obviously there are a lot of problems with our health care system (as I imagine there are with ANY health care system, despite what you Canadians say
).
To address some points
Ustwo made, "quacks" are the reason you can sue for malpractice. Of course, if you're dead from a bad drug combination, it doesn't do you much good. But that's why people should be alert when choosing a doc, and not just pick a name out of a hat. I've definitely seen a fair number of asshole docs that only care about the money they're making.
martin suggests a panel, but that would be WAY too expensive to set up for EVERY perscription being filled (I myself fill at least three a month). Even just for narcotics would be rediculous.
Now, as to docs being paid to perscribe drugs...that goes with the "quacks." They're obviously more concerned about money than patients, and you can usually tell the minute you meet them. And,
MrSelfDestruct, just cause they have a lot of shit from one company doesn't mean they're in their pocket. Some drug companies give you that stuff no matter what. Maybe your doc just thought it was a great med. My mom used to take stuff from the drug companies, and then percribe what she thought was best for the patient. we got tickets to "Tony and Tina's Wedding" that way. I believe they aren't allowed to do that anymore, at least in Oregon.
Another point of
Ustwo's, any doc can perscribe any med NOW, no matter how far out of their field it is. The pharmacists aren't checking that, as far as I know.
All that being said, I still think this is a bad idea. It's going to have consequences beyond those that it's intended to have (assuming it's actually aimed at pharmacists refusing percriptions, and not some ulterior motive). It's the wrong tool for the job, using a wrench to hammer in a nail. It might do the trick, but it's not optimum.