« Shiller on the housing market | Main | In defense of used books» Russell Roberts
September 15, 2008
Panderer in chief
Russell Roberts
For me, this video captures much of what is wrong with the political process in America. Here is the text:
Lance Armstrong: Senator Obama and Senator McCain, we will lose more than 560,000 Americans to cancer this year--1,500 a day. That amounts to one American death every minute. What are three specific things that you will do to help accelerate the fight against this disease?
McCain: As president, I will lead the effort for stronger and more coordinated public and private research efforts.
Right—let's start with a totally empty statement that has the vague sound of good management but in practice means absoluteIy nothing.
I worked in the past to double NIH funding
You did? That was so generous. I know your wife is a wealthy women but still, the NIH budget is real money and for you to double it, well that just blows me away. What? Oh, you mean you voted for doubling it using taxpayer money. I get it. OK. Never mind. But it sure sounded grand the way you said it. I suppose that was the idea.
and I will also work for greater focus on healthy living, early detection, and ensuring access to quality and affordable care for all Americans, especially those who are denied coverage because of a devastating disease like cancer.
Oh yes, greater focus. That's what's missing. Focus.
This is a fight we must, and will, win as a nation.
Definitely. Thanks for all the specifics. And now for Senator Obama's answer.
Obama: First, I’ll double cancer research funding.
Way to go! Very specific. But I assume you mean taxpayer-funded research. Like your opponent, you use language that implies it's your doing. Either way, why only a doubling? Why not a quadrupling? Or a ten-fold increase. If you're going to make a meaningless pledge that's pure pandering, think big!
Second, I’ll provide affordable health care for all Americans. As someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I’ll make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick. I’ll push them to cover cancer screenings, and provide treatment and preventive care.
Great idea. Why not have the government just take over the whole business of insurance?
Third, we’ll modernize the health care system to reduce medical error, lower costs and improve the quality of patient care.
Ah, modernization. That will make such a big difference.
It’s time for a government that wages a war against cancer as aggressive as the war cancer wages against us.
Love that military metaphor.
As president, I will lead that fight.
But Senator McCain promises to win that fight. Where's your optimism?
Here is what I wish one of them had said:
Cancer is a horrible disease and we currently spend billions of dollars both publicly and privately to fight it. I'd love to spend even more, but of course a dollar spent fighting cancer is a dollar not spent fighting heart disease and I'm not sure we've got the right balance. Maybe we need to double the amount we spend fighting cancer or maybe we need to cut it in half. As President I pledge to make our public funding of research as effective as possible rather than listening to the loudest voices. Wish me luck. Finally, I pledge to reduce the regulatory hurdles facing drug innovation that reduce the returns to research and delay the arrival of life-saving drugs.
Posted by Russell Roberts in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e2010534a644b7970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Panderer in chief:
Comments
I agree with your sentiment completely. The government often doesn't know where to promote research, which is why they seem to have at least started running competitions (though those seem flawed). Also, I would agree that we need to allow greater drug testing and also need to allow more med schools to open so we can increase competition among doctors.
Posted by: EconStudent | Sep 15, 2008 10:32:03 PM
Here! Here! Well said! Heck, too bad we can't get the FDA banned altogether.
Posted by: Eric | Sep 15, 2008 10:50:24 PM
Great Post!
Posted by: Oil Shock | Sep 15, 2008 11:13:00 PM
Shazaam! Haha. I'm sending this to all my political-minded friends and family. Great post.
Posted by: Brandon Robison | Sep 16, 2008 12:09:57 AM
Excellent job, Professor Roberts.
I love how neither of the two candidates ever seem to mention "deregulation" of the pharmaceutical industry as a method of improving health care in America. Pandering, indeed.
Posted by: Andrew | Sep 16, 2008 12:29:13 AM
...i'm getting the strangest sense of deja vu...
Posted by: shawn | Sep 16, 2008 1:09:04 AM
As radical as this sounds I believe that the FDA is the reason for which a cure for cancer has not been found yet; along with many other diseases.
Milton Friedman often argued that Type II deaths were much greater than Type I. He reffered to Type I as the number of people we save from not allowing them to take medicine that could potentially hurt them.
However the number of people (Type II) that are willing to try the medicine is much larger, and they often tend to pass away prior to having a chance to fight the disease they are facing.
I don't understand why the government feels like they have a right to tell us what we can and can't do in terms of OUR OWN HEALTH!!!
Most people know that if they are taking a drug that hasn't hit the public market that there could be a high risk involved. What the FDA should do is allow all these medical firms to provide the drugs if and when they explain the possible risks. This way we allow the individuals to make up their own decision based upon the information provided.
Most of these individuals that face a terminal disease would rather pass away knowing they went down with a fight, as suppose to just sitting around, waiting for some medical breakthrough that has to be in accordance with the FDA.
Posted by: Eddie | Sep 16, 2008 1:59:54 AM
Great Post
Posted by: Christos Kitromilides | Sep 16, 2008 3:34:25 AM
WRT to scientific research of any kind, the sad reality is that throwing more money can maybe throw some more bodies at the problem, but for those on the cutting edge they can't go any faster. Their breakthroughs will happen when they happen, throwing more money at them will make their bank accounts a bit fatter but it won't get the chemical formula any faster.
Posted by: Crusader | Sep 16, 2008 4:37:28 AM
The problem is that any candidate who gave something like Prof. Roberts' answer would not win his election.
Posted by: Blackadder | Sep 16, 2008 8:34:33 AM
Here is the question. If Russell Roberts was a candidate to the presidency would then his colleague, our Dear Tenured Professor, muster up some enthusiasm for politics and get up of his chair and actually vote?
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Sep 16, 2008 8:47:43 AM
As President, I pledge to make our public funding of research as effective as possible rather than listening to the loudest voices.
As President, I pledge to keep my nose out of cancer research, because I don't have a clue.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Sep 16, 2008 9:06:09 AM
Many are familiar with the AFLAC "Duck."
The history of that insurer, and its role in providing insurance to defray the expenses of that single dread disease Cancer is less well known.
Beginning in 1958, when practically all insurers excluded (or limited) coverages for the occurence of Cancer, American Family Life (Columbus, Ga.) provided specific coverages for procedures related to dealing with that disease. The only requirement for claims was a pathological determination of the existence of cancer.
Many State insurance departments attempted to limit the offering of that coverage; N.Y. being a prime example. Other insurers attempted to limit the value of the coverage through "coordination of benefits" (reducing payments under their own (usually group)coverages by the amounts individuals received from their persoanl policies for this disease - and its high costs of treatments).
As a result of attempts by the IRS to apply adverse tax treatment to American Family, that company developed a cancer morbidity table which defeated the IRS assertions and provided invaluable, previously unavailable statistics.
During the course of facing severe challenges,falsifications and political opportunisms, the value of the cancer coverage from American Family was recognized in Japan where none of the domestic companies were willing to provide that coverage.
A comparison of the provisions for Cancer Coverages in the U.S and Japan will show what can be advanced by the private sector - even over bureaucratic opposition and "parentalisms."
Once again, governments (state and federal) are the problem, not the solution.
This writer has no present connection, other than shareholdings, with AFLAC, but was a great admirer and supporter of its founder, the late John B. Amos.
Posted by: R. Richard Schweitzer | Sep 16, 2008 11:08:39 AM
This is so stupid. They always ask voters, 'which candidate would you rather have a beer with?' You want to have a beer with any politicians, really?
— Jay Leno, The Tonight Show
Posted by: John Smith | Sep 16, 2008 11:13:00 AM
(applauds)
Posted by: Ike | Sep 16, 2008 11:25:22 AM
Well put Mr. Schweitzer! I had known that Alfac was big in Japan before it became so in America, but I was not fully aware of why.
Posted by: Hammer | Sep 16, 2008 11:43:00 AM
As a side note, I always thought that such a private insurance agency would fulfil the bugaboo of those against legalizing various narcotics. People always fret about the health costs of people who show up in ERs after having OD'd. I figure so long as hospitals are not forced to treat them for free (in other words, at our expense) insurance companies could make some money off "OD Insurance", or avoid the issue by not offering coverage for issues caused by it, etc.
Posted by: Hammer | Sep 16, 2008 11:46:00 AM
To Per Kurowski:
You wonder what would happen to my affection for politics if Russ Roberts ever became a candidate for political office: They'd not change.
Russ is far too decent a human being - a man deeply decent and honest - a man with both self-respect and respect for others - a man for whom the charades and shenanigans that every politician must perform would be disgraceful - to ever seek political office with any chance of winning.
Posted by: Don Boudreaux | Sep 16, 2008 3:47:07 PM
This is so stupid. They always ask voters, 'which candidate would you rather have a beer with?' You want to have a beer with any politicians, really?
I seem to remember that the number one reason given for voting for Jimmy Carter was that he seemed like a nice guy. Great.
Posted by: Methinks | Sep 16, 2008 4:45:18 PM
To Per Kurowski:
You wonder what would happen to my affection for politics if Russ Roberts ever became a candidate for political office: They'd not change.
Russ is far too decent a human being - a man deeply decent and honest - a man with both self-respect and respect for others - a man for whom the charades and shenanigans that every politician must perform would be disgraceful - to ever seek political office with any chance of winning.
What does that say about our friend Mike Munger - the man currently running for Governor of North Carolina - and frequent guest on Econ Talk? :)
Posted by: James | Sep 16, 2008 7:05:18 PM
Don,
If every person seeking elected office is of questionable character then isn't it a problem with how we've set up our political system? Is it possible in your mind to set up a system that would elect and attract men of character?
See this is the difficulty I have with your position because it's a position that seems to consider economics in isolation of any political system. We live in the real world not in an economic text book and there has to be some room to consider the political needs of an economy.
Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 17, 2008 3:01:10 AM
Well done Russ, do you have inside info? Your snide remark "Great idea. Why not have the government just take over the whole business of insurance?" actually came true (almost, gov't owns 79.9% of AIG now!) Don't you love the circularity of American insureds being covered by themselves!
playdumb
Posted by: PlayDumb | Sep 17, 2008 10:08:16 AM
Russell Roberts to Per Kurowski:
“You wonder what would happen to my affection for politics if Russ Roberts ever became a candidate for political office: They'd not change.
Russ is far too decent a human being - a man deeply decent and honest - a man with both self-respect and respect for others - a man for whom the charades and shenanigans that every politician must perform would be disgraceful - to ever seek political office with any chance of winning.”
Great. I take you word on Mr. Roberts being such a great man. I have no reason earth to doubt he is. That said, in that case, is not “to ever seek political office with any chance of winning” sort of having Mr. Roberts pushing the rope? How else do we have a future if we do not try to make it go wherever we feel it should? Are you a fatalist? Let the bad politicians take over and ride the waves?
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Sep 17, 2008 12:07:47 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
