Dumbest campaign ad so far this year
Published August 19, 2004
Of course, there's going to be stiff competition for the worst campaign ad of the year. So far, though, the dumbest ad, the one most insulting to voter intelligence this year to date comes from John Kerry, concerning medical costs. He says that just the paperwork of medical care costs billions of dollars every year, and that he's going to cut the cost of medical care by cutting paperwork.
Yes, it is well known that medical paperwork costs a lot of money, but a quickie promise to cut health care costs by cutting paperwork is just stupid, and insulting to the intelligence of voters.
For starters, how's he going to do this? This sounds very much like the episode of Yes, Minister in which Sir Humphrey was told to cut bureaucracy, and responded by hiring a bunch of people to study the problem. I'm sure President Kerry would appoint a commission, draft some reports and recommendations, and pass a new Medical Paperwork Reduction Act. Then doctors and insurance companies can each add on a new office worker to ensure compliance with the MPRA.
In truth, quite a bit of paperwork in medical practice is absolutely necessary. They have to keep track of which patients are getting what treatments. Stuff has to be kept up for legal liability reasons. HMOs and insurance companies of all types need to know what they're getting socked for. Much of this falls beyond what even a good, smart, politically brave president could do anything about - much less John Kerry.
That may be more the humor point, but more important is that paperwork is not the main reason medicine is expensive. Medicine costs a LOT. It takes up a significant share of our GDP, and our personal budgets.
This is largely because we're asking a LOT of medicine. We're basically the richest country in world history with the accumulated knowledge of all history in science and medicine. It's natural that we spend our wealth on our health. After all it's the most important thing.
However, as the great Robert Heinlein liked to say, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." (TANSTAAFL) Fancy new ultra-sound equipment and amazing new drugs just flat cost a bunch of money, and they have to be paid for. Those scientists and technicians don't work for free.
- Dumbest campaign ad so far this year
- Published: August 19, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Politics: Law and Rights, Video: Television
- Writer: Al Barger
- Al Barger's BC Writer page
- Al Barger's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Simon, that socialist crap doesn't work. It just plain, flat out doesn't work on the ground.
What has worked fabulously is companies trying to make a buck. Who is developing all the amazing life saving drugs, US or Cuba? It is exactly the interest in commerce that has driven these critical advances in human society.
Some drugs are quite expensive, and there might be some considerations as to how to help make them more affordable. I know full well that it can be tough paying for meds. However, we should all be thanking Yahweh or Allah or whoever for all those greedheads at Lilly and Pfizer.
Plus, not to put too fine a point on it, who the hell are you to arbitrarily decide how much "modest" profit a company should make? You expect them to keep working and taking the risks for a "modest" profit of your designation?
This belongs in etc. Video??? Only by virtue of the fact that it appeared on TV. But this a political post through and through.
"Hmmm... medicine costs a lot to develop, it's true, but it could cost a whole lot less if Big Drug Companies weren't taking a massive cut."
Without the profit motive, they would have no incentive to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to bring a single drug to market.
With risks come rewards. Or else no one will bother taking the risks in the first place...
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/18826)
Hmmm... medicine costs a lot to develop, it's true, but it could cost a whole lot less if Big Drug Companies weren't taking a massive cut.
Here's an idea: why not get the universities to develop the drugs? The cash that's wasted paying drug corps for their patents could be used to fund this; and, as a side benefit, drug development independent of commerce would be able to focus on the conditions that need treatment, rather than conditions which can generate huge profits through their treatment.
It's always puzzled me as I make donations to cancer charities just what would happen if they did crack a cure - presumably SmithKleinBeechamGlaxoWelcome would rush to get its patent in, and a cure developed through public goodwill would disappear into corporate hands.
Let drug companies make drugs. Let them make modest profits, certainly, for taking the time to package and distribute them. But let's stop them holding patents on your dad's heart disease and your mother's sciatica