- Pink Ribbon Reality
You've probably seen a lot of pink ribbons around lately. Maybe
you're even wearing one. October is Breast Cancer Awareness
Month, after all.
But which presidential candidate deserves to wear that pink
ribbon?
In other words, which of the two supports healthcare policies
that are most likely to help in the fight against breast cancer?
It's not enough to give lip service to the cause. Committing
resources to funding research will help. But a variety of health
policy issues affect women struggling with the disease now and
all those who will struggle with it in the future.
Breast cancer used to be a death sentence. You might have watched
the gruesome scene in last year's HBO miniseries "John Adams," in
which the second president's daughter Abigail endures an
anesthetic-free mastectomy. Her ordeal didn't even save her life.
But incredible breakthroughs, many made in just the last decade,
are now improving and even saving the lives of cancer sufferers.
We might ask which candidate supports a program that will get
women suffering from breast cancer the best care as early as
possible.
Perhaps the most important new drugs given to cancer patients are
biologics. These medicines are not the relatively simple
chemicals that make up conventional drugs. These complex
medicines, often given through injection, are created through the
genetic engineering of living material. These are treatments
researchers refer to when they discuss "gene therapies."
These revolutionary medicines are extending and saving lives
around the globe. Herceptin, approved by the FDA a decade ago,
actually stops a certain type of breast cancer cell from growing.
Avastin is another biologic, approved by the FDA just this year.
It can extend the lives of late-stage breast cancer patients by
several months by stopping the formation of blood vessels that
tumors use to grow.
Right now, these life-extending drugs are available here in the
U.S. and elsewhere. But that could change if our nation moves
towards a government-run healthcare system, as some candidates
have urged.
Look at the United Kingdom. The government decides exactly which
health treatments it will provide through the National Institute
for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). That body does
cost-benefit analyses to determine whether a treatment is worth
providing.
You can't put a price on the life of a loved one. But that's just
what NICE does.
Pricier treatments are often the first thing to fall prey to
penny pinching in strained government budgets. Biologics are in
this category. The complex medicines take years to research and
develop, and then more years to test and get approved.
That's why NICE originally wouldn't let breast cancer patients in
the early stages of their disease receive Herceptin. The
bureaucracy changed its guidelines only after a public outcry.
It hasn't changed its mind on Avastin yet. The U.K. will not fund
treatment with this drug, even though it's been shown to extend
lives. In fact, the government-run service is so adamant that
patients not use this drug that you'll be penalized even if you
buy it yourself.
The NHS informed mother-of-two Colette Mills that if she insisted
on taking Avastin, though paying for it herself, she'd have to
foot the entire bill for her treatment -- even for care the
government typically provides.
Such a nightmare could happen here. Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and
Kent Conrad (D-ND) have already introduced a bill to create a
similar agency here to cut healthcare costs.
That's not the only way lawmakers want to cut costs to the
detriment of care. We must also ask which candidate understands
what makes the best climate for research and development of
life-saving drugs.
Some think we can lower costs for biologics the same way we have
for conventional drugs, through generics. They want to pass laws
making it easier for companies to manufacture what are called
"follow-on biologics."
This might sound like a good idea, but comparing biologics to
conventional drugs is like comparing apples and oranges.
Biologics aren't made using chemicals -- they're made using
living tissue. There's no way to make an exact replica of gene
therapies.
So if these drugs are legalized, lawmakers must make sure they're
safe. And lawmakers must protect the financial incentives needed
to create these drugs. Otherwise, we'll never know what
life-saving treatments we've lost.
So don't just look at each candidate's lapel this month to see if
they're participating in the fight against breast cancer -- look
at their broader healthcare plans. The fight against breast
cancer will take place on many different fronts.
- Entitlements
Obama says he'll solve the problem within his first term, then
pivots to talking about taxes. McCain talks about entitlements
slightly more, saying that we can fix Social Security if the
parties come together like Reagan and Tip O'Neill, and that
Medicare, is more complicated, so we'll have to do something
bold...create a commission! Then he talks more about taxes.
This is the most important long-term domestic issue facing
Americans, and neither of the two candidates running for president
can think of enough to say about it to give a two-minute answer.
How many people think either of these guys will do anything about
it once in office.
- McCain Veers Off
Asked about fixing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,
McCain says we can fix all three at the same time, but then starts
talking about energy independence.
- The Bible vs. the Bailout
Some years ago, I was asked to speak to a Christian
homeschooling conference -- my wife and I have homeschooled our six
children -- and during the question-and-answer session after the
speech, I faced a question for which I was unprepared.
"How has your Christian faith influenced your political
beliefs?"
This stunned me into silence for a second. Then I answered:
"Well, I guess it comes down to that part about 'Thou shalt not
steal.'"
From there I proceeded to discuss the basic immorality of the
welfare state, how it is wrong for government to take money that
one man has worked for and give it to someone who hasn't earned
it.
Whereas transactions in a market economy are voluntary and
peaceful, the actions of government are essentially coercive,
backed with the threat of violence to those who disobey. What
government does, it does "at the point of the bayonet," so to
speak. Therefore, the fearsome power of government ought to be
constrained to limited and specific purposes -- defending the life,
liberty and property of citizens.
When government begins to meddle in the economy, picking winners
and losers, using appropriations and fiscal policy to transfer
money from one group of citizens to another, it divides society
into two classes, taxpayers and tax consumers, punishing the former
in order to reward the latter.
Such a policy is not merely misguided, it is immoral -- indeed,
it is sinful, as I told the Christian homeschoolers -- and
by displaying the spectacle of government engaging daily in
legalized theft, the welfare state tends to corrupt the morals of
its citizens.
THAT LONG-AGO SPEECH came to mind yesterday as the Senate prepared
to vote on the mortgage bailout plan. Why, after all, are so many
Americans so fiercely opposed to this plan, even though bailout
proponents warn that the alternative is a complete meltdown of the
economy?
The president has told us that "the government's top
economic experts" believe the bailout is necessary to avert an
economic collapse. The plan is supported by leaders of both parties
in Congress, and endorsed by both John McCain and Barack Obama. One
eminent pundit has denounced bailout opponents as
"nihilists."
Yet I cannot escape the conclusion that the bailout is wrong.
Not just wrong as a matter of politics or policy, but wrong as a
matter of morality. And I suspect that the same moral instinct
fuels the fervor of many citizens who have been burning up the
Capitol Hill switchboard with calls demanding that lawmakers vote
against this bill.
Ordinary Americans cannot ignore the "still small voice" telling
them that what is being proposed is nothing less than
government-sponsored grand theft, and that in a government "of the
people, by the people, for the people," this crime is to be carried
out in their name.
The fact that similarly massive expropriations -- from farm
subsidies to Medicare Part D -- have been official federal policy
for decades does not deter these opponents of the welfare state
from rising up to shout "no!" when, as on this occasion, the
proposition of a new swindle puts the fundamental issue into stark
relief.
SOME SUPPORTERS of the bailout have said that it is "irresponsible"
to oppose the plan, since failure to pass it would lead to a
financial
