Drug company profits are a form of rent seeking as long as we have government organzations like the DEA and FDA limiting entry into the market.

Iraq spies in USA from Canada

[Link: www.nydailynews.com...]

Interesting to note that among Marxists, anti-Americanism was (is) wide-spread. Communism has failed. When will they ever learn? Man IS not equal and artificial nivellation only leads to uproar and chaos. We need diversity and the powers of the market. With some social parachutes (I say, SOME...)

If only we had capitalism in the drug and medicine markets we would be much better off.

Instead we have government mandated price controls. Government mandated limits on entry of practitioners to the market. Government mandated limits on the number of hgh tech medical machines in a given market. Huge government subsidies and control on large segments of the market.

Because of medicare and medicaid something like 95% of the doctors (or more) come under government control.

And then the lefties complain that the market is not working.

The problem with medicine in America is not capitalism it is socialism and corporate socialism.

While I certainly agree that it is too difficult to bring new drugs and treatments to market, I don't want to go back to the totally unregulated past.

It is unquestionably in a drug company's best interests to develop the most effective treatments. Sadly, that won't stop someone from trying to cheat the system - even though cheating usually means making less money, and being vulnerable to prosecution!

That said, while I do believe that the government has a role in determining the safety and efficacy of a drug, treatment regimen, or piece of medical equipment, the price of those things should definitely be left up to the manufacturer or practicioner.

M. Simon,

I work in the healthcare industry, and I can tell you that you are right in your comments. Just look at Medicare and Medicaid. If these aren't socialist programs, I don't know what is.

If people had to pay their own health care costs (ie, Medical Savings Accounts, etc.), the costs would come down due to natural market forces. Most of us have health insurance paid by our employer, or the government pays for our insurance. What incentive is there to save money in that situation?

TV

3 hans ze beeman

Interesting to note that among Marxists, anti-Americanism was (is) wide-spread. Communism has failed. When will they ever learn?

Oh, it didn't fail because it's a system that doesn't work - it failed because us capitalists exploit starving women, children, and people of melanin! It's OUR fault! ;)

What an excellent article. As the “debate” over Iraq play out, I have grown more and more curious about those who “argue” from the left. I just don’t understand how they arrive at their conclusions, and am frustrated that they seem to be equally astonished as to how I’ve arrived at mine.

The answer is elusive, but I think this chasm exists because intellectually, the right and the left part ways very early on when developing their world view. I believe that those on the right apply a kind of utilitarianism to problem solving. What is the NET result of action or inaction? Those on the left can’t see past the GROSS figures: “People will die if we attack Iraq, therefor it is wrong”.

This happens in economics as well. Those on the right believe that we as a nation will grow stronger economically if we keep the government out of business, and allow the free enterprise system to play out. We know full well that in this environment, people with few resources, or little ability will not prosper. This is acceptable, because the NET gain will be greater overall prosperity.

This is NOT acceptable to those on the left because they can’t get past the fact that Bill Gates is a billionaire, and they aren’t.

Analogy:

I was a Navy Seabee in the early 90's, and served in a construction battalion for five years. During the first 4 of those years, females were excluded from the battalions. This changed, and women began to join our ranks during my last year.

The typical "right" point of view is this: The mission of the military is so crucial, that unit-effectiveness trumps all else, including the exclusion of women and gays, even though this may be dicsriminatory and unfair to individuals.

The typical "left" argues: Discrimination is ALWAYS wrong, and the military must accomodate everyone. Period.

In the seabees, we would run every morning as a group. We ran at the pace of the slowest runner, and would not allow any stragglers. We would forever circle back around to pick them up if needed. When women joined our ranks, this became ridiculous. Our pace slowed to the point that no one but the women and the weak benefitted.

What strikes me most about the term idiotarian is how basically polite it is. It basically describes a person who clings to outmoded or shallow beliefs out of habit or obstinancy rather than intimating that its due to a deficiency in the person's makeup the way the more traditional and more commonly accepted dumbass does.

Consider the following:

John's insistence of responding to the debate by constantly yelling No Blood For Oil rather than discussing our concerns about aggression shown by Saddam Hussein leads us to conclude he is an idiotarian.

As opposed to this:

John's insistence of responding to the debate by constantly yelling No Blood For Oil rather than discussing our concerns about aggression shown by Saddam Hussein leads us to conclude he is a dumbass.

However, in the interest of politeness, if the people who we tend to call idiotarians are offended by its use and don't consider it to be an actual word I'll suck it up and use the more accepted dumbass instead. Would anyone else agree?

#5,

When the FDA vetted just for safety getting a new drug through the system cost about $20 million.

Now with safety and efficasy proofs required it takes years longer and costs $250 million. Lives are lost by the delay and the high costs of drugs necessary to recoup the regulatory process costs.

I think a private system like UL (electrical and fire safety) could work well for drugs too. UL is supported by user fees and the insurance ndusty. Plus they have competition from the Canadian CSA. This keeps costs in line.

In addition we have the DEA actively supressing natural cannabis medicines while promoting synthetic alternatives. Some of the biggest supporters of the Drug Free Amreica campaign are drug companies. Go figure.

They also restrict one of the best pain relievers known to man based on a false view of the nature of addiction (drugs cause addiction). Of course synthetic versions of this drug are widely accepted despite being equally "addictive". There is no doubt about the rent seeking nature of these prohibitions.

A bit of information for those people who want to speak inteligently about Health care reform: (taken from [Link: www.odci.gov...] )

Canada (widely accepted as having a socialist health care system)
Infant mortality rate: 4.95 deaths per 1000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: 79.69 years

United States (widelly accepted as having a capitalist health care system)
Infant mortality rate: 6.69 deaths per 1000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: 77.4 years

... as John E. Calfee pointed out recently, when this policy is analyzed from the perspective of Market Pricing, we can see that it reduces research and adds to suffering, particularly in the Third World.

He needn't have bothered -- the economic idiotarians don't care if their policies really work or not, so long as they're "fair".

Marxism is about exploiting popular prejudices and resentments for political gain; the more suffering you have the more resentment there is to exploit.

For a similar reason, certain people in this country would be truly sorry to see poverty and racism disappear, as they would have nothing left to say afterwards.

to alex on healthcare reform:

your reported life expectancy disparity between the u.s. and canada of 2.59 years confirms my long-held suspicion that all canadians are women.

did you bother to check and see whether the infant mortality rate has anything to do with america's tendency to produce crack babies?

I wasn't sure what to make of #12. I mean, there is an implied point, but I'm not sure if it's the one the author intended. alex, would you care to elaborate?

The implication that I infer, is that because the infant mortality rates and life spans are *marginally* better in Canada, this proves a superior health care system.

This ties neatly in with the point I wast trying to make in #8:

An idiotarian (usually left-leaning) sees those stats, and processes them according to their world view. There is no room for in-depth analysis if the easy conclusion confirms what they already "know" to be true: Capitalism is bad for babies and all living things.

Other factors such as climate and demographics need not be examined as possible contributions to these statistics. That would just needlessly complicate the issue.

It truly amazes, the degree to which people will filter out "unwanted facts" that don't confirm what they want to hear.

Idiotarian: "George Bush is ruining the economy."
Anti-Idiotarian: "But the economy was showing signs of decline well before GW took office."
Idiotarian: "LA LA LA. I can't HEAR you!"

An answer to the mystery of the Idiotarian is nicely laid out, at least for me, in the chapter "The Missing Link" in Ayn Rand's "Philosophy, Who Needs It." The process by which the link becomes missing, if you will, is described in the chapter "The Comprachicos," found in her book "The New Left-The Anti-Industrial Revolution."

re #13 Nothing left to say? Or nothing left to bind together a lot of frightened people, whom other equally frightened, but craftier, people can exploit for power and money?

Rand also said: "Don't bother to examine a folly, just ask yourself what it accomplishes."

Isn"t the efficacy of a theory best measured by how well it predicts behavior?

North Korea has socialized medicine (like Canada) but their infant mortality rates are appaling when compared with capitalist South Korea.

And no, I am not a brainwashed American. I am proud to be Canadian.

And those figures are meaningless when other factors that distinguish the two nations aren't taken into acccount. It isn't two identical nations, one with socilism and one without.

Every time a 19 year old gangbanger kills another 19 year old gangbanger, that drops our national life expectancy average.

If you break it down into regions, just across an area small as Los Angeles County, you can find dramatic differences in average life span just by living in the right or wrong neighborhood.

THere are other parts of LA County as poor as South Central but don't murder each other with such great frequency and thus enjoy superior average lifespans within the same economic stratum.

flashback to 1979...

Nostalgiafarian: "Jimmy Carter is ruining the economy."
Anti-Nostalgiafarian: "But the economy was showing signs of decline well before JC took office."
Nostalgiafarian: "LA LA LA. I can't HEAR you!"

Actually the economy was improving before Jimmy Carter took office. In particular the inflation rate was quite low compared to what it was after a few years of Jimmy's and the Democrats' economic poicy prescriptions.

Re: Canada's health system.

I think another factor to look at with regard to Canada's healthcare system is the number of immigrants in the US vs. the number in Canada. I have a feeling that those immigrants drive the infant mortality rate up and the life expectancy down. Of course, that speculation is based purely on circumstantial evidence!

I'm a Canadian and my (personal) health care plan is to make enough money, that when I require it, I can afford to go the States to get the best that money can buy.

Of course, making money in Canada is deemed almost a criminal activity.

One thing that really struck me, as a Canadian, in the State of the Union address was when the President said that his tax reforms would mean that a family of 4 making $45.000/yr would pay a total federal income tax of less than $400/yr.

$45,000 American is equivalent to approximately $71,000 Canadian. Canada's highest tax rate, for the 'wealthy', of 50% of everything you earn, kicks in at $65,000 Canadian, approximately $41,000 American.

There was a time, back in the mid seventies and earlier, when Canadian & American money traded essentially at par.

There is much windging and hand wringing north of the border about 'the declining Canadian dollar', our head in the sand government, says, "It is good for the Canadian exports."

This is true 'Idiotarian Economics'. The declining Canadian dollar is a direct result of our declining productivity in relation to the United States. While some of the decline is due to increased efficiencies in American production methods that we have yet to copy, the lion's share of the blame is directly attributable to the redicules tax burden we shoulder up here.

I've heard Canada described as 'Third world with carpets'.

Indeed.

BTW #16 Stephen

Invoking Ayn Rand in a discussion in Canada will earn you derisive laughter at best. As recently as 2 months ago, literature from the Ayn Rand institute was seized at the Canadian border as 'Hate Literature'.

I'm not a health care profesional so I don't feel qualified to diagnose what's wrong with the Health care systems in Canada and the U.S. That being said, my understanding is that infant mortality rate and life expectancy are measures of health care quality (thus my post in #12). My guess is that the cause for the worse numbers in the U.S is that poor people get crappy health care south of the border, but, crime rates are higher south of the border so that could be the cause.

re #21: Canada has a higher immigration rate then the states does, thus if immigrants were pulling down either countries numbers it would be Canadas. (Canadas birth rate isn't high enough to sustain the population thus we have to bring in immigrants in order to have population growth.)