- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Threat to Medical Innovation
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 5:55PM
Earlier today, I attended a panel discussion at the Cato Institute about one of the most important aspects of health care that has gotten very little coverage during the current debate -- medical innovation.
Raymond Raad, a resident in psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center and co-author of a new Cato study, presented evidence showing that the United States leads the world in the development of drugs, medical devices, and other advanced treatments. For instance, between 1969 and 2008, 57 of the 97 Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology -- or nearly 60 percent -- were awarded to people who did their research in the U.S., and nine of the top 10 medical innovations between 1975 and 2000 were developed here. But these achievements aren't reflected in rankings of different health care systems that typically show the U.S. faring poorly and provide fodder to those pushing for government-run health care. This even though once these products are developed in the U.S., they become widely available and improve health care outcomes around the world.
Raad argued that one of the big dangers of health care legislation is that expanding the role of government and trying to impose price controls could change incentives to innovate. When the government is such a large consumer of health care, it has tremendous influence over whether some innovations succeed. As an example, Raad noted how government stunted the growth of specialty hospitals by not allowing Medicare money to spent at them. Specialty hospitals are smaller institutions formed by doctors to focus on one type of illness, such as heart disease. They can deliver better health outcomes and a more personalized experience for patients than giant factory hospitals that benefit from their tax-exempt non-profit status even as they rake in billions of dollars. Raad explained that some of the most common and important medical innovations --such as CT scans -- were quite controversial when first introduced, and thus putting more constraints on the market could prevent wider use of new products that may ultimately prove beneficial.
Gerard Anderson, director of the Center for Hospital Finance and Management at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, described himself as the liberal on the panel. He emphasized the importance of universal access to new medical innovations, and argued that it was "naive" to talk about where innovations originated, since they all tend to be developed on a multi-national basis in many stages. He also showed that the pace of medical innovation has slowed in recent years, in both the U.S. and Europe, and said that it's important to do something to change incentives that are currently in place. Currently, large drug companies spend just 12 percent to 15 percent of their outlays on researching and developing new drugs, and 30 percent on marketing them.
John Calfee of the American Enterprise Institute suggested several reasons to worry about in the current health care bills. He said they would increase the costs to both the public and private sector well beyond what Congressional Budget Office is projecting. And he warned that it would be difficult for government to resist the temptation to impose price controls on products that were very expensive relative to their marginal costs. For instance, once drugs are developed, the cost to manufacture each additional pill is small relative to the price charged for the drug. But imposing such controls would reduce profits and thus the incentives of drug companies.
Get That Hacker a Pimp Coat
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 5:29PM
What made the ACORN-exposing work of James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles so sensational was that they successfully infiltrated the habitats of the subjects they investigated, and observed their routine behaviors. They didn't have to coerce or pressure the ACORN office workers to say or do things they did not want to do. It wasn't "60 Minutes," but it reflected the new paradigm under cable TV news and Web rules. James and Hannah were like computer hackers walking in the front door and literally being given what they wanted.
So now an actual hacker -- or an insider -- has exposed something similar in the global warming activism realm: scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (regarded as Britain's top authority) caught in behaviors they would never want the outside world to see. Marc Morano at Climate Depot is developing the link archive and Australian reporter Andrew Bolt is harvesting revelatory remarks from emails and documents, as he explains:
So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.
This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle.
The clogosphere (climate blogs) is awash in this story (again, see Climate Depot). Even if this isn't your issue, you ought to at least spend a little time this weekend (all us politico-infojunkies still get our fixes on Saturdays, right?) perusing what Bolt has unearthed. Amazing stuff which Chris Horner says could be alarmism's "blue dress moment." As Bolt notes, it's not just the East Anglians -- it's the foremost global warmer scientists from all over, caught. Wow.
Justice Dep't Recusal List!
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 3:03PM
To give credit where it is due, Byron York had a good piece on a brewing battle between Sen. Chuck Grassley and AG Eric Holder about how many times Justice officials have been forced to recuse themselves on suspected-terrorist detainee cases. Well, just within the past hour, we at the Wash Times advanced the story in a special early editorial. The answer for one official, departmental number 3 Tom Perelli: 39 times. This is a Wash Times opinion department exclusive.
The names of the detainees? Saad Al Qahtani. Mohammed Zahrani. Achraf Salim ("Sultan") Abdessalam. Abdul Rahman Abdul Abu Ghityh Sulayman. ......
Again, here's the link. Interesting stuff. Please read.
And it comes on the heels of my colleague Kerry Picket's great report yesterday that makes Chuck Schumer look a bit two-faced, about whether or not foreign terrorists captured abroad should be tried in criminal courts here.
All in all, this whole KSM trial continues to look worse and worse every day and every hour.
Mac is Back on the Right as 2010 Approaches
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 3:03PM
Politico reported last night that Senator McCain is expressing disapproval towards Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman's attempt to write a bipartisan climate bill. The piece suggests a position switch, pointing out that McCain has previously introduced climate legislation to the Senate multiple times. The article raises the question over whether the recession in Arizona, which has been especially hard-hitting, is playing a role in his current stance towards a cap and trade bill.
What also could be at play is McCain's 2010 race. Rasmussen polling reported this morning that McCain is only two points ahead of former conservative Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth for the primary. The last thing McCain needs right now politically is to be labeled as a "job killer" or even as a "Republican in name only."
The Ben Nelson Shuffle
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 3:01PM
The conservative constituents of red-state Democratic senators should see through what Ben Nelson is doing. Many Democrats in difficult states will vote to let the bill go forward and then switch on the second cloture vote or vote no on the Senate floor after cloture is invoked. But voting for the motion to proceed now makes it more likely that the bill will pass and much more difficult for it to be significantly reshaped.
In fact, an analysis by the Congressional Research Service performed at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) office found that in 40 of 41 cases between the 106th and 110th Congress where there was a successful motion to proceed and a final Senate vote on a bill, the bill in question passed. That 97.6 percent figure doesn't apply to bills that ended up getting pulled before the final vote, meaning that there would still be a chance to defeat the bill. But Democrats who profess to be concerned about the Senate bill -- because of abortion or any other reason -- should not vote for the motion to proceed.
Obama Gallup Rating Drops to Below 50%
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 2:43PM
For the first time of his administration, President Obama's job approval rating has dropped to 49 percent in the Gallup poll. While it has been hovering in the low 50s for months now, the drop below 50 percent in the most well-known poll is an important symbolic moment that will add to the narrative that Obama is losing the support of the American people. The news comes just as Congress is hoping to enter the homestretch on health care, his top domestic priority. Click on the link for some historical context of other presidents.
Nelson to Vote to Advance Health Care Bill
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 2:18PM
Sen. Ben Nelson said that he would vote to allow the Senate health care bill to move to the floor for debate, even though he said yesterday that the abortion language in the bill is not acceptable to him.
His decision leaves Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu as the remaining holdouts.
“Throughout my Senate career I have consistently rejected efforts to obstruct," Nelson said in a statement. "That's what the vote on the motion to proceed is all about."
He continuted:
“It is not for or against the new Senate health care bill released Wednesday.
“It is only to begin debate and an opportunity to make improvements. If you don't like a bill why block your own opportunity to amend it?
“As we have seen before, obstructionists are inviting a move toward reconciliation by opposing this first procedural vote. Let's be clear. That route shrinks debate and amendments, eliminates bipartisanship and needs only 50 votes to pass a bill.
“In the end, far more Washington-run health care policies win, but Nebraskans lose.
“In my first reading, I support parts of the bill and oppose others I will work to fix. If that's not possible, I will oppose the second cloture motion—needing 60 votes—to end debate, and oppose the final bill.
“But I won't slam the doors of the Senate in the face of Nebraskans now. They want the health care system fixed. The Senate owes them a full and open debate to try to do so.”
The problem, as his co-Senator from Nebraska Mike Johanns noted yesterday, is that once the bill gets to the floor, there will need to be 60 votes to change the abortion language. And there simply aren't that many pro-life votes in the Senate. So this really was a key test of his professed anti-abortion views.
Jim Antle wrote about the moment of truth facing pro-life Democrats on our main site.
AHIP Opposes Senate Health Bill
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 2:10PM
America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group that has tried to remain in the good graces of the Obama administration and Democtrats in Congress on health care legislation, today issued a statement opposing the Senate bill.
"The promise of health care reform is that it will provide all Americans coverage, allow them to keep their coverage if they like it, and bends the cost curve to put the system on a sustainable path," AHIP's president, Karen Ignagni, said. "These are the standards by which any reform bill should be judged, and the Senate bill falls short of meeting them."
Ignagni specifically attacks the $6.7 billion annual tax on health insurers and warns that the introduction of a government-plan will shift more costs to those who obtain insurance privately. She also criticizes the $117 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage.
But AHIP is no fan of free markets, as it is pushing for an even stronger government mandate that would force individuals to purchase its product in exchange for agreeing to cover those with preexisting conditions.
The question is whether AHIP will actively begin to campaign against Democratic legislation, and even if so, whether it's too late for that to make a difference.
England's Lost Decade Ahead
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 12:37PM
In February, the Times explained the lessons the U.S. could take away from Japan's Lost Decade. But now it seems that those morals are better suited for the U.K., which, the Times is now claiming, is staring down the barrel of it's own Lost Decade:
Britain may be emerging from recession, but that is little solace for those who suggest that the economy here might follow in the steps of Japan's lost decade in the 1990s unless the twin threats of burgeoning national debt and ruined banks are adequately addressed.
The parallels are easy to see: Like Japan, Britain enjoyed a decade of booming growth, fueled by aggressive bank lending and real estate investments. Haunted by the comparison, policy makers have been extra aggressive in using fiscal and monetary levers to prevent the type of sustained period of stagnation and banking stasis that plagued Japan for so long.
One of the interesting notes in the February article on the Lost Decade is that the fiscal measures Japan enacted throughout the 90s were a mixed bag, at best:
Japan’s rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world — totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy — while failing to generate a convincing recovery.
...
In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan's Lost Decade.
So before paving over its rural areas, the UK should probably first address its "ruined banks." Weird that the Bank of Englad should be worrying about these things now, a full year after Gordon Brown's government interventions saved not only the banks, but also the world.
If WH Wants to Assauge Fears of Socialized Medicine
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 11:35AM
Peter Orszag probably shouldn't be writing an op-ed in the Washington Post titled, "A leap forward to better care."
Global Warming Fraud Exposed: The Bogus Scientific 'Consensus'
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 11:02AM
That supposed scientific "consensus" about global warming may actually be a conspiracy. E-mails from a British climate-research organization -- obtained by an Australian magazine, Investigate -- disclose scientists discussing a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" of global temperatures in their data.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 11:01AM
- Bay Area bookstores would rather lose money than sell Going Rogue (San Francisco Chronicle)
- Students outraged that tuition at the University of California is being raised 32% due to the University budget cuts by Sacramento (New York Times)
- Fred Thompson pulls a Harry Reid, says the Afghan war "has been lost" (Politico)
- $123,000 of federal stimulus money is being used to protect a party cruise ship in Boston from an attack (Boston Globe)
Poll Shows Blanche Lincoln Senate Seat at Risk if She Votes for Health Care Bill
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 10:54AM
The White House has been trying to convince red state Democrats that it would be worse for their reelection chances if no health care bill passed and President Obama were seen as a failure, then if they could tout an acheivement. They note that Democrats killed health care legislation in 1994 and still lost Congress anyway.
But a new Zogby poll finds that Sen. Blanche Lincoln, one of a few Democrats who has not yet committed to voting to bring health care legislation to the Senate floor, would face a much tougher reelection fight in Arkansas in 2010 if she were to vote for the bill.
The poll finds that as it is, Lincoln holds a thin 41 percent to 39 percent lead over her potential Republican challenger, State Senator Gilbert Baker. But when pollsters followed up and asked how their support would change if Lincoln voted for the health care bill, suddenly it's Baker who enjoys a comfortable 49 percent to 37 percent lead. Overall, that's a 14-point swing against her just based on the health care vote.
Arkansans oppose the health care bill by an overwhelming 64 percent to 29 percent margin, and after pollsters explained what was in the legislation, that number grew to 68 percent to 26 percent.
A vote for the health care bill, in short, would be toxic for her reelection chances. It's certainly something she must be thinking about as the Senate prepares for a Saturday night procedural vote to move the bill to the floor, which Republicans are sure to use against her as a vote for the bill itself.
The American Spectator Gala: Conservatives Return From the Wilderness
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 9:36AM
The hottest ticket in our nation's capital last night was the American Spectator's annual Robert L. Bartley Gala Dinner. The chardonnay was splendid, the mushroom-stuffed chicken delicious and, by evening's end, conservatives were nearly delirious with joy as they celebrated their return from the wilderness, as announced by our esteemed editor R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
The keynote speaker, Rep. Mike Pence, delivered a Churchillian oration that inspired a spontaneous "Pence-Palin '12" grassroots movement, at least among several of the ladies in attendance. Some gentlemen argued for "Palin-Pence '12," but this portent of a future schism notwithstanding, the evening was a smashing success.
Roger Scruton of
the American Enterprise Institute shows his dance moves with a
young lady to the big beats of the Alex Donner
Band.
The
Wall Street Journal's John Fund and American
Spectator columnist Jay Homnick.
Hannah
Giles, who gained fame in videos exposing ACORN, with the
American
Spectator's David Bass, who received the Young
Journalist Award last night.
ACORN-busters: James O'Keefe, who
collaborated with Miss Giles to produce undercover videos for
BigGovernment.com, and
longtime American
Spectator contributor Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research
Center, whose investigative reporting has made him a leading
authority on ACORN.
David
Keene of the American Conservative Union and Jeri
Thompson.
The
Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger, recipient of
this year's Barbara Olson Award, with the American
Spectator Washington correspondent Philip Klein.
The Day Ahead: November 20
Posted by on 11.20.09 @ 6:30AM
Today on the main site:
- Methodist Madame, by Mark Tooley
- Bureaucrats with Badges, by Mark Hyman
- A Writer Speaks, by William Tucker
- No Sales Days in the Afghan War, by George H. Wittman
- What Has Changed? by Robert P. Kirchhoefer
- High Stakes, by Manon McKinnon
Comment of the day:
In George Gilder's mid nineteen seventies book, "Sexual Suicide," he clearly proved that men look to women to civilize them. One need not recite proofs of this theory; one only needs to casually glance at a kindergarten class to see boys behaving and playing singularly and then glance at the girls creating order, priorities and conversation. This type of separation by maturity and the long-term concept of delayed gratification for the good of the group as grasped early by girls is what distinguishes mammals from lower forms of life.
What happens between that female biologically determined behavior in childhood where propriety and behavior constraints rule and then women behaving as wildly as immature boys s indicative of a society that refuses to acknowledge the value of women behaving responsibly. Freedom to behave badly is no freedom at all.
As the envelope is pushed ever farther toward social chaos by media outlets and the entertainment industries, ever in search of the outrageous to capture market share, young women are encouraged to deny their biology in favor of fifteen minutes of fame, but end up attaching a stain to their names forever.
One wonders what generation of parents have permitted their daughters to destroy themselves. In the end, a society gets what it raises, and parental neglect does not always come in the form of denying food and shelter. It is abuse of children when the rules of decorum and self-protection are not taught early and continually.
What to watch for:
Thursday's best:
- Opinion Journal
- Drudge Report
- Breitbart
- Washington Times
- Michael Barone
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Hugh Hewitt
- PowerLine Blog
- Huffington Post
- Little Green Footballs
- Moral Accountability
- RedState
- The Corner
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- PoliPundit
- Amy Welborn
- Reform Club
- Lucianne
- Southern Appeal
- Confirm Them
- The Daily Gut
- Eric Peters - Automobiles
- JeremyLott.net
- Karnick on Culture
- Government Bytes
- Bluey Blog
- Shawn Macomber
- Jeff Emanuel
- Michael Yon
- Alarming News
- StateHouseCall
- Mickey Kaus