NYTs: Importing Less Expensive Drugs Not Seen as Cure for U.S. Woes

Economics and politics don't mix. This is most evident in healthcare and, especially as this New York Times article points out, prescription drugs. The cry is for the next president to 'lower' drug prices; make healthcare more affordable; make sure everyone has healthcare. Is that what we need, really? Shouldn't our government work to make healthcare and drugs more accessible not just cheaper? If you think about nearly every other product available in the market, from electronics to food, the cost of these products has come down and the quality and options has gone up. The market makes this possible. When governments get involved with distribution, regulation and price controls, supply decreases and prices increase. There are fundamental laws in economics that can't be changed - like gravity. Supply and demand is one of them.

"But the United States market is hard to compare with any other. It represented more than half of the global drug industry's sales of $410 billion last year and was the country in which drug companies make the bulk of their profits. Whatever one thinks of the pricing disparity, efforts to force down American prices to Canadian or European levels could radically change the economics of the pharmaceutical industry - which effectively depends on United
States profits for all of its activities, including a substantial portion of its spending on research and development.

American consumers are 'subsidizing everyone's R&D,'' said Mr. Love, the consumer advocate. 'We're paying way more than everyone else. Others should pay more.' "

A potential option I don't here talked about is putting diplomatic pressure on other countries to relax or eliminate their price controls. John Kerry discusses the need for us to mend our relationships with our allies in the war on terror. Perhaps we need to also work to have them adjust their economic policies so that the US doesn't continue to 'subsidize everyone's R&D' among other things: defense, weapons, food, etc. Rather than 'falling into line' with the other countries of the world by adding more price controls, we should work to open the market. If we don't, there will be fewer options, not more.

To further make the political case against price controls and government intervention in economic principles, let me relate this to the 'world's' response to 9/11. No, everything doesn't revolve around 9/11, but it is a defining moment in world history and it certainly magnified the global, political environment. We all remember the "We are All Americans" headlines from our European 'friends' and the outpouring of support. For the most part, I believe, at the citizen level, this was truly genuine. At the bureaucratic, governmental level, this was a disguise for their private glee. Finally, the US is no better than we. Even the headline mentioned above was followed not by glowing support and resolve, but by an almost scathing attack on US policy and a 'they deserved it' attitude. The camaraderie was based on their belief that now, we are all weak and vulnerable - and we should all just learn to live with it. We didn't play the game - and they resent it. The same is true for other political games - Kyoto, the UN, etc. We don't believe that the ruling class should tell the rest of us how to live. We believe in our founding principles - 'We the people' - and look to our people as the source for success, innovation, and results. Other citizens of the world aspire to this freedom, while the governments that represent them often recoil at the thought - because it means they lose their power.