Romney and Mormonism

There has been too much tolerance for Willard Mitt Romney’s religion.  The Mormon Church is seen by most people as “just another church” like the Catholic Church, the Protestant denominations, the Baptists, the Jewish religion, and even (Heaven forgive us!) Islam.

In fact, the Mormon Church is a cult.  Members swear secret oaths to the Church.  Thanks to a number of ex-Mormons, these formerly secret oaths have been outed, and are available (like everything else nowadays) on the Internet.  If you are interested, I suggest you take a look.  The most disturbing of these oaths is the one in which members swear loyalty to the Church over all other loyalties, even to the extent of swearing to sacrifice their lives and liberties to the Church.

We already know that Mormons pay ten percent of their incomes to the Church, but how many people know that loyal Mormons are committed to lay down their very lives for the benefit of the Church?

The power of this oath of loyalty to the Church is so strong that it takes precedence over all other oaths, even the oath that a person takes when he or she is sworn in to the office of the Presidency.  If Mr Romney were to be elected as President(Heaven forbid!), he would still be bound by his oath to the Church over his oath to protect the Constitution.  The benefit of the Mormon Church would take precedence over protection of the Constitution.

Can you see where I am going with this?  This means that, if Mr Romney is elected President, the well-being of the United States would be less important to him than the good of the Mormon Church.  Any time that the Mormon Church might be hurt by an action that he might take as President, he would think twice and not take that action.  Any time the Mormon Church might benefit from an action he could take as President, he would take that action (if he could get away with it.)

This is different, qualitatively, than the consequences of electing a Catholic (say, for example, John Fitzgerald Kennedy) to the Presidency.   For those of you not yet born in 1960 who might not have heard this, Mr Kennedy made a categorical statement during the election campaign that he would not take any action as President that might suggest that he favored the interests of the Catholic Church over his loyalty to the United States.

We should NOT give Mr Romney the benefit of the doubt and assume that he would be willing to make a similar statement.  In fact, it is of critical importance that someone should ask Mr Romney the same question that was asked of Mr Kennedy.  Would you allow the Mormon Church to influence your actions as President in any way?  If Mr Romney is truthful (which I doubt) he would be forced to admit that the answer is yes.

Health care costs, Congress, and the Supreme Court

The big question before the Supreme Court is whether Congress has the authority to regulate the medical industry by doing something different: requiring everyone to buy health insurance.   The question is whether the Constitution, by stating that Congress has the authority to “regulate commerce between the several states”, meant that Congress should be able to require everyone to have (to buy, or if necessary, be given) health insurance.  It is clear that medical industries involve “commerce between the several states.”  What is not clear is the extent of Congressional authority over the people.

We do know that Congress has the authority to forbid everyone from using cannabis, for example.  Does Congress have to authority to prescribe certain behavior as well as to forbid certain behavior?

The problem that is affecting medicine in the United States, at least the one Congress wants to address, is that people who cannot afford medical care wind up going to the emergency room and getting inadequate treatment for outrageous fees that they cannot pay.  The resulting bad debt forces the hospitals to obtain funding from the government for the part that insurance will not pay.  The people who cannot afford to pay suffer poor treatment and eventually early death, while at the same time hospitals have to write off large fees when these people inevitably pass through their emergency rooms.  There is both a monetary and a humanitarian cost to society and government.

To solve this problem on a national level, first Congress established a funding system, the requirement that everyone have insurance, to a pre-existing administration, the private insurance companies.  Additional features are funding through federal sources for those who cannot pay for insurance, and regulations that control insurance company behavior to ensure an equitable system.  There are many additional provisions in a bill that is reportedly 2,400 pages long.

The normal behavior of Congresspeople when faced with a large, controversial bill has impaired rational implementation of the reforms envisioned by the original bill.  There are many places in which changes have been made to suit one pressure group or another.  One of the big winners from the bill, it would seem, would be the insurance companies, whose business would have to increase if everyone is to be insured.

To return to the basic issue, the individual financing (personal payment) for medical care is an impediment to the cost-effective provision of medical care.   Patients naturally delay medical care when they cannot afford it. Because of personal responsibility for payments, physicians must consider relative affordability or even availability of care.  When prescribing a drug to treat any ailment, the doctor has to consider whether the patient can pay for it.  If a patient cannot afford the medication best suited to treat his condition, the consequences of taking a less effective or more toxic drug can make the patient’s subsequent care more difficult.  If the patient’s condition is not improved or he suffers toxic side effects, further care is more expensive.  When the patient didn’t have enough money to pay for the best medicine, he will have even less money to pay for the treatment of toxic side effects or the worsening of his original condition.  Thus, the lack of money leads to worse health and more expenses for complications.

The alternative to this cost-based treatment schedule would be a system in which the physician was free to prescribe the most effective medication in the first instance.  This medication would minimize the costs that follow the initial treatment.  In many cases, using the best medication that cost more would lead to lower costs in the long run.  This is the theory behind the use of “insurance” to pay for medical care.  Insurance would not necessarily solve the problem of initial cost, unless the company providing the insurance made the necessary assessments and provided coverage for the most cost-effective medication (formularies do not always provide the right medication based on this assessment, but they could do so.)

There is little controversy to the assertion that Americans pay more for poorer health care than many other highly developed nations.  We pay approximately 50% higher overall costs for medical care than certain European countries and we have two to four years shorter life expectancy than those countries.  The reasons for this problem are multiple, but the most important reason is that patients do not report for early treatment of illness and are not provided the most cost-effective initial treatments.  The most important reason for this is that we have personal responsibility for payment, and our initial reaction to illness is to try to minimize initial cost, to the detriment of long term health.

The best way to reduce overall health care costs is to anticipate personal responsibility for individual payment by interposing an advanced insurance-based system for everyone.  Under the insurance based system, the long term costs and benefits of medical care would be evaluated and the lessons learned applied to protocols of medical care that produce the best long term health results.  By delivering feedback to medical providers in the form of protocols, the insurance based system would modify care to improve outcomes.  Patients would be freed from the short-term decision making distortion that initial costs apply to the best medical care, and thus would be better motivated to do the right thing for their health.  At the same time, the insurance payments paid in everyone’s name from birth will finance the medical system in a reliable, consistent fashion.

Medicare has consistently been shown to have the lowest administrative costs of any form of insurance, less than half that of private insurance companies.  Therefore, we will gain the most cost savings from financing our medical care by deductions from everyone’s paychecks and universal eligibility for treatment under Medicare.

The individual mandate to purchase health insurance is, sadly, a compromise forced on the president by lack of whole-hearted support from Democrats in Congress for a real solution: the public option.  The lack of support can be traced to lobbying by insurance companies against the “public option” and any other solution which might compromise the profits and control of health insurance companies.  Health insurance companies are usually subsidiaries of larger insurance company conglomerates, and they spend huge quantities of money on lobbying for their interests.  The insurance companies have taken a position against “single-payer” health insurance because they believe that it will have a negative impact on their businesses.  They would be better informed if they lobbied for contracts to administer single payer insurance rather than opposing a critical driver of efficiency that reduces costs.

Austerity and Recovery from Recession–a Paradox

I loved this comment from the NYT online so much–in response to a Paul Krugman editorial–that I just had to quote it verbatim:  (from “Kathleen” of Oakland CA)

“Mark Thomason (6:51 pm 2/19) is correct: austerity policies provide real and significant benefits to the few, the elite, the ones making the policies.

For starters, austerity policies:

- keep tax rates low for the wealthy, and for those claiming unearned income

- drive wages down, severely

- generate insecurity among workers so that they so fear for their survival that they will do as they’re told, without complaint or attempting to organize unions)

- drive prices of real property down, severely, and those with money can swoop in and buy at fire sale prices

- deprive people of the government benefits that were previously “guaranteed” so that they will distrust government and any other promises made in the future

- increase the disparity between the wealthy and non-wealthy, because what fun is it to be wealthy if it doesn’t make you stand out as “special”?

- prevent educational opportunity to the young of the non-wealthy, thereby enhancing the opportunity for the young of the wealthy, giving them an even better head start in life

- make people so fearful for their own survival that they begin to lash out at others “beneath” them, or at public employees who have it better than they do; scrabbling for scraps keeps our attention focused away from those really calling the shots

- accustom people to a life of kowtowing to employers for even poverty wages, and voila! Good help is now quite easy to find!

Austerity would not be adopted if there were no benefit to elites.”

This comment was the most popular one in the comment thread, out of 790 comments accepted.  It even beat out “Winning Progressive” who usually comments first and wins the popularity contest.

It reflects a cause and effect relationship that I have always used to understand things: things that happen have reasons to happen, despite whatever reasons make it unlikely to happen.  In this case, instituting austerity policies, despite their obvious history of failure in every instance in which they have been applied, still occurs under the direction of the controlling authorities.  Why?  Because they benefit the elites in control.  The only way to change this is to wrest power, by constitutional means, from those who currently are making the great mass of people suffer needlessly for their own private benefit.

Stop the massacre in Syria with drones

“We must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere.”

The above is a quote from former President George W Bush.  On its face, it seems quite reasonable.  Unfortunately, he used it as a justification to spend a trillion or more dollars off budget to invade and occupy Iraq from March 2003 to the end of his presidency.  Current President Barack H Obama has just ended our occupation of Iraq (too soon, it seems, for conservatives) as of the end of December 2011.  Saddam Hussein was convicted in a show trial and hanged.  Bush never even considered handing Hussein over to the World Court, where his life would have been spared.  Total American deaths exceeded 4,000.  Worst of all, the government we left behind is deeply flawed and shows signs of reverting to the repression and terror that Hussein used.

In the meantime, (March through November 2011) President Obama authorized our participation in a “no fly zone” that, liberally interpreted, protected the Libyan rebels until they were able to capture (and hot headed militia men murdered) Muammar Gaddafi.  All told, the cost to the US taxpayer was said to be about a billion dollars, and no American fliers were killed.

Which of these two interventions would you prefer?  Neglecting the cost, which was more humane?

What should we do about Syria?  I would suggest that we use drone aircraft to initiate a “no heavy weapons zone” which would level the battlefield between Bashar al-Assad and the Free Syrian Army.  The cost to us would be minimal, the likehood of civilian casualties small, and the effect on al-Assad would be lethal.

Before initiating this policy, I suggest that we obtain the consent of the Arab League.  It would be impossible to obtain consent from the UN Security Council, but at least a General Assembly resolution could be requested.

Opinions, anyone?

Our prospects for the near future

The consensus of scientific opinion is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising, and has been ever since it could be accurately measured, in the late 1950′s. At first it was rising, from about 315 parts per million (ppm) in 1958, by one part per million per year. Normally, the concentration varies throughout the year by about 5 ppm, lowest in the late summer and highest in the winter. Recently the rate of increase has been gradually increasing, and now it rises nearly two parts per million per year. In July 2011, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 392 ppm.
At the same time, the average global temperature has been gradually rising; winters are showing increased snow, summers are hotter and drier. Spring comes earlier and fall is later each year. In extreme latitudes, permafrost is melting at an increasing rate. This effect, while much debated, has been shown during the last ten years to be continuing in spite of a solar minimum (when sunspots are less and the sun puts out less light and heat.)
There is also general scientific agreement that carbon dioxide levels are rising because of human industrial activity and the burning of coal and oil. The manufacture of cement is a particularly large contributor to human carbon dioxide release. This is despite the fact that, at present, human contributions to overall global carbon dioxide release are still small. Though small, the human contribution is greater than can be balanced out by forces that globally take carbon dioxide from the air: plant growth and absorption by the ocean.
The first statement, that carbon dioxide levels are increasing, cannot be gainsaid. The second statement, that humans are causing the increase, is still somewhat controversial. The actual scientific controversy has been satisfied more and more during the last ten years; this is in spite of statements to the contrary by the Administration of George W. Bush that date back to shortly after he was inaugurated. It is ironic that during the election campaign, Mr. Bush voiced his recognition of the problem of climage change and the need to do something about it.
During his Administration, Mr. Bush was at pains to instruct his entire executive staff (that is, everyone who worked for him) to downplay or deny the problem by whatever means necessary. Necessary means included censoring a scientific report and inserting language provided by the industry. Propaganda distributed by companies that produce coal and oil for burning has apparently caused much of the population of the United States to seriously question the existence of global warming and/or the human contribution to it.
Even more ironic, the Great Recession, which started in 2007, caused by the crash of mortgage securities (among other things) actually did produce an unintentional reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Though small, this reduction was significant enough to allow China to catch up to the United States in total emissions a few years early.
The most ironic fact about this entire issue is that human carbon dioxide release is estimated to represent only four percent of total global carbon dioxide release from all sources. It is to be hoped that some mechanism in nature will start absorbing carbon dioxide at a higher rate in order to counterbalance human increases; as yet, no such increase in absorption has become evident.
The environmental effects of rising carbon dioxide levels will, on the whole, be negative. Increased temperatures will result in rising sea levels as ice melts, with countries like Tuvalu that are near sea level suffering the most and possibly disappearing. The Netherlands will be hard hit, and their government is actively planning to deal with flooding that will overtop their intricate levy system.
Severe weather events are likely to increase, meaning tornados, hurricanes, and typhoons will be larger and more destructive. Wildfires due to drought are also likely to increase. Changes in the distribution of plants and animals will occur, with some species becoming extinct. Large fish and coral reefs will disappear.
All of these events, and many more, are inevitable regardless of what we do now. Only time will tell how severe and destructive climate change will be. The only thing we can be sure of is that the changes will be dramatic and will last hundreds of years. Even the half life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown; estimates range from as low as five years (very unlikely) to as long as three hundred years. If the half life is fifty years, then even if we stop emitting carbon dioxide now (impossible), changes will continue for a long time.
The final irony is that these negative changes in our environment, particularly if they are severe and cause a marked decrease in population, will have a strong selective evolutionary effect. A new, changed, more viable type of human will replace the current stupid, failed type. That is, unless only cockroaches survive.

Economic Stimulus

Economic stimulus
In times of recession with less than full employment, there is weak demand for goods and services. At the present time, even those who are employed are weighed down by underwater mortgages. State governments are pinched by weak revenue.
There are several things that the federal government should do to correct this situation.
First, a solution to the “underwater mortgage” problem, in fact all the mortgage problems. A voluntary program for all people with mortgages who have problems, whether they are current on their payments or not. Those with mortgages that have variable, unreasonable interest rates can be converted to a reasonable rate on a federally owned mortgage. Those who are underwater or can’t meet their payments on any mortgage can be bought out by the government and converted to rentals. Actually evicting a family should not be done because it leads to an empty house and distorts rental prices; unless, of course, the family can pay but doesn’t.
Second, a solution to employment problems. A national job database, with government jobs (starting at minimum wage) to fix all the infrastructure, maintain the parks (rake leaves, for example), do research, paint murals on post office walls, and so on. The only people eligible to take these jobs are those who have been unemployed for more than a certain time, laid off due to factory closures, teenagers and young adults, and other unemployables.
Third, aid to state governments. The federal government should give states money to prevent layoffs of policemen, firefighters, and teachers.
These programs will not be cheap. They will be paid back tenfold by increased tax revenue due to stimulation of the economy, especially the part that doesn’t save any money. The income of those employed will enter the economy immediately. Demand will increase, and private businesses will be encouraged to spend more, expand, and hire more workers.
GDP is likely to increase by one percentage point per year due to each of these three programs. What’s more, the stimulus is likely to feed on itself by encouraging business to spend the money it has been saving.
The end result of this expenditure will be rapid economic growth, which results in dramatically increased net revenue for the government, making a balanced budget that much easier.

A fourth program, unrelated to our current recession, is important to our survival as a species on this planet.  This program is necessary to address global warming.  The first task will be to establish how serious the projected changes will be.  Such recently suspected changes as a dramatic increase in violent weather events should be evaluated as an existential threat to people.  Changes in the distribution of rainfall are also important.  Drought in some areas and monsoon weather in other areas is to be expected, and the projected severity of these changes must be evaluated.  The second task is to set up mitigating facilities for the expected changes.  Mitigation will range from different crops planted to moving populations away from danger areas.  The third task is to develop ways of ending our dependence on fuels that produce carbon dioxide.  This may be the hardest task of all.

In the long run, it is critical for animal life as well as plant life on this planet that we establish a balance between the production and consumption of oxygen and carbon dioxide.  There is a very long cycle in the atmosphere between these two molecules: it is estimated that it takes about three hundred years for a molecule of carbon dioxide to be consumed, and transformed into carbon and oxygen by photosynthesis.  At the current time, carbon dioxide is present at a very low concentration in the atmosphere: about three tenths of a percent.  The concentration is increasing by a thousandth of a percent every year, and the rate of increase has been increasing recently.

To return to economic policy:
At the same time, changes in the structure of taxation are extremely important for the purpose of fairness. As a billionare himself pointed out, he is paying a smaller percentage of his income for taxes than his secretary. This is not fair, and must be changed.
Fairness is an incredibly important concept. When the distribution of work and rewards is seen as fair, a person will develop great loyalty to the system that controls the distribution. When it is seen as unfair, resentment and disloyalty, sabotage, and revolt may be the result.
Experiments have shown that fairness is important even to chimpanzees and other primates. However, the concept of sharing a task is alien to primates. As a primatologist once said, “you will never see two chimpanzees carrying a log.”
An even more basic concept than fairness is empathy, which has been shown by experiments even in rats. A remarkable experiment recently showed that a rat will work relentlessly to free another rat that is seen to be trapped.
The institution of an economic stimulus depends on the people as a whole showing empathy for one another. They must get together and elect government representatives who will apply the necessary measures. If they do not, the current situation will not improve spontaneously. The longer it takes to start fighting our problems, the worse they will be and the harder to fight.

Government

Government
Whenever I think about government, the first thing that comes to mind is the Preamble to the Constitution. The intent of the Preamble was to establish what the government (that was being established by the Constitution) was for. Among other things, to begin with “To form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence” there follows another phrase which I would like to emphasize here: “promote the general Welfare.” I do not wish to seem to ignore the final purpose of government enumerated here: “secure the Blessings of Liberty.”
Some people will be surprised to know that I have just enumerated all of the purposes of government named in the Constitution. I am doing this to make it clear that there are specific purposes for government, and they are limited. It is important to remember that we all believe in limited government, or else we would not support the United States.
We have so far set out a few of the most basic thoughts about what we want our government to be: “a more perfect Union” that is limited in its total extent yet supplies certain basic needs: justice, tranquility, defence, welfare, and liberty.
We quickly see that some of these purposes are very close to the names of current departments of government: justice and defence. At one time, there was a “Department of Health, Education, and Welfare” (with the understandable assumption that Health and Education are essential to Welfare) but because of the negative connotation of “welfare”, the name was changed to “Health and Human Services.” It would be more honest, and more effective, if we had seperate departments of “Health”, “Education”, and “Welfare” as well as a Department of “Liberty.” I don’t know just what a Department of “Tranquility” would do.
The Constitution does not specify any of the Executive branch of the government other than the President and Vice President; all the inferior “officers” of this branch are to be appointed by the President. The highest “officers” such as judges of the Supreme Court, ambassadors, and public ministers and consuls, are subject to the approval of the Senate, but otherwise he/she is free to install anyone that seems appropriate in any department of executive government.
It appears that the power to create the separate departments of the executive is vested in Congress, with its power to make laws, and specifically: “to lay and collect taxes…borrow money…regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes…coin money…punish piracy…declare war…raise and support armies…no…longer…than two years…provide and maintain a navy…” but most importatntly: “To make all laws which shall be necessary…for…all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government…”
In other words, Congress is vested by the Constitution with the power to make laws which execute all the powers in the Constitution. The President is empowered to ensure that the laws are “faithfully executed.” Unfortunately, the Congress has not carefully read the Constitution and they neglected to vest some of the powers granted to the government. They did alright with Justice and Defense, but they’ve been very fickle with Welfare, and they’ve forgotten Liberty and domestic Tranquility altogether.
It may be that “domestic Tranquiltiy” just means the absence of civil disturbances such as riots, but I would like to expand on the word “Tranquility”. Let us say that it means “Happiness” and “Contentment.” How the government would ensure this state of affairs is somewhat of a mystery.

Taxation

Taxation
We need to change our taxation system so that it is fair, by which I mean progressive. A flat tax is much easier for a millionare to pay than for someone who isn’t making enough money to live on as it is. Flat tax is only fair in the imagination of those who have plenty of money.
To start, we will say that all income should be treated equally for taxation purposes, that is capital gains will be taxed the same as ordinary wages or salary. Instead of a flat 15%, capital gains will be taxed progressively from zero to 15 to 25 to 35%, or whatever total revenue requires.
At the same time, Social Security and Medicare taxes will no longer be flat with a cap: they will also be progressive with no ceiling. Rates will be adjusted to ensure that revenue matches expenses.
Corporate taxes will be treated in the same way: as ordinary income. All the profits of a corporation will be taxed in a progressive fashion, as if the corporation was a person.
Total tax rates will be based on the amount of revenue needed, and progression of rates will depend on the same formula: three or four steps, from 0 to 10 to 15 to 25 to 33 percent, for example.
With a larger tax base, it will be possible to reduce taxes for the poorest people. For example, someone making minimum wage might be exempted from any taxes. All his or her income could then go to living expenses; at minimum wage, it is impossible to save anything. Eliminating taxes on these people would encourage them and stimulate the economy by increasing spending on the cheapest commodities.

Why have a deficit at all? Just set the tax rates for next year based on the expenses of last year. That way, you will have a pay as you go government.
With all the rates set in a progressive fashion and all income treated equally, it will be completely clear that the cost of government is paid by those with the ability to pay: those who have more income.

All changes in the taxes must be made gradually, in yearly steps for three to five years.  This will reduce the shock of the changes.

Drug shortages and Industry Behavior: a case in point

A recent letter to the New York Times pointed out a fact which is shocking in the extreme to all who are concerned about drug shortages. Apparently, the cancer drug Doxil is protected under the Orphan Drug Act, a federal law which allows companies to seek extended patent protection for drugs which are not in enough demand to induce competition for their production. These drugs are needed by only a small number of patients in most cases. The Act allows companies that have developed such drugs to obtain extensions on the usual twenty year patent (which was increased from seventeen years some time ago.) Under the extended patent, a company has the exclusive right to produce (or license production for) a drug for longer periods, thus allowing the company to avoid competition.

Unfortunately, Johnson and Johnson, the company that applied for and received extended protection until 2014, is no longer producing Doxil. No other company would plan to produce Doxil until Johnson and Johnson’s patent protection has expired. The result is that there is no Doxil, nor is there any generic equivalent. This drug is useful in the treatment of some cancers, and up to now has been the subject of continued research. Treatment with this drug is no longer available, and research is impossible.

The web site for Doxil has an update today on the “supply shortage” (actually the complete unavailability of any more of the drug) which states that the third party company that was making Doxil has suspended production until they can implement “lasting corrective actions” for the “equipment issues” that they are facing.  They are currently estimating that production will not resume until late 2012.  The Wall Street Journal has an article which describes “overdue preventive maintenance and other required actions” and mentions recalls of two other drugs produced at the plant, which produces sterile injectable drugs for several companies.  It appears that equipment at this plant is worn out and in need of replacement.

There are speculations that Johnson and Johnson will attempt to find an alternate manufacturing facility for Doxil.  We can, however, speculate that the manufacturer has been negligent and has failed to respond to FDA inspections and warnings in a timely fashion.  We can also speculate that finding a solution for the manufacturer’s problems has not been a priority to J+J, since they have not overseen their third party manufacturer in an expeditious manner.

The company has made a management decision that the needs of a few thousand cancer patients (there are about one thousand on a waiting list) are less important than the company’s profits. It seems unreasonable that a company which makes huge profits on many popular drugs (like Risperdal and Aciphex) could not support the production of a small amount of an unprofitable drug, as part of the cost of doing business in an ethical fashion.  Yet that is what has happened: the management has failed to adequately supervise the “third party” it has contracted with, by not inspecting the manufacturing facility, and not discovering in a timely fashion that the equipment needed to be updated or replaced.  As a result, the “third party” has been shut down, partly due to FDA warnings and partly due to recalls of faulty product.  Responsibility, diffused through a “third party”, has been shirked.   When a person fails to get the oil changed in his car, that is a personal failure.  When a large company fails to perform preventive maintenance on its manufacturing facility (which produces drugs vital to the treatment of lethal diseases), that is a systemic failure.

Decisions of this nature have led to shortages of many drugs, not just unpopular ones. There are several drugs for which demand has increased dramatically in recent years and which are in the throes of shortages. These shortages are not due to increased demand, but from cutbacks in production that appear to be strategic in nature: designed to force patients to take alternative drugs on which profit margins are much higher.
The behavior of pharmaceutical manufacturers is a clear explanation of why regulation is needed. Companies that have enough power to make anticompetitive and unreasonable, yet profitable, decisions will do so unless they are prohibited by law and policed by regulatory agencies.

Deregulation is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated by the Republican Party and its conservative base. Ronald Reagan was the biggest liar ever, and he started this fraud by claiming that regulations were at fault for the problems that deregulation had provoked. There are videos still extant of Mr Reagan proclaiming that “excessive regulations” were causing the government collapse that he had just provoked by cancelling the regulations that would have prevented it.
A copy of the letter is appended:
Re “Drug Scarcity’s Dire Cost, and Some Ways to Cope” (The Consumer, Dec. 13): In a free market, another manufacturer could step in to take advantage of the unavailability of the cancer drug Doxil and other lifesaving drugs that are in short supply. For several reasons, there is no longer a free market in these drugs.

In the case of Doxil, Johnson & Johnson sought and won extended patent protection under the Orphan Drug Act. The company has the exclusive right to manufacture Doxil until 2014, but it isn’t making it, thus endangering the lives of the more than 7,000 people who were depending on it and bringing to a halt many of the 30 clinical trials that require it.

The consolidation of the drug companies has resulted in powerful monopolies that increasingly do not serve the public interest.

Anne M. Dranginis

Glen Cove, N.Y.

Government-guaranteed student loans: an incidence of corruption

A few days ago the New York Times online reported a curious series of events involving the Administration and its attempts to regulate vocational schools.  There has been a dramatic increase in the number and enrollments of these schools that teach such skills as medical assisting and computer repair.  Without any publicity, certain Wall Street speculative investment firms have bought up a proportion of these vocational schools and are expecting further growth in profits.

The problem is that a proportion of graduates from these schools are unable to find a job, and thus unable to repay the loans with which they went to school.  In cases like these, the federal government is on the hook because the loan was federally guaranteed when it was made.  So the investors expect a sure profit one way or the other.

The federal government is on record as deploring the useless degrees handed out by some of these schools and promising a regulatory solution.  A plan was formulated and put out for comment.  There was a storm of protest, some of it financed by $16 million from the investor group (according to the NYT story) and the staff at the White House was buttonholed by certain friends of the schools.  As a matter of fact, in order to avoid new federal antilobbying rules, a mentoring process was developed.  A recent alumnus of the WH inside staff hired by the investors advised those who were to meet with current WH staff rather than meeting with them directly.

As a result of protests to the original plan, changes were made that eventually reduced the proportion of schools that would be put under sanction from 16% to 5% (Again, these are figures from the NYT story.)

Frankly, the whole system of vocational schooling is rotten to the core.  Young adults, who have not been taught a vocation in high school, have to borrow tens of thousands of dollars to go to a vocational school that teaches them skills (how well it teaches is open to question) and then find that there is no job market for those skills.  The unemployment rate now among young people is much higher than the national average and often approaches a quarter of recent high school graduates.

The compassionate answer to this problem is to teach children vocational skills in high school, skills that prepare them for further training in high level technologies that are in demand because there is a large amount of research going on; and the research is funded by the federal government, all to stimulate the economy.

This means a deliberate emphasis by the federal government on funding education and research.  The reason for this change is to prepare the population to compete on a high level with the populations of other countries that threaten to outdo us.  There should be a vast flow of research discoveries coming from the United States, discoveries that lead to lucrative patents for new processes that out compete the rest of the world.  If we don’t compete, we will become a failed state.