Constructive gadfly
Published on October 14, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Apparently many conservatives rush to the defense of corporate bodies they lionize as gods of Olympus endowed with divine wisdom. Or is it simply more out of hatred for anything smelling governmental? Criticism of multinationals and corporations does not necessarily infer dictatorial government action. Then again, if indeed there is such love for corporations that deliver the goodies of this affluent nation, then why criticism at all? — surely the gods are our deliverance.

We should accept the impudence of the pharmaceutical companies that ship their products wholesale or at huge discounts to Canada, after all, it is good for the export sector. Never mind that Canadians enjoy these products at low cost if at all while our citizens pay two, three times as much. Is there not supreme irony when the industry is willing to support Canada’s socialized medicine while denying bulk discounts to our own government? Could it be that the $21 billion spent each year on marketing here has something to with it? And what of the myth of research costing billions for each product when time and time again company research was on the backs of public supported scientists? Are we to believe that packaging and hopeful advertising are a part of “research”? — let alone the elaborate junkets for romancing physicians.

Until Nader’s Raiders and ilk came along, we blindly believed that a myriad of products were safe and healthful since Sinclair’s Jungle exposé. Apparently such exposés have to be repeated to every generation. To believe the corporate profit motive is ethically enlightened and nowhere near the slippery salivating of a used car salesman is from fantasy land of slothful faith. Given the marvel of entrepreneurialism, does not, however, give license to ungoverned monopolies and take-overs that ironically stifle opportunity for further entrepreneurs with a better mousetrap.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 14, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments
on Oct 14, 2004
You must be upset, Steve. You're not usually this stridently irrational and selective with your facts.

There is a lot that can be better about the pharmaceutical companies but you gloss over the fact that many of the biggest are not even U.S. companies, but multinationals based in Europe or Japan, where a lot of the actual manufacturing is done as well. One can argue that that's one of the problems, but the whole issue is much more complicated than you imply.

Direct-to-consumer advertising is a huge problem in my view and a ban on that could be as easily justified as the controls on tobacco and liquor advertising, etc. That's where they're putting their marketing dollars now, not in "elaborate junkets for romancing physicians" which pretty much doesn't happen anymore, though it did in years past. Consumer advertising is relentlessly driving the demand for the latest/greatest cholesterol drug and the cure for the "gremlin" under your toenail, not to mention the longest & strongest boner of all time.

Health care costs have gone up dramatically over the past 30 years for a lot of interrelated reasons, too numerous & complex to chew on at length here, but one thing seldom, if ever, mentioned in discussions of healthcare costs is how much has been saved through technologic advancements over that same interval, in terms of dollars, pain, suffering & lost productivity. The risks and morbidity of many surgical procedures have diminished dramatically through the development of endoscopic and microsurgical techniques. Our ability to avoid surgery altogether for many conditions has been greatly enhanced by phenomenal leaps in imaging technology, non-invasive treatments and, dare I say, drugs. Hospital stays are dramatically shorter, people are able to return to productive activity much faster after acute illnesses & surgery, and many surgical procedures formerly requiring hospitalization can be done in ambulatory facilities. Placing a dollar value on much of this progress is almost impossible but it is huge without question. The hidden savings in terms of costs avoided, both economic and physical, are almost never talked about because they can't be measured the way expenditures for drugs can be, for example. They just get taken for granted. And don't forget, we're more willing to pay $150 for for a Don Henley concert than we are to part with a $20-30 copayment for a half hour of our doctor's time. We have a very schizophrenic view about "healthcare" - we want it now, we want it painless, we want it the "best," we want no expense spared to make sure "we" are OK, but "Holy Jesus, healthcare is too damn expensive, and I'm gonna sue that sonofabitch who gave me Vioxx."

Healthcare. Sounds simple. Isn't.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 14, 2004
The problem with drugs and the free market is one of leverage. Typically, the market regulates costs because excessive prices either result in fewer customers or undercutting by competition. When the consequences of not purchasing medicine are ill health or death, the consumer has almost no leverage against the company.

In general, I support free markets, but in the case of drugs, I would favor restricting end-consumer advertising and allowing the importation of price-controlled Canadian drugs. However, I don't think that price controls are a viable long-term solution.

I think the key to controlling health care costs is giving people an incentive to lower the cost of their own care through health savings accounts.
on Oct 14, 2004
In general, I support free markets, but in the case of drugs, I would favor restricting end-consumer advertising and allowing the importation of price-controlled Canadian drugs. However, I don't think that price controls are a viable long-term solution.
Well, what do you know, a compromising Madine! 
seldom, if ever, mentioned in discussions of healthcare costs is how much has been saved through technologic advancements over that same interval, in terms of dollars, pain, suffering & lost productivity
Not to mention the huge creation of jobs.