Larry Grant’s 9 Point Plan: My Response
Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, TheDemocratic Congressional Candidate Larry Grant has a 9 point plan: “9 in ’09” of things he’d like to accomplish in Congress:
1. Provide for negotiating prescription drug prices under Medicare:
Speaker Pelosi got this one through the House last time, but it got blocked in the Senate. Let’s try again.
Yeah, let’s go ahead and kill the pharmaceutical companies in America. These low prices overseas come as a result of government lowering the prices artificially through price controls that are passed onto American consumers. We ought to take Canada to the WTO and force them and a lot of other countries to lift their price controls, so that Americans don’t pay so much. But sure, Larry Grant’s first item, “Destroy Pharmaceutical Companies.”
2. End subsidies for big oil:
Speaker Pelosi got this one through too, but it got blocked in the Senate as well. Let’s do it again, too.
Larry “Let’s do it again” Grant. Of course, what they actually mean is not really subsidies when the government gives out money, but tax breaks. We know if we increase oil companies taxes, they will cut prices to consumers. Right? As they’ll have money, they’ll turn around and give more money to consumers? Most likely it increases the price of gas. Good work, so far.
3. Pass the expanded State Children’s Health Insurance Program (“SCHIP”):
Six million more deserving children would have been covered by the new SCHIP program. Let’s get them covered as soon as possible.
Because, don’t you know that the government ought to be provide free health care for people earning $60k a year and people into their 20s, too. Children, of course. We’re all the government’s children in a statist world.
4. Repeal No Child Left Behind:
Let’s quit mandating what local schools have to teach without providing the funds to do it.
This is actually a good idea.
5. Pass an extended Craig-Wyden plan:
We need to continue the Craig-Wyden program for replacing revenue that local communities lost when the timber harvest on federal lands was curtailed.
Or we could restart some timber harvests. Nah.
6. Repeal the Patriot Act:
We need to protect our civil liberties and stop spying on American citizens without a warrant.
Given that nearly every leader in Congress supported renewal and the Patriot Act was reauthorized by a wide margin, this is a tad ambitious.
7. Balance the budget:
We need to stop burdening our grandchildren with our national debt.
And the Democrats will do that through big tax increases. Balanced budgets are a good idea, but it is not virtuous to massively increase spending as the recent Democratic did, while also burdening the American people with higher taxes in the name of balancing budget while showing no fiscal restraint. None.
8. Pass comprehensive immigration reform:
We need to protect our borders while providing employers the workers they need.
And don’t forget about rewarding illegal aliens for breaking the law.
9. End the war in Iraq:
The war is costing far too much in both lives and money.
Yeah, let’s pull out prematurely and assure that we leave the situation as instable as possible. We then have a good shot of World War III breaking out in the Middle East with a nuclear power in play. That will be so much better.
Larry Grant suggests sending him $9, $99, or $999 dollars. I’d suggest billing him for that. The House Democrats just voted to raise taxes on all Americans and squeeze the middle class by eliminating the 10% tax bracket, thus increasing federal income taxes 50% on middle income Americans.
Comment by Bubblehead
I want to make sure I understand this point you and Bill Sali are trying to make about the pharmaceutical companies — are you saying they can’t make it unless they’re subsidized by government purchases at full asking price? The American auto industry is in trouble too — would you demand we pay full sticker price for each and every automobile the government buys, or are you OK with them negotiating bulk-purchase contracts? Why should the U.S. Government be different than any other entity in being able to negotiate bulk purchase prices from suppliers? If the Pharmaceutical industry is really in that bad shape that they need government purchases to stay afloat, doesn’t market theory tell us that we should them them find their own level? I know that Bill Sali likes the money he gets from lobbyists for the big drug companies, but what’s your excuse?
Comment by Boggs
As a Friedman libertarian, I have to agree with Bubblehead. The government is artificially raising the price of pharmaceuticals by NOT bargaining for the best price. It’s no different from minimum wage laws or farm subsidies or price ceilings. If the Canadian government should want to subsidize my medications, that’s the problem of the Canadian citizen. Market forces will straighten those issues out in due time, till then we should enjoy the discounts. If Sali wants to be consistent in his ideology, he should consider some more anti-gravity legislation at this point.
Comment by The Beckster
I love how the Republican market fundamentalists always tout the efficiency of the free market when they’re talking about small businesses or minimum wage workers, but whenever huge multi-national corporations are in the bullseye, they start sounding like bleeding heart liberals. Hey, if they can’t compete, they must be doing something wrong, right? Maybe they’re just fat and lazy. Maybe they could stop bombarding us with viagra adds, I’m sick of trying to explain to my 5 year old daughter what an erection is.
One other key point, US drug companies do not compete with any foreign drug companies. If you think back, you might recall GWB telling us that the terrorists will use drug imports to kill us. Drug importation from foreign countries is illegal. In 2006 the rules were relaxed, now you can bring a 3 months supply of drugs from Canada, as long as you get it yourself. So, with the exception of those who live close enough to drive to Canada, the whole premise of your first point is just plain wrong.
http://drugs.about.com/od/buyingdrugs/a/buyinglegality_2.htm
So,
A) Pharmaceuticals are protected from foreign competition.
B) Pharmaceuticals are given what amount to price floors by our congress.
Sounds an awful lot like special interest to me.
Ignorance it not bliss.
Google is your friend.
Comment by Rosemary
This may not make sense to anyone, but I shall give it a try. We used to have at least 18 different companies (drug) making vaccines. Then the government stepped in ‘to help’. Now we have one or two.
About the ‘no foreign drugs’ thing. Have you heard of Baxter? Have you heard of Heprin? People are dying from the heprin being brought into this country by CHINA.
Canada subsidizes their drugs, which they get from us. If we have no more drug companies, Canada, Africa (AIDS, etc), South America, Mexico, and all over the world will be in deep do-do. Why? NO SUPPLY!
I am so sick of people taking on the demand side. What about the supply side? Are we all so greedy that we would prefer to see someone go under just because we can’t have any of their money? That is another place where you are wrong. BUY some of their stock, and then you will own some of these EVIL pharmaceuticals!
About this dude, never tread where the Angels are afraid to go! I have no idea how their brain works. It amazes me how some of my friends seem to ‘think’.
About the steel (cars) subsidies…don’t you remember? THEY WERE subsidized. God, how soon we forget. Did I agree with it? No. Please do not misunderstand. I am for the government getting out of ALL of it.
I think I’ve had my say. Sorry, I didn’t mean to yell. Sometimes I get frustrated. That doesn’t help much, because then I start rambling (yes, like now) and then I lose my train of thought…
Comment by Adam Graham
Also found this article indicating why this is a bad idea. To start with the CBO said it wouldn’t save any money because, “Most single-source drugs face competition from other drugs that are therapeutic alternatives. CBO believes that there is little, if any, potential savings from negotiations involving those single-source drugs. We expect that risk-bearing private plans will have strong incentives to negotiate price discounts for such drugs and that the Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that further reduce federal spending to a significant degree.”
Comment by The Beckster
Rosemary,
I have to admit I am confused by your comment. My argument is pure supply side economics. I am arguing in favor of free market, no government interference, no subsidies. So if you favor supply side economics, you should agree with me.
There are actually 4 companies who make vaccines. Making vaccines is unprofitable for a variety of reasons, that’s why companies don’t want to make them. It has nothing to do with anything the government has done.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/504779
I did not say, nor do I think, that pharmaceutical companies are “evil”. I think you may be projecting popular anti-liberal rhetoric into my words. That is ironic, since everything I’ve argued here is straight from the conservative free market play book. I’m merely pointing out the inconsistency of people like Bill Sali: Friedman one day, Keynes the next.
I do believe that the argument for subsidizing pharmaceuticals is trumped up, and has more to do with congressional lobbying than public health concerns. I did own some pharmaceutical index stocks a few years ago, and at that time, these companies were doing great.
And no, I didn’t hear any yelling on my end, you sound like a very polite and pleasant person.