|
Bettawrekonize -> RE: The FDA and health (1/1/2009 4:25:28 PM)
|
quote:
Participants in the forum heard Howard Wyers, owner of a health care benefits administrator in Michigan, speak of his efforts to encourage employees to quit smoking by offering incentives. When that did not deliver the results he wanted, Wyers told his 200 employees that he would no longer hire any smokers, and that anyone who did not quit smoking in the next 15 months would be fired. Eventually, he applied the rule to employees' spouses as well. Employers Consider Bold New Ways to Halt Smoking Among Workers I actually see this as a possible (real) threat to huge pharmaceutical corporations (eventually. The fact is that individual Americans independently fighting for what's best for themselves no longer seems to be a threat to large corporations fighting for what's best for their profit margins at he expense of the American people). My reasoning is as follows. Currently, the actions of the medical community, the actions of the FDA and other governmental bodies, and the actions of large pharmaceutical corporations have very little relevance with what's best for the health of the American people and they have far more relevance with what's best for the profit margins of large corporations. However, Productive employees = more profits Healthy employees = more productivity. Healthy employees = more profits. So this is the logic they're going to take. (Healthy employees = more profits) + (unhealthy employees = less profits) = make sure governmental laws endorse healthy employees. (Notice the word ethics do not appear anywhere in this equation. Even if employers of large corporations claim that their promotion of healthy employees is somehow relevant to ethics, it's probably not). Currently, the FDA and large pharmaceutical corporations are ran by a bunch of criminals (we're talking the same criminals who allowed Bayer to infect many people with Aids resulting in many deaths. In France and other places where this occurred, the governmental officials responsible for allowing this were punished. In the U.S it seems like no one was punished). Large corporations who want healthy employees (because healthy employees = more profits) are paying attention to this stuff and their reasoning is going to be as follows. (FDA & government = criminals.) + (FDA = arbitrator of food and medicine.) + (FDA = bans alternative medicine) + (FDA = thinks pharmaceutical drugs are best or us) + (Can we trust criminals to tell us that pharmaceuticals are better for my employees than alternative medicine? = no) + (healthy employees = more profits) = Make sure that governmental policies endorse good health. Make sure that my employees know what's best for their health. Make sure that studies on drugs, nutrients, and alternative medicine are conducted independently of the profit margins of large pharmaceutical corporations. Make sure that those who publish these studies are unbiased (that their choice of which studies to publish and which ones not to are unbiased). Oh, and some employers may think something like, "well, we can break the law and provide my employees with alternative medicine against the law." Do you really want to provide your employees with illegal herbs and nutrients, herbs and nutrients that are less regulated by governmental resources and the public eye (which means you have to regulate it with your own resources = more cost) and hence have a much higher potential of being contaminated with things like cyanide and arsenic (contamination = unhealthy employees = less profits) and they also have a higher potential of being of lower quality (which results in less healthy employees = less profits). It is in the best interest of large (non pharmaceutical) and coordinated corporations (with deep pockets) to ensure that the laws are designed for healthy employees. Pharmaceutical corporations are not endorsing healthy employees, they're endorsing their own profit margins. Large, coordinated corporations with deep pockets may work to correct this. (this is a message to large pharmaceutical corporations) I think the rest of the corporate world is becoming more aware of the fact that you are a bunch of criminals that can't be trusted with the health of corporate employees. Make no mistake, employers want their employees to be healthy (trust me, I know. Of course they pretend their enthusiasm for healthy employees is somehow relevant to ethics, lol. I think it's more relevant to profits). Be aware, the days of your unethical prosperity are numbered (God willing). You may find it very easy to push a bunch of uncoordinated Americans with little money around, but if you think it's going to be as easy for you to push huge corporations who find healthy employees relevant to good profits around, you're mistaken. You may find it easy to lie to the American people (through your proxy, the FDA), but I don't think it will be as easy to lie to large corporations who want healthy employees when good health is relevant to more profits.
|
|
|
|