greed

Home » greed

Drug Prices Are High Because Government Protects Monopolies

in Healthcare, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Drug Prices Are High Because Government Protects Monopolies

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Ever since the EpiPen scandal hit the public like a ton of bricks, many outlets contended that greed, not cronyism, was to blame.

pillsBut when looked closely, EpiPen is just another example of corporate influence and lobbying shaping public policy. The ones who benefit are always the same individuals who pressed for changes in the first place.

In an article for the Fiscal Times, Mercatus Center’s Marc Joffe contended that the drug price problem could be fixed by targeting the Food and Drug Administration. But not by giving the agency more regulatory power. Instead, Joffe argues that, stripping the agency of its power would do America a world of good.

In the article, Joffe tells the story of how the FDA obtained its power, noting that it was a morning sickness pill that prompted the nationwide support for the Kefauver Harris Amendment, which “gave the [FDA] most of the power it now exerts in regulating drugs.”

As the FDA expanded its power, regulating every single piece of medication in America, drug prices increased considerably, while access to many life-saving drugs remains restricted. To Joffe, the “drug crisis” we now face as a nation has everything to do with the empowerment of the FDA, prompting the scholar to urge lawmakers to look at the free market for a solution if what they are truly after is to lower drug prices.

In a competitive market, Joffe writes, “price equals the marginal cost of production.” But even in an imperfect world, he contends that, when “prices [are] well above production costs,” firms see an incentive to compete. But if markets are restricted and companies are granted exclusive rights to produce and sell certain drugs, firms are unable to compete. Without competition, monopolies set the rules, making way to high costs and low effectiveness.

In his article, Joffe argues that, if Congress is serious about helping patients from all walks of life, they must stop considering the idea of passing laws to expedite the FDA’s approvals for new drugs. Instead, Joffe writes, “[allowing] multiple organizations to approve drugs, providing competition to the FDA … [or allowing] pharmaceutical companies sell whichever medications they believe to be safe and effective — with the understanding that patients can win large judgments if the companies fail to produce and market their treatments responsibly,” would both be better options that would deliver better, and more effective results.

Freedom, after all, is the answer to most of our problems. And that’s why governments often contend the opposite.

US Gov’t Targets Public Employees With ‘Whistleblower-Like’ Characteristics

in Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Alice Salles Comments are off

US Gov’t Targets Public Employees With ‘Whistleblower-Like’ Characteristics

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

The United States government may be looking for the “next Chelsea Manning,” a report from The Guardian argues.

ManningAccording to documents obtained by the UK newspaper, disgruntled employees, egomaniacs, and the office “door mat” are all potential whistleblowers under the ever watchful eyes of the US government.

In what many call a witch-hunt, the US government is allegedly placing all public employees under surveillance in order to spot individuals with characteristics that match Chelsea Manning’s profile. According to the government’s own standards, individuals with motives of greed, too much ego, or who experience financial difficulties may become whistleblowers. Employees who are “disgruntled,” or who appear to have “an ideology,” or a “divided loyalty” are also potential risks to the government.

According to Manning’s article, even employees with “any family/personal issues” should be closely watched for potential problems.

As Manning pointed out, anybody holding a security clearance may, at some point, be labeled as a potential threat if officials are trained to single out individuals by looking for the characteristics listed above.

The 31-page document reviewed by The Guardian was originally obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request placed by Chelsea Manning, the former United States Army soldier-turned whistleblower who became famous for leaking information on the US government’s actions in Iraq.

A video leaked by Manning and released by WikiLeaks in 2010 shows two American helicopters firing on a group of ten men, including two Reuters employees who had ben photographing an American Humvee under attack. The footage also shows helicopters firing at a van that had stopped to help the victims of the previous attack. Children inside the van were injured while their father was killed.

Months after Manning was arrested over violations of the Espionage Act, the National Insider Threat Task Force was created, and officials involved with the agency were given the task of deterring threats to national security by anyone “who misuses or betrays, wittingly or unwittingly, his or her authorized access to any US Government resource.” According to Manning, this gives the task force broad powers, resulting in “total surveillance.”

The 2011 “Insider Threat” program that followed Manning’s arrest, or what many call “modern-day McCarthyism,” also teaches officers to spy employees presenting what they believe to be deviations of sexual orientation and gender identity, characteristics that match the government’s profile of Manning.

As the country watches in horror what is now unfolding in Brussels after the deadly terrorist attack that killed over 30 innocent civilians, this report gets buried by the news cycle. With both Republican and Democrat candidates competing to show the county who’s the toughest on foreign policy, liberty advocates like former congressman Ron Paul argue that the American voter will be much more likely to urge government to do more after the Brussels attack, putting both of our safety and liberty in jeopardy.

Under a hawkish administration whose plans include expanding our presence in the Middle East, programs like the “Insider Threat” will be the norm. But can increased surveillance bring us safety?

History shows that the answer is no.