Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Standing Athwart History Shouting... Something
Glenn Greenwald has a long and interesting post about what, if anything, "conservative" now means in America. For a disturbingly large portion of soi-disant conservatives, he notes, it seems to mean little more than support for George Bush—and "liberal" little more than critical of Bush, whatever the reason. And he hunts down an amusing old Free Republic thread on the dire threat to civil liberties posed by secret FISA courts (under Clinton).
|2.13.06 @ 1:02PM|#
"For a disturbingly large portion of soi-disant conservatives,
he notes, it seems to mean little more than support for George
Bush�and "liberal" little more than critical of Bush, whatever the
reason."
This mindless partisanship is not unique to American
"conservatives," but is perhaps most frightening to us right now
because we live in America (most of us, at least) and the
"conservatives" are in power.
|2.13.06 @ 1:10PM|#
Remember the study published a couple weeks ago that showed people were willing to completely ignore the truth and swallow what they were fed by their party?
Doc|2.13.06 @ 1:16PM|#
He's got a follow up describing the almost cartoon like
responses he's been getting from LGF and Jonah the whale:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/follow-up-to-bush-post-yesterday.html
|2.13.06 @ 1:31PM|#
What's great is, if you follow Greenwald's first link, which prompted him to post what he did, you find a post takig Greenwald to task for toeing the leftist line and dancing to the Daily Kos tune and blah blah blah blah. That post leads, apparently unironically and without further explication, with a painting called "The Betrayal of Christ." Think about the implications of that.
|2.13.06 @ 1:34PM|#
I suspect that the Blog medium has a lot of responsibility for
the phenomenon he's perceiving; after all, these are all bloggers
he's talking about, and blogging is a novel medium.
Should it not be likely that this new medium could foster the
evolution of ideologies, if only through their novel depictions in
the medium? And might it also then be said that it is the depiction
itself that is the issue?
MP|2.13.06 @ 2:01PM|#
Just imagine if people thought that H&R = "The collective wisdom of Reason staffers along with Jennifer, joe, Hakluyt, gaius, thoreau, mediageek, ..."
|2.13.06 @ 2:02PM|#
"people were willing to completely ignore the truth and swallow
what they were fed by their party"
In Soviet Russia. Party swallows you.
|2.13.06 @ 2:19PM|#
If anyone wants a real treat in unintentional irony, head over
to the Corner today. Scroll down to where Jonah Goldberg calls
Greenwald's argument "objectively inaccurate and stupid". Then
scroll back up to a post by John Podhoretz complaining that many
readers are accusing him of being "a liberal or being in a liberal
bubble" because he dared to say that Cheney shooting someone is a
big deal.
Hilarious.
|2.13.06 @ 2:19PM|#
If anyone wants a real treat in unintentional irony, head over
to the Corner today. Scroll down to where Jonah Goldberg calls
Greenwald's argument "objectively inaccurate and stupid". Then
scroll back up to a post by John Podhoretz complaining that many
readers are accusing him of being "a liberal or being in a liberal
bubble" because he dared to say that Cheney shooting someone is a
big deal.
Hilarious.
MP|2.13.06 @ 2:24PM|#
Gee I happen to remember that it was conservatives who went
after Myers not liberals.
Greenwald specifically addresses the Miers issue.
I also recall Bush catching hell from the right, and with good
reason, for the prescription drug benefit.
I recall a vast majority of the GOP voting in favor of the benefit
(only 9 Senate GOPers voted No). Furthermore, I recall hearing
about direct pressure from establishment GOPers (including, but not
limited to, POTUS) to keep the other dissenting GOPers in line.
|2.13.06 @ 2:30PM|#
(Sorry about the double post), John, you're projecting as well. Greenwald is not talking about "every Bush supporter", he's talking about a certain faction of the blogosphere, typified by NRO, LGF, Instapundit, etc. plus the more vocal histrionic right-wing media figures (Limbaugh, Malking, Coulter, etc.). In NRO's defense they're generally more reasonable and it is unfair of Greenwald to include them. Certainly Derbyshire is still a proud paleocon and no mindless Bush fanatic. (That would be Jay Nordlinger). But clearly a lot of NRO's readers are mindless Bush worshippers who do not hesitate to send nasty e-mails any time some one jumps out of line (see my post above). And it is also true that there are many on the Left who are just as mindless in their Bush hatred. But Bush is in power now, so it is the Bush fanatics who are to my mind currently more of a nuisance.
|2.13.06 @ 2:37PM|#
Andy, you make a good point, most people on the left are so
stupid that they probably do believe that bankrupting drug
companies is the way to ensure that there is a affordable supply of
medical drugs in this country and any plan that doesn't do that
must therefore be a bad idea.
"Most" people on the left want drug companies to go bankrupt? Have
you any links or statistics to support this, John, or are you just
projecting your own prejudices again?
|2.13.06 @ 2:37PM|#
Vanya,
Interesting that you point to Derbyshire, the one guy who objected
to the war. Isn't that really the point here; that anyone who
supports the war in Iraq must be a crazed fanatic who would support
Bush for anything? Again, Greenwald is projecting. I don't read his
post to be limited to a few places. Even giving Greenwald the
benefit of the doubt, it is still bad argument. "You will just
support Bush for anything" is not an arguement, its a personal
invective. If he disagrees with NRO or whoever about an issue,
fine, then say why they are wrong. That is not what Greenwald does,
however.
MP|2.13.06 @ 2:43PM|#
Greenwald specifically addresses the Miers issue
How? I don't see it in the post.
It's in the
follow-up post that Doc referenced above.
|2.13.06 @ 2:43PM|#
Most" people on the left want drug companies to go bankrupt?
Have you any links or statistics to support this, John, or are you
just projecting your own prejudices again?
Jennifer, I was responding to Andy's post that the left objects to
the prescription drug benefit because it benefits the drug
companies. I take Andy at his word that their objection is that
someone actually is allowed to make money makind prescription
drugs. If the only objection you have to spending 100s of billions
of dollars to buy old people drugs is that it helps the drug
companies (who by the way spend 100s of millions of dollars
researching and producing these marvelous drugs we have today), my
impression is that you have a problem with drug companies making
money and with the capitalist system as a whole. Indeed, I am sure
the Kosites are happy to see things like the Viox lawsuits, even
though it deprives people of a valuable drug and if they play out
the way the breast implant cases did, will bankrupt a company on
the basis of BS science. So, yes I feel pretty confident that the
left wouldn't have much of a problem with the evil drug companies
went bankrupt.
|2.13.06 @ 2:47PM|#
"I take Andy at his word that their objection is that someone
actually is allowed to make money makind prescription drugs."
Um, that wasn't Andy's word, John.
But then, that's never stopped you before.
|2.13.06 @ 2:53PM|#
His word was it benefits the drug companies at the expense of consumers, read they are allowed to make money. Certainly, having to actually respond to the substance of an argument is not something you lower yourself to very often. Perhaps it makes you feel uncomfortable. What do you think about things like the Viaox lawsuit and the cheerleading that goes on from the trial bar and their allies on the left? I think it is a tragedy that people who are suffering from horrible pain from arthytis are deprived of the drug and forced to take huge doses of anti-inflamatories, which we know will rot out their stomach linings just so a few lawyers can get rich.
|2.13.06 @ 2:54PM|#
I was responding to Andy's post that the left objects to the
prescription drug benefit because it benefits the drug
companies
But you didn't think to ask WHY they object to "benefiting the drug
companies"; you simply assumed that they want to see the drug
companies go out of business. You've got this idea that all
left-wingers are either evil or deluded, and thus you process
everything in such a way as to reinforce this belief.
I, for example, oppose laws which make it illegal for Americans to
buy drugs in other countries where the drugs are cheaper. I think
this does unfairly burden consumers, and benefits drug companies
when consumers are forced to pay far more than necessary for
certain drugs; this does not, however, mean I want to see drug
companies go bankrupt.
I am sure the Kosites are happy to see things like the Viox
lawsuits
And "Kosites = everybody on the left"? Come on. If I quoted Ann
Coulter as proof that all right-wingers are deranged bigots you'd
be justified in calling me unfair; why, then, do you do the same
thing for the left?
|2.13.06 @ 2:56PM|#
Chicago Tom,
In my world medicare is such a large consumer that it would
basically be able to dictate prices in a way that United Health
care could not. Allowing medicare to dictate prices is enacting
price controls by default since medicare is so large that it can
dictate the market price. In my world there is such a thing as
economic analysis rather than easy slogans from leftist
nitwits.
|2.13.06 @ 2:58PM|#
In my world there is such a thing as economic analysis
rather than easy slogans from leftist nitwits.
Sincere question, John: are there any left-wingers whom you don't
consider "nitwits" or "out to bankrpt drug companies"? I'm just
wondering if, in your worldview, it is possible to be to the left
of you politically without being dishonest, stupid or deranged.
|2.13.06 @ 2:59PM|#
"If the only objection you have to spending 100s of billions of
dollars to buy old people drugs is that it helps the drug companies
(who by the way spend 100s of millions of dollars researching and
producing these marvelous drugs we have today), my impression is
that you have a problem with drug companies making money and with
the capitalist system as a whole."
Wrong. The objections by the mainstream left was that the GOP'ers
in Congress specifically forbade Medicare from using it's large
size to negotiate lower drug prices with the pharmaceuticals.
Leveraging economies of scale to lower prices with suppliers is
very capitalistic. Preventing it is not.
|2.13.06 @ 3:00PM|#
In my world medicare is such a large consumer that it would
basically be able to dictate prices in a way that United Health
care could not.
John, do you have similar complaints about Wal-Mart?
|2.13.06 @ 3:01PM|#
Fair enough, Jennifer, not everyone is a KOSite on the left. Of course Greenwald might as well equate everyone who disagrees with him with Ann Coulter when he says that the only thing it means to be conservative is to agree with Bush, an outragous insult. That said, there are pricipled leftist reasons to support the drug benifit, yet none of them do. Do you really beleive that if a President Gore or Clinton had proposed the same program they wouldn't have supported it? I guess the whole point is how stupid and mundane Greenwald's post is. Yeah, people are partisian and object to or support things they wouldn't normally because they think it will give them a partisian advantage. This is some big insight on Greenwald's part? The left is somehow immune?
|2.13.06 @ 3:03PM|#
That said, there are pricipled leftist reasons to support
the drug benifit, yet none of them do.
What are these principled leftist reasons?
|2.13.06 @ 3:03PM|#
John, do you have similar complaints about Wal-Mart?
Medicare is Wall-Mart times 100. That is a completely irrelevent
analogy. Further, Wall-Mart has competition. If there is a limited
resource that Wall-Mart refuses to pay a premium for, there is
always Cost-Co or Target to pay that premium assuming there is a
demand. Medicare is so large that drug companies won't be able to
make back their investments if they can't sell to medicare.
|2.13.06 @ 3:04PM|#
There's a kernel of truth in this, but the "Liberals" bear just
as much of the blame as the "Conservatives".
As a Libertarian, considering myself outside of the spectrum, I
have to say that it's difficult to define the ideology for either
side. The standard definitions of Conservatism (small government
with fiscal restraint) certainly don't apply anymore. But too, I
can't discern a common Liberal theme other than "We're not
Bush!".
If the sides would show some evidence of a real ideology, we'd be
able to decide someone's position with some reasoning other than
"for us" and "against us".
But the Conservatives don't care about small government nor fiscal
responsibility. And the Liberals are pandering to all sorts of
"special interests" at the expense of the "common man".
Show us an ideology beyond political expediency that really defines
either side of the Left-Right divide!
MP|2.13.06 @ 3:04PM|#
John, do you have similar complaints about
Wal-Mart?
Jennifer, the issue is that Medicare is an arm of the government,
and thus it's decisions are politically influenced. When Medicare
starts negotiating prices in that fashion, we've taken another step
to socialized medicine.
|2.13.06 @ 3:07PM|#
Ah, where would John be without the inductive fallacy and the
tu quoque? Nowhere, that's where.
What's especially funny is that Greenwald is explicitly
not saying, as John claims, that the only thing it
means to be conservative is to agree with Bush, an outragous
insult. Which his followup post makes clear.
|2.13.06 @ 3:08PM|#
MP--Fair enough.
I'd still like to hear what John considers to be the principled
leftist complaints to the drug plan, though.
|2.13.06 @ 3:09PM|#
What are these principled leftist reasons?
1. It provides equal access to prescription drugs to the part of
society that most needs it.
2. It puts country two steps further down the road to a Canadian
style one payer health system by turning the godzilla that is
medicare loose on another sector of the market.
3. It is going to create another huge federal bureaocracy that will
have more federal employees and expand the federal government and
limit the private sector, which in the a leftist' eyes is always a
good thing.
4. Millions of poor seniors will benefit from the program. Granted
millions of rich seniors will benefit to, but that doesn't stop the
left from supporting entitlements such as social security that also
benefit the rich and middle class.
None of that matters of course, because Bush proposed it, and it
therefore must be evil. Democrats have been pushing for a drug plan
for years. I feel on pretty firm ground saying that Democrats stand
for and support a new huge federal entitlement, unless of course it
is supported by the evil Bush.
|2.13.06 @ 3:12PM|#
Hilarious, John. Of your four "principled leftist reasons," numbers two and three are simply repetitions of your leftist boogeyman idea, number 4 ignores the complaint that the program does in some ways HURT the poor by disallowing the negotiation of lower prices, and even number one is suspect, since one complaint is that there are so many complex and convoluted versions of the plan that many people don't even know what benefits they are eligible for under this plan.
|2.13.06 @ 3:13PM|#
What's especially funny is that Greenwald is explicitly not
saying, as John claims, that the only thing it means to be
conservative is to agree with Bush, an outragous insult. Which his
followup post makes clear.
No Phil, his follow up post is just bate and switch boobbait so
boobs like you can say that is not really what he is saying and
feel intelligent. If he is not saying that, then his whole post
boils down to "a few people might be partisian out there." Even
Greenwald is not that mundane.
|2.13.06 @ 3:16PM|#
Allowing medicare to dictate prices is enacting price
controls by default since medicare is so large that it can dictate
the market price. In my world there is such a thing as economic
analysis rather than easy slogans from leftist nitwits.
So because of medicare's size it should be forbidden from
negotiating lower prices? Tell me where your arbitrary cut off is?
As someone who pays taxes to fund Medicare, I would hope that
Medicare would be able to negotiate the lowest possible prices it
can and to try and keep the costs as far down as possible so that
public monies aren't being used to fill the coffers of politically
connected companies. The drug companies, if they feel they aren't
getting a good deal are free to forego that segment of the market
if they don't feel they are getting a good price.
That wouldn't be price controls, that would be the market in
action. But instead you would rather use the hand of government to
skew the market. You sound like a statist.
Your dishonesty about this issue is not surprising though.
|2.13.06 @ 3:16PM|#
Jennifer,
Did you not even read the posts above that show how allowing
medicare act as a market actor would act as a defacto price
control? Do you beleive in price controls? Did you never take
economics in school or read any history of their use in the 1970s?
Do you know what a price control is? It is not that hard of a
concept to grasp, yet you continue to act like allowing medicare to
negotiate prices is just like Wall-Mart allowing prices. That is
flat out not true and everyone knows it. The people who want that
are either too stupid to understand economics or want a price
control and to dishonest to admit it so they cloak it in the
langauge of the market, when what they want is just the
opposite.
|2.13.06 @ 3:19PM|#
Did you not even read the posts above that show how allowing
medicare act as a market actor would act as a defacto price
control? Do you . . . Did you. . . Do you (blah blah
blah)
Did you not read my post above in which I told MP
that I agreed comparing Wal-Mart to Medicare was an unfair
comparison?
|2.13.06 @ 3:21PM|#
No Phil, his follow up post is just bate and switch boobbait
so boobs like you can say that is not really what he is saying and
feel intelligent.
Nothing like using logical fallacies and calling someone a "boob"
to demonstrate your brilliant debating skills.
|2.13.06 @ 3:22PM|#
Chicago Tom,
Let's go over this again, only a little slower this time. Medicare
is not a private company. It is answerable to no one except the
political process. An insurance company has some incentive to
provide services to its customers and therefore, to some degree has
to pay what the market demands. Medicare is under no such burden.
It can set prices as low as it wants to and be considered a hero
for holding the price down. The drug companies have two choices.
One, not produce or sell the drug because the price is too low or
two sell to medicare and make their money back by over charging
non-medicare providers. Of course, there is a limit to how much
they can over charge because the private insurance companies only
have so much to pay. Thanks to you and Jennifer's desire to stick
it to the drug companies all of us get few drugs and everyone who
is not on medicare gets to pay higher prices for our drugs.
|2.13.06 @ 3:24PM|#
Good lord, are people actually this fucking stupid -- or is John
some one in a million outlier?
Most of the liberals I know were against the prescription drug bill
on the grounds that it would cost a shit ton of money and NOT
WORK.
Here's a hint: Liberals see big government as something that actual
works and can help people. Ergo, while many happen to feel that
universal health care (or at least drug coverage) is an excellent
area for the government to be involved in -- giving the
difficulties facing the uninsured and the poor -- they're only
going to support programs they think would work.
It's a waste of money -- if anything, liberals would see that MORE
keenly. It's not only wasting money they want to spend on
functioning programs, but it's giving big government a bad name AND
preventing a working prescription drug benefit from being
enacted.
It's an awful program from both the liberal and the conservative
viewpoint. The only people that like it would be people with lots
of investments in pharmacuetical companies, as it funnels a great
deal of money directly to them.
The VA gets a far better deal on drugs then this Medicare Part D
nonsense.
|2.13.06 @ 3:24PM|#
Did you not even read the posts above that show how allowing
medicare act as a market actor would act as a defacto price
control?
Just because you say it, doesn't make it so John. Negotiating with
a large entity is not a de-facto price control. If Wal-Mart were to
eventually become the size of Medicare through consolidation, would
you favor Wal-mart being banned from negotiating lower
prices?
For years all we have heard from people like you is how great
big-box stores are because they buy in bulk and negotiate lower
prices how that benefits the consumer, yet here you are attacking
that same concept because an actor is "too large"?
Again I will ask, when is an entity too large to negotiate prices?
And should any private sector entity be forbidden to negotiate
prices if they are deemed "too big" ?
|2.13.06 @ 3:26PM|#
Jennifer's desire to stick it to the drug
companies
What? When have I ever said I want to "stick it" to the drug
companies?
|2.13.06 @ 3:29PM|#
Morat,
If you are stupid enough to believe that liberals wouldn't jump on
any new fat entitlement proposed by a Democratic President, I feel
sorry for you. Yes, it is a bad program, but most government
programs are and liberals still love them. Jesus, are you so stupid
that you think that liberals supported welfare throughout the 1970s
and 80s becuase it was effective at ending poverty? Do you think
that their views of healthcare is anymore sophisticated? A
Democratic President would have produced something every bit as bad
or worse.
|2.13.06 @ 3:32PM|#
What? When have I ever said I want to "stick it" to the drug
companies?
That's what John hears in his head. You and I Jennifer are out to
kill big pharma in John's world.
Although I personally just want Medicare to get the same deal that
United Healthcare of Unicare gets, somehow in John land that means
death to Big Pharma.
|2.13.06 @ 3:33PM|#
John, I'll repeat my earlier question since you may not have seen it: are there any liberals or left-wingers whom you do NOT think are either stupid, dishonest, or some combination thereof?
|2.13.06 @ 3:35PM|#
John, I'll repeat my earlier question since you may not have seen it: are there any liberals or left-wingers whom you do NOT think are either stupid, dishonest, or some combination thereof?
dhex|2.13.06 @ 3:35PM|#
i feel bad for greenwald. i don't really know why, but it's
almost like a lot of conservatives who don't particularly care for
the taste of bush the younger in the back of their throat have
found themselves disinvited to the party because they're no longer
cool enough to hang out with their "friends."
it was kinda livejournal-y. mood: sombre.
V "merkin king" M|2.13.06 @ 3:36PM|#
the nuance here makes Vizzini seem like a moron! truely
staggering, the intellect here.
wow. this is as good as the hunting one where the issue is getting
deflected in all sorts of directions, including, astonishingly, a
jab at gun control.
some of these assholes don't know right, wrong, and their macrame'd
merkin.
now get a cup of starbucks, you racist boobs, and happy hunting
with political cartoons.
fuck me. there are some fucking stoopid people here.
MP|2.13.06 @ 3:38PM|#
Negotiating with a large entity is not a de-facto price
control.
The size isn't as relevant as the man behind the curtain (i.e.
Uncle Sam).
dhex|2.13.06 @ 3:45PM|#
i may as well admit this here, i no longer believe kerry would
have been worse. similar, perhaps, but not worse by any
stretch.
it is staggering what people will rationalize if given the
chance.
|2.13.06 @ 3:45PM|#
The size isn't as relevant as the man behind the curtain
(i.e. Uncle Sam).
Maybe not, but that wasn't what John said. What he said was :
Allowing medicare to dictate prices is enacting price controls
by default since medicare is so large that it can dictate the
market price
He never mentioned a governement entity, his point was about size
only. That same argument can be used against any player who gets
"too big".
But in response to your point that it's Uncle Sam behind the
curtain, is your position that government entities should not be
allowed to negotiate the best price possible? I mean unless there
is a law that forces someone to sell something to government
entities at below market prices, simply because medicare is a
government entity does not make negotiating for bulk prices a
"price control".
MP|2.13.06 @ 3:58PM|#
ChicagoTom,
Governments don't negotiate. Governments dictate. For negotiation
to occur, each party would need to have the unequivocable right to
say no. What do you think would happen if a pharma company refused
to supply the Government a drug at the price the Government is
demanding? That's why Government contracts are typically done via a
sealed bid process. Since pharmaceuticals are monopolists in
regards to particular patented drugs, there is no opportunity for a
bidding process.
If you want Medicare to pay the same price as United Healthcare,
then write a law that pegs Medicare prices to United Healthcare (or
more realistically, an average of the top ten purchasers for any
given year).
|2.13.06 @ 3:59PM|#
Nothing like using logical fallacies and calling someone a
"boob" to demonstrate your brilliant debating skills.
Yea, verily I am cut to the quick. With his rapier wit and
impenetrable logic, John has truly rendered me speechless.
Timothy|2.13.06 @ 4:08PM|#
I pretty much agree with MP on the issue. As far as I understand
it (and I could be wrong) medicare practically sets the price for
most medical procedures through their reimbursement rate. Most
insurance providers won't pay more for procedures than medicare
will pay, leaving consumers (rightly or wrongly, I don't really
want to get into that) to make up the difference.
I can see the argument from that perspective for not allowing
medicare to negotiate drug prices: it would, perhaps, put the
squeeze on pharma companies because Uncle Sam is pulling the
strings politically (I can see regulatory threats coming along with
medicare "negotiations), and it could put the squeeze on consumers
not covered by medicare at the pharmacy if other insurers decided
not to pay more than medicare and left their customers to pick up
the difference.
That said, I think the market effect would be rather ambiguous
without some data and econometrics to go along with it, but I think
MP has it right RE: Man Behind The Curtain.
|2.13.06 @ 4:16PM|#
Well, Phil, at least he didn't resort to saying "I hope you get cancer and your dog dies."
|2.13.06 @ 4:24PM|#
This issue is exactly where utilitarians get bogged down an
hopelessly lost.
Noone can say for sure that a government agency, for example
Medicare, can't provide the same service/cost ratio as a WalMart
sized insurer could, if allowed to bargain. The argument that it's
Uncle Sam behind the curtain carries no water, as, at least
ostensibly, he is responding to his customers as well through the
democratic process. In fact, the fact that it is Uncle Sam only
cuts against John's arguments, as the pharma companies and their
employees now get to vote (indirectly, of course) on what medicare
will offer to pay!
The problem in the scenario is more basic. You are forcing someone
to pay for the service (or charity) at gunpoint - i.e., taxes. This
is wrong, even if in the end the result is better (cheaper medical
care for patients) for the majority of the country. You won't know
the results until you try (simple scientific method), by which time
you will have already violated someone's rights.
And once again, libertarian discussion of the medical system in
this country is farcical if you don't start with the big three:
patents, FDA, and licensure laws. Those three have distorted the
market so badly that calling what we have now "free market" is like
calling a cow pattie a rose.
Timothy|2.13.06 @ 4:31PM|#
QB: I think the FDA and licensure are big problems, I don't see
patent as a bad thing. Patent protection, I think, is needed in
order for companies to have a profit motive for innovation. Just my
opinion.
Cue Dave W. calling me an industry shill in 5...4...3...
|2.13.06 @ 4:31PM|#
MP,
I understand what you are saying, but I am not arguing that any
drug company should be forced to take a bad deal. You pose the
question "What do you think would happen if a pharma company
refused to supply the Government a drug at the price the Government
is demanding" and leave it hanging as if the answer is obvious. I
don't think it's obvious. What I think would happen is the
goverment wouldn't get that particular drug on their list and
instead would look for alternatives or generics or whatnot. And the
more drug companies that refused the governments demands, the more
incentive the goverment would have to make reasonable demands. The
only way that Medicare is "dictating" the price (as opposed to what
Unicare or Blue Cross do) is if drug companies don't have the right
to refuse the deal, and that's a big if. (At least that wasn't part
of anything I have said)
The current situation seems to be one where medicare has to pay
whatever the drug companies want. Using John's logic, we have a
situation where Medicare is subsidizing all private insurers since
private entities can then demand lower prices since medicare will
make up for any lost profits.
You offered an option of : "an average of the top ten purchasers
for any given year". I think that would have been a far superior
solution to what is currently in place, and one that John's "left"
wouldn't have been opposed to. But I imagine even that position
would be charecterized by John as anti-Pharma as well.
|2.13.06 @ 4:34PM|#
"Conservative" means exactly what the moron left has told us all along, apparently: Robotic and stupid.
MP|2.13.06 @ 4:42PM|#
Patent protection, I think, is needed in order for companies
to have a profit motive for innovation.
I don't know how qb sees it, but from over here, it's not the
concept of patents as much as it is the arbitrariness of the USPO
and how companies can issue follow-up patents that tweak a drug
(usually through the delivery system) without any real value. These
problems undermine the entire patent process.
What I think would happen is the goverment wouldn't get that
particular drug on their list and instead would look for
alternatives or generics or whatnot.
I think you are being politically naive if you believe that the
refusal to supply medicare patients with the next new (patented)
wonder drug wouldn't spark a Congressional uproar and a subsequent
dictate.
gaius marius|2.13.06 @ 5:24PM|#
i think it's pretty apparent that greenwald is onto something
material -- you can argue that the left has its holy heroes too,
but you cannot reasonably argue that there isn't a very large
contingent of republican voters (to whom these talking heads cater)
that sees bush as not an elected official but a heroic figure
beyond mortal judgment.
and this is something that should be far from surprising;
democracies, after all, are quite notorious for their capacity to
deify a leader and militarize behind him. how many examples are
there? from pericles and alcibiades to marius, pompey and caesar --
down to mussolini, hitler and the showa period -- and how many of
the more recent third world democracies of the 1970s and 80s -- are
we really supposed to be shocked when american democracy finally
begins to yield to the impulses of a popular tyranny? i think it
rather inevitable -- and, as such, certainly not deserving of the
denial of clear symptoms.
|2.13.06 @ 8:02PM|#
the VA is a government program which does bargain with drug companies about rates; it delivers better care for less money than any private insurer (mainly because, having a guarantee that its patients will still be in the program in many years, the VA has a genuine incentive to provide preventative care. a private insurer who generously covers preventative care may well be benefitting one of its competitors down the line when the patient has moved/changed jobs, etc.) if the problem is not size per se but that it is government negiotiating for prices, why does the VA work so well? now you may argue that it is a combination of size and actor that will make this all change in the case of medicare, but repeatedly retreating from your assertions looks a little bad to my mind...finally, people on the left do not support big government programs under all circumstances. just because something costs a lot of money doesn't mean it's a good idea. hard to grasp, I know.
|2.13.06 @ 11:49PM|#
I think Jonah Goldberg pretty much has Greenwald's number on
this one -- Greenwald seems to be attacking a straw man.
It is particularly strange to hear Andrew Sullivan described as a
"conservative". Few conservatives considered him one of their own.
Sullivan is, and was, a libertarian, not a conservative. That
frequently put him in the same camp as conservatives on a number of
issues, but not necessarily for the same reasons.
He has been inaccurately described as "a liberal" by some
conservative commentators, but largely because he has of late been
endorsing the liberal position on most issues. His major
"conservative" position of late is ostensibly that he is a deficit
hawk -- but then he endorsed Kerry, whose proposed budget called
for tax increases cancelled out by even large spending
increases.
|2.14.06 @ 12:11AM|#
Let me get this straight... Uncle Sam can't negotiate, because it's government, and therefor government is dictating the price. To my mind, if government can't negotiate, then government shouldn't be a player at all . Without government involvement all players would then be allowed to negotiate and prices would come down as the market would lose the one big non-negotiating player. It seems to me that it's in pharma's interest to have the government involved, but with the non-sensical constraint that it can't negotiate. This all seems rather circular.
|2.14.06 @ 1:20PM|#
Amen! Glen's post nails it. Anyone who has called themselves a conservative for years must be as amazed as I am that NOW conservatism is supposed to mean expanded Executive power, huge trade and budget deficits, nation-building and federal controls on schools...I think, though, the reason why NRO folks are so faithful is not just a cultist, authoritarian personality, but they are either on the take or hope to be...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245