Supposedly out of fear for the future health and well-being of Americans, Megan McArdle has tirelessly worked to oppose any reform of health insurance. She has declared that it will set the US on a slippery slope towards national health, which she says would destroy drug company innovation. She states without giving any proof that 80% of drug company profits come from the US and that the drug companies won't be able to come up with new drugs or medical innovations if the government takes over health insurance. As she has done so many times before, with Iraq and elections and public policy, she depended on her own beliefs and prejudices to provide the basis for her thought processes instead of facts and reason. Consequently she didn't think to ask any of the right questions, including one very important one--what do the drug companies think?
If she had, she might have found this letter, published in the Delaware Voice and written by the president of AstraZeneca US, or this article written by Billy Tauzin, president and CEO of PHaRMA . Both are on the home page of PHaRMA's website. They are very clearly in favor of national health insurance, which presumably would increase the number of people who could buy medications. They also seem concerned by the diminishing returns and soaring cost of research. Tauzin mentions the area of biosimilars, a promising but incredibly expensive field of research that uses living matter to find cures for diseases. (I assume he is talking about such things as stem cell therapy, which developed from research done by Canadians.)
If the drug companies are not afraid of losing all their profits and are for health insurance reform, why isn't McArdle? She has no more excuses to offer.
(Note--One of McArdle's commenters pointed out PHaRMA's viewpoint earlier. McArdle has not responded to him at this time.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
And she won't respond, unless it's to say she was misunderstood. Have you ever seen Megan correct so much as a typo, let alone completly false assertions and arguments?
No, but I have seen her move the goal posts a billion times. You're right, of course, she'll ignore it or change the argument or something else. But if AstraZeneca is for reform and AstraZeneca is one of the groups supporting Atlantic salons, doesn't that mean her conflict of interest has a conflict of interest? Has the Atlantic tied itself into knots trying to chase after drug company money?
Because that would be hysterical if it has.
Further proof, if any were needed, that the United States is the most gulli...er...GENEROUS nation on the face of the Earth. Can anyone imagine another country which would reduce its own citizens to penury in order to subsidize inexpensive drugs for the rest of the world?
Hello,
That's awesome! I am just so glad you (and the guys at firemeganmccardle) read her for me. Though this catch is pretty good the best Megan post still has to be one that claimed she would make better decisions over others who were against Iraq War 2. I wish I could find the link for it because those posts proved that graduated business school.
That's what they teach at business school right? Seriously what does going to business school teach you? I am somewhat serious here. Can you be an expert in anything after going to business school?
Regards,
SV
The only reason I can figure out, in many of these things, that someone like Megan opposes something is because Democrats and liberals are for it. It's a reflexive condition, a Pavlovian response. There is no thinking that goes into it. These people don't care if they are contradicting what they said two years or even two weeks earlier. If their sworn enemies are for something, they have to be against it. Some liberals make some noise about the huge bonuses that AIG executives get, it's a sure bet that someone will come out with a strong position about why AIG bonuses are a good thing. And that's exactly what happened. That is a main driver to the right's opposition to doing anything about global warming and climate change. On the surface, this is about as stupid a position as someone can take. But yet, not believing in global warming is now a REQUIREMENT if you want to be in the mainstream Republican Party.
This is really the only conclusion I have ever come up with that makes any sort of sense at all. Well, "sense" in that this at least does a good job in explaining the right's consistency. However, it makes absolutely no sense in the long run. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" or something along those lines, comes to mind.
while you dozed over Douthat this morning, Attaturk has already written the last word - Gmmmpf!
http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2009/08/shorter-ross-douchehat.html
Downpuppy--I hate to say it but I wouldn't have been able to come up with something good anyway. He's just annoying when he discusses policy--but he's hysterical when discussing sex.
Zeppo--I think you're right; look at her new determination to shop at Whole Foods. She just likes to be contrary to stand out.
Sach--yes, I can't believe how generous we are to other countries. We are saints.
SV--I can't wait to see what McArdle does with this knowledge. So far she's ignoring it, but can that continue?
I have no idea what's taught in business schools, but I remember several times in which McArdle wrote how little she worked in school. Whatever was taught, she didn't learn it.
The Whole Foods thing just baffled me. Why would you start shopping somewhere just because someone else was boycotting the place? And couldn't she even be bothered to look up successful boycotts more recent than Montgomery? (South Africa? Florida orange juice? Where's Anita Bryant these days?)
And I seem to vaguely recall her ardently supporting the boycotting of the Dixie Chicks music after the singer said something bad about Bush. So this sort of thing is only okay when she agrees with the underlying principle? What a hypocrite.
Post a Comment