This may sound random but the first step that must be taken in order to reduce the kind of mass gun violence such the crime perpetrated recently in Roseberg, Oregon, and the ongoing everyday slaughter of Americans by guns is an obvious step and yet it is a step almost no one ever suggests when asked about the problem. The step is - Campaign Finance Reform.
Right now I am sure many readers are nodding in recognition of this simple, obvious and never spoken of truth!
There is no chance anything can change if lobbying efforts and campaign donations continue to influence elected officials one way or the other on the issue of gun control and any other issue where billions and billions of dollars are at stake. Gun control is not even remotely the issue that is most influenced by donations and lobbying; health care has that distinction, followed by the military industrial complex, and competes with numerous other lobbies, including agriculture, banks, union activists, anti-union activists and, well just about everything that involves profits or paychecks. If you want to know why the obvious never gets done in the U.S. despite the overwhelming desire of a vast majority of Americans, the explanation starts with the way we finance political campaigns.
The things that need to be done are pretty obvious; eliminate all donations over a modest dollar amount that almost any American could afford to donate and yet would be too small by itself or in total to influence an elected official. That could be as low as $100 for a Senator or House Representative. If a candidate obtains a threshold number of donations they then qualify for public financing that would dwarf what they could raise privately $100 at a time, and that is all the would be allowed to spend, period.
All other donations would be considered attempted bribes, which in reality, is exactly what they are.
Independent fundraising PACs may not be possible to eliminate BUT they should be held accountable for mis-information and can be sued as an institution and the suit should extend to donors as well if a Court finds that they lied or libeled a candidate or lied about an issue. Currently, as far as I know, PACs can accept donations privately and tell any lie they choose with impunity and face no consequences, or at least they have faced no consequences so far. Perhaps criminal liability for someone within a PAC who interfered with an election by promoting false information to the Public would do the trick. The difference from the average citizen who ignorantly spread lies is money - the PAC was paid to spread the lies, an average voter was just expressing an incorrect opinion. The difference is the monetary motive.
In any other business, if a product causes damage or is defective, the producer of the product is liable. If the producer of the product knowingly sold a defective or dangerous product, the producer is criminally liable, or should be. PACs should be treated no differently.
The next thing to do would be to institute term limits at every level of government, generally 8 years for executives, 12 years for legislators and 20 years for judges.
Then we can outlaw gerrymandering and, instead, with computers we can draw electoral districts objectively.
Finally we can stop trying to pass laws restricting voting rights aimed at the voters of the opposition party.
ONLY at that point can the intractable problems of gun violence, health care, the deficit and so on can even be thought about. My proof is the current state of affairs.
Showing posts with label campaign finance reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign finance reform. Show all posts
Monday, October 5, 2015
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Greed, the American Health Care System and Campaign Finance Reform
One of the things most people just don't understand about the American Health Care System is the how the game is rigged in favor of pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment makers and hospitals, and who is rigging it this way.
This past week it came to light that a older drug, acquired by a new ownership group, had its price raised by over 4000%, from $13.50 per pill to over $750 per pill. "Shkreli is the founder and chief executive of the pharmaceutical company Turing. He and his company have, of course, been the subjects of widespread news coverage this week after the New York Times highlighted Shkreli's decision to boost the cost of the more-than-60-year-old drug Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 after the company purchased the drug in August. The drug, developed long ago (i.e. the research costs were borne by a previous owner of the drug), is not exactly a frequently used medication but is considered the most effective drug and therefore the standard of care for people suffering with an infection called toxoplasmosis." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/23/martin-shkreli-a-new-icon-of-modern-greed/ This was a completely legal move.
This is not an isolated situation and in fact it is the rule, although in most cases, the price increase is nowhere near 4000%. Consider, however the case of "Sovaldi," a drug made by Gilead, that cures a form of hepatitis. "In the United States, Sovaldi costs $1,000 a pill, or $84,000 for a typical 12-week course of treatment. It is likely to be sold for less than $1,800 for a 24-week course of treatment in India, where people are generally infected with a different form of the virus and treatment regimens can take twice as long. Gilead plans to introduce the drug in India for about $10 a pill — 1 percent of the price in the United States, Gregg H. Alton, Gilead’s executive vice president, said at a news conference." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/business/international/maker-of-hepatitis-c-drug-strikes-deal-on-generics-for-poor-countries.html?_r=0 How can this be? Why would Gilead sell the drug in India at $10 per pill while charging $1000 per pill in the U.S.? If it's profitable in India at $10 per pill, why can't that be the price here as well?
The answer is that the game is rigged and its rigged by Congress and the Big Pharma lobby. If you did not know, the Health Care Lobby is the largest lobby in the country, larger than military-industrial complex or any other lobby group. They donate incredible amounts to campaigns and their support is crucial to may legislators financially.
Congress, the beneficiary of the huge campaign donations, has actually passed laws that prevent Medicare from negotiating the pricing of drugs with drug makers! Medicare cannot use its enormous leverage to get the best prices out of the drug makers in the same way that other countries do within their single payer nationalized health care systems. No, in the U.S., Medicare can only pay a premium over an average cost for drugs and that average is pretty high when the rest of the market consists of drug makers with monopolies on their drugs and a very fragmented market of numerous health insurance companies. All the leverage is on the side of the drug makers.
Obviously the solution is to take the handcuffs off of Medicare and in fact, go to a 100% single payer system, a Medicare for All system, in the U.S. To do this, we have to have a revolutionary campaign finance reform movement so that Congress is not in the pocket of their big donors. Good luck with that! Still, the first step to a better health care system, and solving numerous other problems, is campaign finance reform and as difficult and hopeless as it seems to be, reform must begin.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressed outrage over the costs of the above drugs mentioned this week made some recommendations to prevent this from happening were she elected President. "Under Mrs Clinton’s proposals, partially unveiled on September 22nd, Medicare, the government health scheme for elderly Americans, would be allowed to negotiate prices directly with drug companies—something the firms would fight tooth-and-nail. She also wants to stop drug firms treating the cost of direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense allowable against tax; such ads encourage patients to demand specific drugs when there may be cheaper alternatives that are just as effective. And Mrs Clinton would require drug companies that benefit from government spending on research and development to invest a “sufficient amount” in R&D of their own. If she were elected president however, she might struggle to get much of this through Congress, and even then it might have only a marginal effect on the unrelenting rise in the cost of medicines." http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21665436-dramatic-rises-price-some-medicines-prompt-calls-action-hillary-clinton-promises
This is a good proposal but it will not pass through Congress UNLESS Congress is no longer owned by the Health Care Lobby and greed is no longer rewarded in the American Health Care System. Job Number One is Campaign Finance Reform.
Note: After Secretary Clinton's comments, Turing, the company that owns Daraprim, announced it would roll back the price to some as of yet unspecified lower price and the stock prices of many large pharmaceutical tanked on Wall Street.
This past week it came to light that a older drug, acquired by a new ownership group, had its price raised by over 4000%, from $13.50 per pill to over $750 per pill. "Shkreli is the founder and chief executive of the pharmaceutical company Turing. He and his company have, of course, been the subjects of widespread news coverage this week after the New York Times highlighted Shkreli's decision to boost the cost of the more-than-60-year-old drug Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 after the company purchased the drug in August. The drug, developed long ago (i.e. the research costs were borne by a previous owner of the drug), is not exactly a frequently used medication but is considered the most effective drug and therefore the standard of care for people suffering with an infection called toxoplasmosis." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/23/martin-shkreli-a-new-icon-of-modern-greed/ This was a completely legal move.
This is not an isolated situation and in fact it is the rule, although in most cases, the price increase is nowhere near 4000%. Consider, however the case of "Sovaldi," a drug made by Gilead, that cures a form of hepatitis. "In the United States, Sovaldi costs $1,000 a pill, or $84,000 for a typical 12-week course of treatment. It is likely to be sold for less than $1,800 for a 24-week course of treatment in India, where people are generally infected with a different form of the virus and treatment regimens can take twice as long. Gilead plans to introduce the drug in India for about $10 a pill — 1 percent of the price in the United States, Gregg H. Alton, Gilead’s executive vice president, said at a news conference." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/business/international/maker-of-hepatitis-c-drug-strikes-deal-on-generics-for-poor-countries.html?_r=0 How can this be? Why would Gilead sell the drug in India at $10 per pill while charging $1000 per pill in the U.S.? If it's profitable in India at $10 per pill, why can't that be the price here as well?
The answer is that the game is rigged and its rigged by Congress and the Big Pharma lobby. If you did not know, the Health Care Lobby is the largest lobby in the country, larger than military-industrial complex or any other lobby group. They donate incredible amounts to campaigns and their support is crucial to may legislators financially.
Congress, the beneficiary of the huge campaign donations, has actually passed laws that prevent Medicare from negotiating the pricing of drugs with drug makers! Medicare cannot use its enormous leverage to get the best prices out of the drug makers in the same way that other countries do within their single payer nationalized health care systems. No, in the U.S., Medicare can only pay a premium over an average cost for drugs and that average is pretty high when the rest of the market consists of drug makers with monopolies on their drugs and a very fragmented market of numerous health insurance companies. All the leverage is on the side of the drug makers.
Obviously the solution is to take the handcuffs off of Medicare and in fact, go to a 100% single payer system, a Medicare for All system, in the U.S. To do this, we have to have a revolutionary campaign finance reform movement so that Congress is not in the pocket of their big donors. Good luck with that! Still, the first step to a better health care system, and solving numerous other problems, is campaign finance reform and as difficult and hopeless as it seems to be, reform must begin.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressed outrage over the costs of the above drugs mentioned this week made some recommendations to prevent this from happening were she elected President. "Under Mrs Clinton’s proposals, partially unveiled on September 22nd, Medicare, the government health scheme for elderly Americans, would be allowed to negotiate prices directly with drug companies—something the firms would fight tooth-and-nail. She also wants to stop drug firms treating the cost of direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense allowable against tax; such ads encourage patients to demand specific drugs when there may be cheaper alternatives that are just as effective. And Mrs Clinton would require drug companies that benefit from government spending on research and development to invest a “sufficient amount” in R&D of their own. If she were elected president however, she might struggle to get much of this through Congress, and even then it might have only a marginal effect on the unrelenting rise in the cost of medicines." http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21665436-dramatic-rises-price-some-medicines-prompt-calls-action-hillary-clinton-promises
This is a good proposal but it will not pass through Congress UNLESS Congress is no longer owned by the Health Care Lobby and greed is no longer rewarded in the American Health Care System. Job Number One is Campaign Finance Reform.
Note: After Secretary Clinton's comments, Turing, the company that owns Daraprim, announced it would roll back the price to some as of yet unspecified lower price and the stock prices of many large pharmaceutical tanked on Wall Street.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Benghazi - What We Should Do About It
Benghazi - the "scandal" that won't go away or be explained in any way that makes sense. Exactly what is being "covered up" and why was there a so-called "cover up"?
As far as I can tell, the "scandal" consists of the Obama Administration claiming through statements made by then UN representative Susan Rice shortly after the tragic events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya, that the cause of the killing of our envoy and other US Embassy employees was possibly a spontaneous attack on the Embassy as a response to an inflammatory amateur video made in the US that questioned the Islamic religion. The attack instead turned out to be a planned attack by a local Al Qaeda group that just happened to coincide with riots then taking place in other Islamic countries that were indeed in response to this film.
The scandalous story line asserts that the Administration made this false claim to deflect criticism that they should have supplied more security to the Embassy staff beforehand. If the attack were spontaneous, such security needs could not have been anticipated but an Al Qaeda threat should have been anticipated. Or so the story line goes.
Or perhaps the Administration made their claim to avoid some other line of criticism. I really am not clear on what advantage the Administration had to gain by offering a misleading explanation for the attack knowing that the actual truth would inevitably come out and fairly soon at that. Indeed, it came out within the week and that should have been that. The original explanation could have been taken as a mistake.
If there was any scandal, it lay in the decision about security before the attack; this is a decision that should now be scrutinized fully, keeping in mind, however, that hindsight is 20-20. But it does seem that a cover up would be pointless; there is no way that if this was an Al Qaeda related attack that the truth would never come out, nor does it seem possible that the Administration would be motivated to not let the blame fall on an Al Qaeda related group if that was where the blame should lay.
Whether this was a spontaneous attack inspired by religious fanaticism or a planned attack inspired by religious fanaticism, the attack was inspired by religious fanaticism. Planned or spontaneous, who really cares? What difference does it make? It would seem that security would be a concern in any country that either harbors religiously fanatical regular people in the streets or religiously fanatical people in terrorist cells.
A constructive exploration of this tragedy would consist of a true examination of the role of religious extremism in the so-called "Arab Spring." Can anything good come from any change in governments unless the resulting new regime is a secular, free democratic republic where the rights of the individual are protected fully or at least somewhat? Is it really better to be governed by a democratically elected majority of religious fanatics as opposed to being ruled by a more secular dictator who did not oppress women and/or non-believers as much as the clerics or fanatics that would replace him? The goal is individual freedom of which democracy is an indispensable aspect but not the sole factor. This is the conversation that needs to be had.
Instead, all we have is politics. I mean that in the worst way.
There is a way to address the poisonous political discourse. It's called term limits. If Congressional members did not have to constantly worry about raising money and getting re-elected, perhaps they might have time to consider the welfare of the citizens of the US. As I've written before in this blog, Job One is re-gaining control of our democracy. Campaign finance reform, an end to voter suppression, outlawing Gerrymandering, reforming the electoral college and term limits for all branches of government may not solve all our political problems, but it is a guarantee that they would be a great help.
As far as I can tell, the "scandal" consists of the Obama Administration claiming through statements made by then UN representative Susan Rice shortly after the tragic events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya, that the cause of the killing of our envoy and other US Embassy employees was possibly a spontaneous attack on the Embassy as a response to an inflammatory amateur video made in the US that questioned the Islamic religion. The attack instead turned out to be a planned attack by a local Al Qaeda group that just happened to coincide with riots then taking place in other Islamic countries that were indeed in response to this film.
The scandalous story line asserts that the Administration made this false claim to deflect criticism that they should have supplied more security to the Embassy staff beforehand. If the attack were spontaneous, such security needs could not have been anticipated but an Al Qaeda threat should have been anticipated. Or so the story line goes.
Or perhaps the Administration made their claim to avoid some other line of criticism. I really am not clear on what advantage the Administration had to gain by offering a misleading explanation for the attack knowing that the actual truth would inevitably come out and fairly soon at that. Indeed, it came out within the week and that should have been that. The original explanation could have been taken as a mistake.
If there was any scandal, it lay in the decision about security before the attack; this is a decision that should now be scrutinized fully, keeping in mind, however, that hindsight is 20-20. But it does seem that a cover up would be pointless; there is no way that if this was an Al Qaeda related attack that the truth would never come out, nor does it seem possible that the Administration would be motivated to not let the blame fall on an Al Qaeda related group if that was where the blame should lay.
Whether this was a spontaneous attack inspired by religious fanaticism or a planned attack inspired by religious fanaticism, the attack was inspired by religious fanaticism. Planned or spontaneous, who really cares? What difference does it make? It would seem that security would be a concern in any country that either harbors religiously fanatical regular people in the streets or religiously fanatical people in terrorist cells.
A constructive exploration of this tragedy would consist of a true examination of the role of religious extremism in the so-called "Arab Spring." Can anything good come from any change in governments unless the resulting new regime is a secular, free democratic republic where the rights of the individual are protected fully or at least somewhat? Is it really better to be governed by a democratically elected majority of religious fanatics as opposed to being ruled by a more secular dictator who did not oppress women and/or non-believers as much as the clerics or fanatics that would replace him? The goal is individual freedom of which democracy is an indispensable aspect but not the sole factor. This is the conversation that needs to be had.
Instead, all we have is politics. I mean that in the worst way.
There is a way to address the poisonous political discourse. It's called term limits. If Congressional members did not have to constantly worry about raising money and getting re-elected, perhaps they might have time to consider the welfare of the citizens of the US. As I've written before in this blog, Job One is re-gaining control of our democracy. Campaign finance reform, an end to voter suppression, outlawing Gerrymandering, reforming the electoral college and term limits for all branches of government may not solve all our political problems, but it is a guarantee that they would be a great help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)