the bar exam. Horrible liberal mess, but a hell of a teacher.

Much as I'd love to believe the Supremes will get this right, I am haunted by the memories of Kelo. The SC hasn't issued a meaningful restriction on the Commerce Clause in over 15 years.

My blood boils each time I watch this. The Dean of UC Irvine Law School is an ignoramus of the highest order. Is he not able to hear what comes out of his mouth? His brand of wishful thinking and illogic could only be possible if the man has sustained a severe head injury resulting in impaired reading comprehension and/or a hearing problem.

(Foghorn Leghorn voice) Something is seriously wrong with that boy, I say.

If the interstate commerce clause can LEGITIMATELY be read as granting the federal government the power to do pretty much whatever it wants to, then what is the point of having a constitution?

Shouldn't the framers have stopped there and said, "well, so if we are now granting the government power to do anything it wants RIGHT HERE", wouldn't they have had the sense to stop writing AT THAT POINT, cross-out everything that comes before it, and in some giant typeface written, "The govt can do whatever it wants to do." and then go out for drinks?

Why pledge to defend it in oaths of office? Why bother with having the judicial branch of the government? Gee, we've wasted way too much energy and effort in even paying nominal lip service to the constitution.

Why bother amending the constitution if it is meaningless? What's the point of a civil war?

Shouldn't somebody have figured out all of this long ago and saved this nation a tremendous amount of grief? Right?

I'd love that law school dean to address this with me. If his conclusion is correct, then our forefather's ability to clearly express themselves and their intent is pitiful.

After all, if it has taken us over 200 years to figure out that the constitution is a "non-constitution" then the existence of our federal government is in fact the embodiment of the the biggest fraud ever perpetrated upon humanity.

Nice going Madison and Jefferson...

Also the state requirement to buy insurance was pushed forward by citizens who, if they wanted, could vote for canidates who promise to get rid of that requirment. And in many states citzens can put their own ballot initives in an election regardless of the state legislatures wishes

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

That's it 98, the whole thing. I doubt if Maddy could have forseen what govt. would do with it, since SCOTUS wasn't even that powerful at the time... The is entirely about all the layers of stuff that his shellacked on top of the clause.

What's next? mandate that everyone purchase a Chevy Volt? make you purchase Coca-Cola products? Bud Light? shop at Old Navy? make all restaurants Taco Bells?

Oh, hey, why not mandate that everyone be required to carry a credit card debt of no less than $20,000 per person?

And if Michelle O gets her way, you'll have a food purchasing card, so that you can only get the "right" food.

It's commerce...

Hmmmm. You mean the military draft, employed in WWII through Vietnam, was constitutional, but not requiring people to buy health insurance?

Actually, we should go to single payor model and be done with it. It works better, as witnessed from Israel to Great Britian, to Canada to Japan to Thailand.

I love free markets but sometimes they fail. Pollution comes to mind.

If I could ask the president one thing, I would ask him what kind of law he would say is beyond the power of the federal government to pass?

I'd really love to know where these fucking people draw the line.

Because as near as I can tell, there are none in their minds. The government can mandate wealth transfers, my earnings paying for someone else's retirement, medical care, or welfare. ~Social security, medicare/medicaid, welfare

The government can mandate that people buy private goods and services in the form of insurance, meaning what I decide to buy or not buy is controlled by the Federal Government.~Health insurance mandate

The government can authorize people to grope and molest people who are flying without any reasonable suspicion at all.~TSA

The government can decide what substances citizens may choose to take into their bodies. ~antidrug legislation

The government can decide what kinds of speech are acceptable in the workplace. ~Sexual harassment

The government can decide whether or not to seize the property of a private citizen, and hand it other to another private entity, even though no crime has been committed. ~Kelo decision or just read about "blight"

What restrictions do we have any longer?

The main hole in the Car Insurance argument is that you buy car insurance to protect other dirvers. The state doesn't require you to buy comprehensive insurance, rather LIABILITY insurance.

Posted by: SwissArmyD at December 14, 2010 9:20 AM
-----

Yeah but their (WhiteHouse/Dems) counter to that as said by Robert Gibbs yesterday is that people without insurance are raising the costs for everyone else. The insured are paying for the non insured. There are several problems with that line of thought but its their response to the ruling.

Anyone who pulls out the 'commerce clause' as a justification for trampling on the Bill of Rights deserves to be quickly informed up close and personal what the 2nd Amendment is about.

To even entertain the thought that there is any legitimate "debate" about this clause is to be tricked by the freedom-killers. Simple common sense tells us this abuse was never the intention of the founding fathers.

"Leave it to Obama to make something unconstitutional the centerpiece of his legislation."

It's fairly obvious that the most Obama cares about the Constitution is when he goes to the toilet and wipes his ass with it.

"I love free markets but sometimes they fail. Pollution comes to mind"

This is a common myth; pollution isn't a violation of a true free market system because a true free market system protects private property rights; if someone is spreading poison / pollution on your property they are in violation of private property rights. Most of the time the problem is one of enforcement, which doesn't denote a failure of any particular system. Enforcement fails for many reasons, the market being free is not one of them.

Health care bill opponents cheering this decision might want to think twice.

Obviously, this case is going to the Supreme Court, where Justice Kennedy will once again be the deciding vote in a 5-4 decision (though how the other conservatives – except Thomas – will reconcile their opinions that this law is unconstitutional with their previous decisions allowing the essentially unlimited reach of the Commerce Clause is beyond me). I'd say the mandate has a decent chance of surviving judicial review, but isn't guaranteed. If the mandate fails, however, this does not mean that the entire ACA will be held unconstitutional. It's likely that only that portion of the bill will be.

An interesting side effect of the severing of the mandate from the bill is the likely dramatic escalation of the costs of health care due to the guaranteed issue provision of the bill. Which of course would lead to more legislation of some sort, most likely putting us on the road to single-payer.

Lobster:

Exactly so; but how should I attempt to legally collect damages from the several million automobile drivers who pollute my property near Dodger Stadium?

Could any urban area develop if property owners could enforce property rights and stop other from polluting their property?

Could farmers farm, knowing that runoff would pollute waters?

Could any court system you devise consistently resolve all these challenges, and then enforce both restrictions and monetary damages?

And remember, lawyers and judges think nothing of extremely long standing lawsuits, and glacial proceedings--all the more money in their pockets. Bleak House to this day.

Well, the lawyers would love it.

Enforcement fails for many reasons, the market being free is not one of them.

Posted by: Lobster

Usually the enforers are getting their reelection money from the people who need to be monitered - thats where the failure is

"Usually the enforers are getting their reelection money from the people who need to be monitered - thats where the failure is"

Precisely - a system in which individuals/corporations can simply purchase lawmakers is absolutely NOT an example of a free market system by ANY measure. Secondly, this failure should be ubiquitous across ALL systems, there is nothing that makes it particular to free-market systems. Communist countries have had some of the worst pollution in the world, cf. China, Russia etc.

"Exactly so; but how should I attempt to legally collect damages from the several million automobile drivers who pollute my property near Dodger Stadium?"

This is a tricky problem, but again, is not particular to free markets, since last I checked, people drive cars in all countries and under all systems. Or do you hope that in a communist country everyone will be so poor that they won't drive cars?

"Could any urban area develop if property owners could enforce property rights and stop other from polluting their property?"

It is HIGHLY possible for urban developers to develop without polluting the property of others, it gets done ALL the TIME - so I'm not sure what this question is about. (And again, how is this particular to free markets, urban development is in every country.)

"Could farmers farm, knowing that runoff would pollute waters?"

It is completely possible to farm without polluting waters excessively, yes. (And again, how is this specific to free markets, are you suggesting that in non free markets, you don't need to farm, or that they have more advanced cleaner farming technologies?)

"Could any court system you devise consistently resolve all these challenges, and then enforce both restrictions and monetary damages?"

?? How would it be worse than now? Are you using the logical fallacy argument that if the system can't be 100% perfect it shouldn't exist at all? What are you proposing that is better?

"And remember, lawyers and judges think nothing of extremely long standing lawsuits, and glacial proceedings--all the more money in their pockets. Bleak House to this day."

While most lawyers are scum-sucking leeches, you have made the reasoning error and logical fallacy of hasty generalization: Not all lawyers are bad, and not all lawyering is bad. Lawyers sometimes fight for good things, and the few good lawyers are in fact amongst the "modern warriors" of the primary front lines of the modern fight for justice and human rights.

"Or do you hope that in a communist country everyone will be so poor that they won't drive cars?"

That was a joke by the way, not an attempt at a counter-argument, in case you fly off the handle at that remark.

While believe me that I hate lawyers as much as the next guy, I've made the point before that lawyers can do good things and that paying lawyers to do good things is an unfortunate "necessary expense" in fighting for what's right in this world. There are organizations out there - small, few and far between, and poorly funded - that have lawyers fighting the good fight; more people should consider donating to them.

>> Communist countries have had some of the worst pollution in the world, cf. China, Russia etc.

Didja read that they are trying to turn Chernobyl into a tourist attraction?

"This is a tricky problem, but again, is not particular to free markets, since last I checked, people drive cars in all countries and under all systems"

Actually, I've just realised it's NOT a tricky problem, it's one that the free market is in the process of SOLVING. People generally want cleaner air (I have never met anyone who wanted dirtier air for themselves) - i.e. there is a 'market demand' for cleaner air - you have evidenced this by stating yourself that you are annoyed by the pollution caused by the drivers around the stadium. The 'market' - which includes many competing motor vehicle companies, has spent billions and over a decade in R&D to try to meet that market need by coming up with electric cars. The market is starting to provide the first of these electric cars. The market is solving your problem. 10 years from now electric cars will be becoming very common. 20 years from now, your stadium will only generate a little noise.

It is a long slow problem to solve, sure, but that is NOT because the nature of the free market hindered the solution, but because it's an enormously TECHNICALLY difficult problem to solve --- if the technology was easier, the free market i.e. those motor vehicle manufacturers would've been pouring those cars on the market 10 years ago already.

BOTU: Yes, because unlike this, there's an enumerated power, "To raise and support Armies".

Raising armies, without some qualifier, meant conscription as well as volunteers, at the time.

Whereas "commerce between the states" never meant "not buying something".

Main topic: On "car insurance", further note that that's a State mandate, not a Federal one. Every State requires that one do that, but the Federal government hasn't tried to (and, realistically, has no enumerated power to do so).

The various States could mandate insurance purchase, I suppose - but they're not stupid enough to want to, especially since the insurers will just leave if they can't raise prices to match the new costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

"a recent report claims that by 2020 electric cars and other "green" cars will take a third of the total of global car sales" => Thank you, market. The electric car 'revolution' has just begun.

Lobster:

I support free markets. But even Milton Friedman thought pollution should be taxed. I usually agree with MF, and do in this case.

If we tax tailpipe pollution heavily enough, then yes PHEVs and CNG cars might come on strong. I wholeheartedly support this policy choice.

And while there are good lawyers, the legal system is not designed for efficient administration, perhaps just the opposite.

Bleak House was never truer than today. Remember, tyher lenghtier and more complex the litigation, the more the lawyers get paid.

And judges and lawyers can be bought off too.

And what is the law and what is constitutional?--whatever the nine politically appointed judges on the Supreme Court say it is, and they can change their minds, and often do.

Hey, when the Constitution was passed, we thought slavery was dandy and that thieves should be put in stocks, sometimes nude, and have rotten fruits tossed at them.

And there is no funding mechanism in the Constitution for an Air Force. Ground those planes now, dudes.

The electric car 'revolution' has just begun.

I'll believe it when I see it. Hint: the electrical grid isn't ready for the extra demand, and we don't have the generation capacity to feed it without building new plants. And lots of them.

And the people most likely to buy an electric car? NIMBY, NIMBY, NIMBY! Heaven forbid we even ask about nuclear power. Those folks would have conniption fits. Nor will they go for the ugly windmills, or the vast arrays of solar panels.

"Yeah but their (WhiteHouse/Dems) counter to that as said by Robert Gibbs yesterday is that people without insurance are raising the costs for everyone else. The insured are paying for the non insured. There are several problems with that line of thought but its their response to the ruling."

My counter to the counter is that the reason the free riders are doing so much harm is because of the previous massive government overreach, in which the government decreed that health service providers must provide service to anyone who walks in the door, regardless of ability/willingness to pay. So now they want to fix the problems caused by that massive government overreach with another massive government overreach. Legal Insurrection had a good bit today that said that one way to interpret the Constitution is that a good interpretation should not lead to absurd results. Gibbs' argument leads to an endless spiral of increasing government power and abridging of citizens' rights, which is clearly absurd. As others have pointed out, the Framers would not have put all that effort into the Constitution if they had intended for one clause to grant unlimited authority to the federal government. Heck, if that were true, why would we bother having states?

"(though how the other conservatives – except Thomas – will reconcile their opinions that this law is unconstitutional with their previous decisions allowing the essentially unlimited reach of the Commerce Clause is beyond me)"

Hmm. Interesting point. I wonder how many Commerce Clause cases since Lopez (1995) have been presented to the SC. I'll have to do some research. The obvious, and not very satisfactory, answer is that they will back-track -- they'll start reeling some past decisions back in. Certainly not the first time the Court has done that.

"If the mandate fails, however, this does not mean that the entire ACA will be held unconstitutional. It's likely that only that portion of the bill will be."

It's my understanding (and a real lawyer can jump in here and correct me) that a law which is found by the Court to have an unconstitutional clause is null and void in its entirety, unless the law contains a severability clause. And I just read last night that, incredibly, they neglected to put a severability clause into Obamacare. That may not be correct -- it may be lurking in Nancy Pelosi's basement somewhere, waiting for us to find out what's in it. But my guess is that even if the mandate provision is found by the court to be severable, a ruling of unconstitutional will effectively kill the whole program because Congress will not be able to appropriate funding to enforce it.

I read on the WSJ blog today that Orin Hatch proposed an individual mandate to buy health insurance back in 1993. Then, it was considered a conservative plan. It took Obama to make the same idea socialist. Mitt Romney has affirmed that it is not unconstitutional for the state to mandate that people buy health insurance. States rights, you see. The argument in Washington is not whether or not the government can push us around, but about which party gets to do the pushing.

Bob, I think we can chalk up the Massachusetts experiment to the "laboratory of democracy", as in, "I'm glad that didn't happen in my state". Sometimes you need someone to do an experiment like that, though, just to demonstrate what happens even if you think you already know how it will come out. And sure enough, it's been a disaster.

(I will also point out that Mitt Romney isn't exactly a hard-righter... he's considered a RINO in some circles, which I think is a bit unfair, but there's a certain amount of truth in it. )

As for Hatch's 1993 statement, I attribute that to the feeling at the time that the constant growth of entitlements was a permanent feature of the federal government; Hatch didn't propose fixing the free-rider problem because he assumed that it was impossible for such a proposal to gain any traction. (And because he didn't want to get slammed as a "heartless right winger" by the media.) Now we're looking at it differently: the expansion of the welfare state will end because it's mathematically impossible for it to continue any further. Now there's latitude to discuss that which was previously unthinkable, because the only alternative is to believe in the tooth fairy.

The main hole in the Car Insurance argument is that you buy car insurance to protect other dirvers. The state doesn't require you to buy comprehensive insurance, rather LIABILITY insurance.

Posted by: SwissArmyD at December 14, 2010 9:20 AM
-----
Unless you are in a No-Fault state (NJ & KY at least) -- but it is the same effect. And rates are generally higher. The same effect is there though -- there is no force compelling you to own a car.

My counter to the counter is that the reason the free riders are doing so much harm is because of the previous massive government overreach, in which the government decreed that health service providers must provide service to anyone who walks in the door, regardless of ability/willingness to pay. So now they want to fix the problems caused by that massive government overreach with another massive government overreach.

Part of the problem is how many states have required rules and laws for such things breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, an automatic appendectomy if they are in the area for a surgery, etc.
That loads up the cost on both the patient and the insurance companies. I won't say the regs are necessarily wrong -- but it adds costs to the bills.

Then there are the issues of usual, reasonable and customary charges. If you walk into an ER, hospital affiliated practice, etc. and don't have insurance they can charge you more than three times more than walking in even with the crappiest insurance. I'm not even saying the low ball Medicare and Medicaid rates -- I'm talking what Kaiser, Aetna, and the rest pay.

Then you have malpractice insurance rates through the roof for certain sectors -- such as heart surgery, brain surgery, and oncology. These are high risk areas -- and have a good chance of death. Reform the system so that the lawyers have a max cap of $100 or $250K for personal lawsuits and a $500K or $1M for class actions regardless of the damages awarded. Want to bet that the number of suits would fall through the floor?

The FDA and the drug companies add to the cost. As an example, basic insulin has been around for over fifty years. You still have name brands going for over $50 a vial. And the newer ones can be over a $100. Depending on the version and state -- you have to get a doctor's prescription, which adds to the cost. While I don't advocate treating type II diabetes without a doctor, once you have it, it generally never goes away. Needing to see a doctor every month/3/6/12 for the same damn thing makes no sense.

I forgot to mention life extending treatments. If you are 30 and have a chance to beat the cancer -- there is nothing wrong doing your best to win out.

But if I'm 70 and have pancreatitis and cirrhosis -- shoot me up with laudanum and let me go. I want to go like my grandfather -- peacefully in my sleep -- not screaming like his passengers.

The end-of-life costs add up.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate. -- R. D. Laing

Hmm. Interesting point. I wonder how many Commerce Clause cases since Lopez (1995) have been presented to the SC.

Raich v. Gonzales in 2005 is the most recent decision of consequence I know about; the ruling was that under the Commerce Clause, Congress may criminalize homegrown cannabis that never crosses state lines despite state law permitting it. Thomas dissented, but Scalia and Kennedy voted with the liberal justices allowing that regulation.

It's my understanding (and a real lawyer can jump in here and correct me) that a law which is found by the Court to have an unconstitutional clause is null and void in its entirety, unless the law contains a severability clause. And I just read last night that, incredibly, they neglected to put a severability clause into Obamacare

Love to have a real lawyer weigh in, too. Haven't read anything that doesn't assume a severability clause. But don't know for sure.

Jim P.

Disagree with you a bit. Just the diabetes thing. I was diagnosed in 2007 with diabetes. However, through diet alone, my doctor at this point doesn't even have me testing my sugar anymore. He doesn't classify me as diabetic, even though, I initially was on insulin when diagnosed.

I know I'm a rarity, but changing my diet (thanks amy for the Eades advice - it's been great), and losing close to 40 pounds has made all the difference. So while technically, I could be classified as diabetic, I don't have to do anything but watch my diet, and maybe exercise when I feel like it, to keep control.

Sorry, Jim, other than that, I agree completely. Caps would go a long way in lawsuits to help. So would making sure that the same price is charged, regardless of insurance or not.

You're welcome Amy. I should state, that 40 pounds was in the first year and a half. Since starting the Eades, a month ago, I've lost about 20 more. I'm down to 200 right now, and am planning on getting down to about 180.

Good part is, had to buy a whole bunch of new clothes. And yes, I like clothes shopping. :)

"Raich v. Gonzales in 2005 is the most recent decision of consequence I know about; the ruling was that under the Commerce Clause, Congress may criminalize homegrown cannabis that never crosses state lines despite state law permitting it. Thomas dissented, but Scalia and Kennedy voted with the liberal justices allowing that regulation."

Thanks, Christopher; I had forgotten about that one. Scalia's vote in particular is puzzling to me. I'll have to go do some research and find out what he has said about that case. Off the top of my head, it would appear to be a case of drug-war hysteria (something which unfortunately infected a lot of conservatism starting in the '60s), but maybe there's more to it. But yeah, off the top of my head, it appears indefensible.

Well as I far as I can tell congress screwed up and forgot the severablity clause.

We can only hope they don't amend it before the SCOTUS gets through with it. And hope that SCOTUS doesn't do its own severing in the ruling.

Steve,

Thanks for the vote of confidence on having cogent arguments.

As far as the diabetes argument -- it also applies to several other drugs that have been reclassified. There was a case in the last few years where the FDA reclassified a morphine product (only given to the terminally ill) that restricted its use and restricted its manufacture. It cost about $10-15 a vial and had been around long before the FDA. Granted it has a 100% addiction rate among non-pain users. Among the terminally ill (and those who have severe pain) -- its addiction rate was low. It was also very effective in pain management.

From what I remember of the reclassification is that big pharma wanted the change because they wanted to sell the new drugs they have come up with at $50 a vial. The FDA kowtowed to them.

I can't find the reference for the drug. (It buries under the others in a google search.)

Another example is Plavix vs. aspirin. My lady was on warfarin. Coumadin as trade name -- it is an anti-coagulant that can have significant issues. Don't even mention heparin. I went through significant research on the anti-coagulants on the market. If you look at the studies between Plavix and aspirin; Plavix is about 3% more effective than aspirin as an anti-coagulant, but has about a 10% more chance of giving you an ulcer. (Those numbers may be off but in general correct -- it was seven years ago.)

Add to that -- she was on Medicaid (I know, hypocritical). We couldn't get her doctor to approve the equivalent of a glucometer (about $500) for home testing. The strips were about $2 a piece. We had to go into the lab for testing at about $50-75 a pop once a week/month, depending. The total on an average year was about $1500. (Plus I got to take mileage off on my taxes for health care.)

I'm not against the research of big pharma making a profit, but at the same time good & old works just as well in some cases.

As you can tell I've seen the health care system up close and from a distance. My current job has me supporting software for nursing homes. I'm able to see how Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest of the insurance and medical care system interacts in the background.

I know I'm at one end of the spectrum with my health care. I don't have a primary physician and am rarely ill. The last time I had to see a doctor was when I ran a chisel into my hand and needed seven stitches (long story). I removed the stitches myself.

Just throwing in my $0.02 for this debate.

Jim,

I think that is something we need to end. Lobbying by companies (Pharma or otherwise). They should have no means of access to influence the decisions of rule/legislation making bodies. That's just a situation bred for corruption (hence, our current state of government).

I find it kind of funny, when you hear a drug advertised on t.v., that the list of side effects, is usually the longest part of the commercial. And sorry, but if one of the possible side effects is death, why the hell would you take it, and why would the FDA approve something that could kill people, as a regular side effect, is beyond me. That alone should tell people how much the FDA is actually looking out for the Lobbying companies, not the citizens.

What if they had a cure for AIDS that killed 25% of the people that took it?

Sometimes the chance of death is better then the certainty of death.

Luj,

Good point, but we all die. It's only a matter of when. And approving drugs, that one of the side effects is death, doesn't seem beneficial to me. Granted, any drug, abused, could cause death, but when it is listed as a side effect in normal dosage, that doesn't seem beneficial to me.

The FDA's mandate is:

FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.

FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines more effective, safer, and more affordable and by helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to maintain and improve their health.

That is from the FDA Website.

Seems to me, they aren't assuring the public safety by allowing drugs to be marketed and prescribed, that a normal side effect is death.

Sorry, didn't close the tag correctly. That second paragraph, that starts with FDA is part of the "What we do" page linked.

I dont disagree with your sentiments about the FDA Steve, or about the drugs the approve, Vioxx, Fen-Fen, ect, and I'm all for fully informed consent as oppsed to cherry picking clinic studies, but some times if the disease is bad enough the risk is worth it

Lujlp,

I get that sentiment. I guess for me, if the disease is that bad, is giving someone a drug that is likely to kill them, worth it? Ultimately, I guess it would boil down to what is the chance it will kill you. And how exactly do they test that?

"Hi, we'd like to conduct a study to see how many of you die taking this drug. Who wants to volunteer?".

One of the reasons I look at the whole system with a jaundiced eye is the book The Immortals.

Giving away a little of the plot -- basically the AIDS vaccine that was created caused V-CIDS (a worse disease). The moral judgment of the U.S. population was that you must be immoral for getting vaccinated against AIDS. Very interesting read.

The point is that when the government controls the information -- you can't trust it. Or when certain groups control it -- you can't trust it.

I can't agree with wikileaks, but at the same time I can't agree with government control of info.