Does everyone have a right to the best medicine?

A friend recently asked me what I think about the following:

UN Human Rights  Council says everyone has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.  Here are my thoughts:

As I wrote in my health care paper years ago, there are 3 different types of health care system which can work:

·         One-payer
·         Assured floor with rising tide that helps all ships
·         Libertarian

I favor the “rising tide” approach but people have the right to vote for any of those approaches.  Fortunately, there are some common principles which apply across all three types.  Unfortunately, those principles are not adhered to.

I don’t agree with the belief that everyone has a right to everything.  Essentially, this is the belief that everybody has the right to equal results, as opposed to equal opportunity. 

Health advances have occurred thanks to efforts in two sectors:

·         Government initiatives in terms of sanitation, requiring vaccination, etc.
·         Private enterprise – the medical advances discussed here fall into that sector.

The private sector advances have occurred because individuals have had incentive to take a variety of risks in order to pursue advancement.  Over time, all the advancements have reduced in cost, hence become available to a broader population.  Charitable organizations have contributed to spreading availability.

The risks are greater today than ever because:

·         Lawsuits make it scary to make many of these products available today.  Products have been pulled off the market.  Research is dulled also as a result.  This is a significant market access issue that the UN Human Rights Council seems to have ignored.

·         Government processes increase costs substantially and make returns more delayed and less certain.  This impacts price substantially.  Some of it (maybe a lot of it) is justified.  But there is also a restriction on human rights when a government forbids an individual from using a medicine that individual wants to use, as well as an impact on price and development.

·         Competition is much more severe in all aspects of business in the world today.  So you can get beaten to market or have a very short-lived product.

Nonetheless

1.    Profits might be too high in pharmaceuticals, but that is a huge topic that can’t be adequately addressed here.  I don’t like the short-term views of corporate management, in general.  Part of the short-term view is attributable to larger cities and more distant competition.  Businesses no longer have the same relationship with their local communities.  I’m not sure how to change this.  It is partly cultural.  However, encouraging more entrants generally leads to more competitive pricing. New technology in dealing with RNA and DNA enables gene-splicing very inexpensively, which lowers barriers and costs, helping to develop new medicines and reducing cost.  We need to encourage such competition, not discourage it.

2.    Certainly there is an opportunity to provide better health services worldwide.  For example, I love generics, but the inventor must be protected for an appropriate amount of time.

The UN Human Rights Council proposes to “delink medical research and development from the prices of medicines, diagnostics and vaccines”.  The article gave no indication of how they propose to do so.

What is Patriotism?

Robert Reich created this YouTube video What is Patriotism?, in which he defines 5 principles of patriotism.

Here are my alternative 5 principles of patriotism:

1.      Work toward the common good.

2.      Pay fair share of taxes.

3.      Respectfully discuss issues honestly and educate the public.

4.      Avoid overburdening future generations with crushing debt.

5.      Protect individual rights (including but not limited to free speech) and the separation of powers

Reich argues that we should love our government rather than hate it and we should work to improve it.  Unfortunately, Reich supports huge central government which is NOT patriotism.  Patriotism involves protecting individual rights.  It is striking that, other than the freedom to vote, Reich’s 5 principles do not mention defending individual freedom, which is the foundation of our government.  Nor does he cite the importance of separation of powers, which I think is the most important governmental characteristic that has made our country great.  Separation of powers is fragile, threatened and must be defended.  Government has a role in protecting our rights, but we must be diligent to avoid providing government powers that can lead to oppression.

Protecting the right to vote includes protecting the legitimacy of the vote.  Identification is required for many mundane things in our daily lives, yet he opposes protecting the legitimacy of vote which he cherishes.  Unfortunately, Reich and his allies have shown no interest in finding a solution to avoid election fraud, instead simply arguing fatuously that it does not exist. It does not exist?  Reich’s allies funded substantial voter fraud performed by ACORN.  We had an election in Missouri that was decided by one vote; a relative of the “winner” voted in the wrong district, thereby deciding the election.  There may well have been other fraudulent votes as well.

Reich urges that we not “buy off politicians”.  Of course, this is “apple pie”, but it is a narrow issue to address.  More broadly, politicians’ integrity should be a key litmus test in voting.  Instead most voters reward dirty politics, false campaign promises, etc.  If politicians are being bought off, we are voting for the wrong people.

Reich cites being involved politically as a principle of patriotism.  Our involvement should protect and respect free speech and educate voters by clearly defining the issues and potential consequences.  Politicians in both parties provide slanted, emotional and even false information, ignoring valid points their opponents make, preferring to persuade citizens to disrespect their opponent’s positions.  Reich’s allies are particularly guilty of trying to limit speech which is not “politically correct”.  Such repression has been typical of our universities, for example, for generations.

Reich’s 5 principles include not pandering to divisiveness.  I agree strongly, but Reich strongly supports spending money we don’t have to pander to uninformed voters at the expense of future generations.  Driving our country into insolvency is the antithesis of patriotism, in my opinion.

George Gordon is right: we need respectful discussion

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/as-i-see-it/article87291222.html

I applaud George Gordon’s “As I See It” article in the KC Star on July 4, 2016 (link above)!  We certainly need more respect for different opinions.  If probed, we'd find more common values than each side may think exist.

In Mr. Gordon's article, he did not mean to say that, in general, either side is devoid in the values of the other, solely that one side favors them more.  In some cases, the sides are much closer than people might think.  For example, the sides each value creativity, but different types of creativity, in general.

A key difference that I suspect Mr. Gordon would agree to add is that the "Main Street" mentality is more concerned about creating burdensome debt that will crush our society and our descendants.

I disagree (could be worked out by discussion) with his position that the "Liberal Arts" group values freedom of thought more than the "Main Street" group.  My observation is directly opposite.  For example, there have been repressions of freedom of thought on our campuses for decades.  The "Liberal Arts" (aka "left") has largely supported freedom of thought only for those who share their "politically correct" opinions.

We greatly need to have respectful discussion particularly among politicians and need political leadership that works successfully at bringing us together rather than dividing us.  Unfortunately, we have not had a president with a unifying approach since Bill Clinton 16 years ago and both of our 2016 presidential candidates have historically been dividers rather than unifiers.