Megan McArdle rants on BloggingHeads Tv that health care reform will kill people. McArdle gives the libertarian argument that health care reform will kill the competion for innovative new drugs. Mark Schmitt literally laughs at her argument.
Obama's health care plan does not kill private pharmacuitical companies. McArdle fails to understand market is created by demand. There will always be sick and terminally ill patients. The demand for current and new drugs is there during economic prosperous and weak times. The pharmacuitical industry couldn't have a better market. Medicine is not a luxury item. People need it to live.
The Bush administration hindered choice and competition. President Bush refused to allow cheaper drugs to come from Canada. Senator Orrin Hatch explain if we import drugs the terrorist wins.
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said, ''If this proposal becomes law, we are just placing our country in the hands of foreign terrorists who could easily get hold of various prescription drug products and spread desolation and disease.''
That is a silly argument. The FDA can screen the drugs. No one is arguing to have unsafe drugs enter the country. It is amazing Republicans are arguing against free trade and competition. Not so amazing considering what pharmacuitical companies spent contributing to the Republican Party during the 2004 and 2006 campaign cycles. Conservative ideology for free markets takes a backseat to lobbyists.
I'm not suprised McArdle would argue against health care reform. She defended accused murderer Scott Roeder and professed her crush on Bobby Jindal. There is no reason to expect McArdle to make a rationale argument. What I don't understand is why anyone would pay her to blog?
That is a silly argument. The FDA can screen the drugs. No one is arguing to have unsafe drugs enter the country. It is amazing Republicans are arguing against free trade and competition. Not so amazing considering what pharmacuitical companies spent contributing to the Republican Party during the 2004 and 2006 campaign cycles. Conservative ideology for free markets takes a backseat to lobbyists.
ReplyDeleteWell, that's it right there, I'm afraid.
It's the same argument they all had when it came to passing COOL (Country of origin labeling), which required food to say where it comes from. A number of conservatives opined that this would encourage racism in shopping--that people would only buy things that came from countries they didn't hate, or something.
Yes, conservatives were suddenly worried about racism. Right.
Never mind the fact that they usually love to bleat the whole "we are free to make our own choices" line--if you aren't informed about something, how is your choice even marginally "free"? Doesn't the consumer have the right to the information he needs to make informed choices? Isn't the fact that so much of the stuff coming in from abroad, esp. from China, was suspect, if not outright dangersous (melamine, antifreeze in toothpaste, etc.) And shouldn't the consumer be able to avoid things from countries with known records of problems--and thus the market would pressure said countries to clean up their acts?
Oh, but no. Lots of US companies operate in China; lots of Chinese companies export cheap goods to US companies here. Like WalMart. Who, incidentally, spent millions of dollars in lobbying Congress to not pass COOL. I wonder why.
What this democracy *really* needs is a total ban on all corporate lobbying (not the old-fashioned, non-profit advocacy groups, different animal), especially soft and hard money donations. Campaign finance reform, everyone!
Free speech legal issues will probably prevent limits on corporate lobbying. I understand corporations are legally briding Congress into pssing pro-bisiness legislation. (See: bankruptcy bill)
ReplyDeleteYes, conservatives were suddenly worried about racism. Right.
The conservative argument against Sotomayor proves otherwise. Rush Limbaugh cares about racial tolerance? Since when?
And shouldn't the consumer be able to avoid things from countries with known records of problems--and thus the market would pressure said countries to clean up their acts?
Conservatives believe in deregulation until lobbyists want something regulated. Bush wasn't worried about Chinese products but we are to believe he prevented cheaper generic drugs because of safety. That doesn't pass the laugh test.
I'm interested in how come McArdle doesn't talk about having a federally sponsored military hurting the free market of military contractors. McArdle can inform us on how the defense industry doesn't make enough money for new weapon systems. The missile defense system and the stealth bombers are prove of that. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.