Vioxx is an imperfect but useful example. It was a drug that was approved through some shady machinations by the manufacturer
-
Show this thread
-
Basically, Vioxx roughly doubled your risk of having a heart attack, but this was not recognized for 5 years, at which point 100,000s of people had taken it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
The cost to society of this single drug being approved was in the hundreds of millions
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Now, there are probably hundreds - thousands - of drugs that have been prevented from coming on the market that, like Vioxx, would cost us millions if they were sold to patients
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
The COST here - the number of dollars that the government spends on the Theraputic Goods Administration, the dollars that businesses spend on regulatory procedures - is easy to calculate
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
It's a simple sum: how many $ did we spend this year?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
But the BENEFIT? That is ~really hard~ to get. How much money did we save by NOT putting drugs into circulation, or funding them through the PBS?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
So when someone estimates that Evil Bad Red Tape costs Australia $176 billion, take a skeptical view
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Realistically, there are probably places you can cut red tape and see a benefit to society There are also plenty of places where red tape saves us enormous amounts of money
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Moreover, there are MANY places where red tape saves us something more ephemeral but no less important - endangered species, water quality, children's lives
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
Presenting it as "Red tape costs x" without also estimating the benefit is misleading at best
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.