Today, I’m going to address several issues springing from GOP wannabe presidential nominee Rick Santorum’s rap about drug costs and $900 iPads:
· The desirability of Economic Disclosure Laws;
· Genuine health care reform;
· “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research,” [see Footnote One];
· Considerations based on the U.S. Constitution;
· The importance of ridding our Congress of all Democrats and Republicans.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rick Santorum’s rap
My Footnote One links to an article from which I offer five quotes below, as well as my comments to each:
QUOTE #1:
GOP contender Rick Santorum had a heated exchange with a mother and her sick young son Wednesday, arguing that drug companies were entitled to charge whatever the market demanded for life-saving therapies.
My Comment #1:
I highlighed four words above to disagree: The drug companies have an inflated sense of entitlement, not the patients who need their drugs. Fact is, the drug companies are “entitled” to exactly whatever the laws and the courts decide. The market isn’t an entity entire of itself; it is defined, regulated, and legislated by our government.
What Santorum really meant to say was: “Drug companies are entitled to charge whatever they feel like charging.” But do they? Consider this from Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to…provide for the…general welfare of the United States…To promote the progress of science… by securing for limited times to…inventors…the exclusive right to their…discoveries…
Congress could use its power to “provide for [our] general welfare” by insisting on only a reasonable level of profit rather than one that gouges our pocketbooks. Drug companies do have a right to make a profit but not such an unreasonable profit that negatively impacts on the “general welfare of the United States.” For how can that welfare be assured for those too poor to afford artificially inflated prices – a charge substantiated by the article I reference in Footnote One, below?
I would go even farther by suggesting: If a drug company withheld (by means of price gouging) a drug that could have saved someone’s life, that company should be brought up on charges in a wrongful death lawsuit.
QUOTE #2:
“People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” Santorum said, “but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with — it keeps you alive. Why? Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”
My Comment #2:
Santy claims “people have no problem paying $900 for an iPad.” To which I ask, which people? I don’t think he could have meant “People like you…” when addressing the mom of that sick child, for how could he know what she spends her money on?
As for what we’re “conditioned to think,” the drug companies have done a pretty good job at that, as I’ll explain in my comment # 4, below. Besides, I don’t think any American has “been conditioned to think health care is something” we don’t have to pay for. Closer to the truth would be something like this: “Americans know they have to pay at least something for their medical care, as in the case of deductibles and co-pays mandated by their insurance policies, while hoping their investment in health insurance serves as a hedge against the possibility of catastrophic illness.”
That’s closer to the truth, which is something Santorum (pitching to the Tea Party) obviously cares little for.
QUOTE #3:
The mother said the boy was on the drug Abilify, used to treat schizophrenia, and that, on paper, its costs would exceed $1 million each year.
My Comment #3:
My gullibility detector went into high gear when I heard about a cost exceeding $1 million per year. Nobody challenged this! After doing a little routine searching on Google, I came up with $9,600 per year – based on a max daily dosage of 30 mg per day, costing $26.32. Of course, even $26 per day is a fortune for most of us, though I notice Santorum didn’t bat an eyelash when the mom claimed a cost of $1 million per year. He dutifully jumped through the Tea Party and Big Pharma hoop of let-the-market-determine-the-cost.
That mom should have asked Santorum: “If you had to pay $26 a day to save the life of your daughter, assuming you had only my kind of financial resources, would it be okay with you to let her die because you couldn’t afford the expense?” Believe me, people like Santorum don’t do well against such thoughtful questions.
QUOTE #4:
Santorum said drugs take years to develop and cost millions of dollars to produce, and manufacturers need to turn a profit or they would stop developing new drugs.
My Comment #4:
I’m sure Santorum can’t really believe this; for if he does, he’s too big a dumb ass to be President.
I cite the following from the article cited in my Footnote One:
It is widely claimed that research to discover and develop new pharmaceuticals entails high costs and high risks….
[and]
This article takes apart the most detailed and authoritative study of R&D costs in order to show how high estimates have been constructed by industry-supported economists, and to show how much lower actual costs may be. Besides serving as an object lesson in the construction of ‘facts’, this analysis provides reason to believe that R&D costs need not be such an insuperable obstacle to the development of better medicines.
By the way, this article is well worth your time to read even if you, as did I, find parts of it to be over our heads.
QUOTE #5:
[Santorum said]: “Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don’t have incentives, they won’t make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don’t.”
My Comment #5:
Fact is, as their profits show, companies have more than adequate incentives (which should be kicked down to merely “adequate incentives”) to make drugs. As the Light and Warburton article shows:
The deeper problem is that current incentives reward companies to develop mainly new medicines of little advantage and compete for market share at high prices, rather than to develop clinically superior medicines with public funding so that prices could be much lower and risks to companies lower as well.
As for Santorum’s claim, “We either believe in markets or we don’t,” he’s being too simplistic. The markets I believe in aren’t tilted in favor of Big Pharma by a Congress that allows itself to be overwhelmed by lobbyists. The markets I believe in are tilted in favor of support for the general welfare of our citizens.
Economic Disclosure Laws
I don’t believe in excessive secrecy, though one might ask “What is excessive?” You might not want your personal financial status to be open to public inspection. Most people feel, “That’s nobody’s business but my own.” On the other hand, most of us are uncomfortable knowing that billions of US dollars are moved overseas or reside in secret Swiss bank accounts held by our 1%. The plain fact of the matter is, how can our policymakers develop economic policies without adequate information? As pointed out by Light and Warburton:
[Drug] companies tightly control access to verifiable facts about their risks and costs, allowing access only to supported economists at consulting firms and universities, who develop methods for showing how large costs and risks are; and then the public, politicians and journalists often take them at face value, accepting them as fact.
But, of course, firebrands like Santorum will thunder about the rights of corporations (which are, in his view, really “persons”) being trampled by any hint of accountability. I, however, consider such transparency to be a cost of doing business. We-the-People have a potent argument in our arsenal: “If you want to do business in the United States, if you want access to that tremendous market, there’s a certain price you have to pay.” We can make them pay that price.
Another Constitutional argument
I’d quote this earlier – from Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to…provide for the…general welfare of the United States…To promote the progress of science… by securing for limited times to…inventors…the exclusive right to their…discoveries…
Drug companies are acting against the “progress of science” by their behavior which neglects the research of other-than-the-most-profitable drugs. Congress could invoke its power to “promote the progress of science” by placing severe restrictions on patents granted to Big Pharma. For instance, the right of Congress to secure “for limited times [which, at its discretion, could turn out to be very limited indeed] to…inventors the exclusive right to their…discoveries” could result in a lengthier exclusive license for some drugs but not for others – on a case-by-case basis! Big Pharma might want to consider very carefully how a completely independent Congress could upset their apple cart.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Truth in packaging – my role in this debate
I’m not going to pretend I’m some kind of policy wonk with all the answers. I’m just a guy running for the office of US President, hoping to oppose Barack Obama and whichever hapless Republican ends up getting nominated. As President, I would like to invite Congress to assume the leadership which our Founding Fathers had intended in the first place. In order of importance, the US Constitution defines:
1) The Legislative Branch – in Article I;
2) The Presidency – in Article II;
3) The Judiciary – in Article III; and
4) The States – in Article IV.
US citizens don’t appreciate this listing as being in order of importance. However, this order was intentional, especially in view of how profoundly our forefathers distrusted kings. For further proof of their intention, look no further than this: The Congress can be said to be supreme when compared to the Presidency and the Judiciary simply because Congress can impeach them for any reason it sees fit (or for no reason at all). The power to impeach is absolute and is not reviewable, except (in a manner of speaking) by the voters who would react badly to any unreasonable proceedings.
As President, I would like to ask the Congress to pass health care legislation with an eye on decreasing costs to the public. If a special Congress were to pass such legislation by a simple-majority, I would sign it without hesitation and without making any signing statements. In fact, I would sign all laws enacted by a special Congress automatically and without comment.
Which leads to a question: “What do I mean by a special Congress?” Simply this: A Congress consisting solely of independents – without a single organized party member in its ranks. If we had a Congress that truly reflected the will of the people (instead of lobbyists), then I (as President) would find it impossible to thwart that Congress with a veto. How could I be so arrogant as to assume the right of one man to deny such a great assembly?
One can speculate as to why the Founders thought it necessary to create a head of state. My opinion is, they couldn’t wholeheartedly believe what they themselves had written in the Declaration of Independence, that “…all men are created equal…” The Founders were basically an elite who thought themselves better than the common rabble, and certainly superior to the slaves many of them owned.
But more to the point concerns their vision of what a Congress ought to be. They didn’t envision the development of our political party system, which has become so dominant in our affairs. They didn’t envision the professional politician who would remain entrenched in Congress for decades. If anything, they thought pillars of the community or retired gentlemen of leisure would seek to give service for a few years. These would be men (and that was the idea at that time, women not even being considered) who could afford to take time off from their personal affairs to dedicate two (or, in the case of the Senate, six) years of their lives to the greater good. After serving briefly, they would either permanently retire or return to their enterprises left in the hands of temporary managers.
The Congress we have now is not the Congress imagined by our Founding Fathers, and has indeed given rise to a corruption rivaled in the waning days of the Roman Empire.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“As the next US President, I hope to fulfill the ideal of the Philosopher King as envisioned by the ancient Greeks – with more emphasis on ‘Philosopher’ than ‘King.’ Rick Santorum would greedily and gleefully reverse that order.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote One:
Title and description: “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research,” a 17-page article by Drs. Donald Light and Rebecca Warburton appearing in BioSocieties, copyrighted in 2011 by the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Footnote Two:
Title and description: “Rick Santorum Tells Sick Kid Market Should Set Drug Prices,” by Russell Goldman, Feb. 1, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment