One thing I thought I had learned from four years of running, and which I am now finding I am going to have to learn as I get into CrossFit:
I must do my own workout. I must not think about the workout of anyone else around me, except as an inspiration to do the best I can do.
If you're a runner, and especially if you run a much-used path, you are going to get passed by other runners every now and then. Maybe even more than every now and then, unless your name is Paula Radcliffe (and even she'll get beaten in a 10-K by elites who focus on that distance). You'll be running, keeping a comfortably hard pace, and suddenly someone will pull up on your side and then -- boom -- she's in front of you.
Some runners will respond to getting passed by turning on the juice. I learned rather quickly when I started running that this is a recipe for disaster. Trying to chase someone who is in better shape than I am, or who is running three fast miles when it's my day to run twenty slow and steady ones, or who is ten years younger, or who for any reason whatsoever is running faster than the pace that's best for my body and my training goals, only leads to my inability to finish the planned workout at best, and injury at worst. So I don't do it. Early in my running experience, I had to mentally instruct myself to ignore the frustration of being passed and to remember what my goal was. Sometimes I had to tell myself, "Hey, it's a guy passing you," or "You're running eight miles, maybe this chick is just doing two." Eventually, though, I stopped needing the self-talk because my emotions eventually grew to match my thought process. Now, when I run and I get passed, I don't bat an eyelash; I just keep doing what I'm doing.
Yesterday, however, I had my first CrossFit group class, and as it turns out, I haven't quite gotten rid of those emotions with regard to fitness in general, just with regard to running. I did all of my Foundations training privately, so I didn't have anyone to compare myself to while learning the movements and doing the prescribed workouts. Yesterday was the first time when that was no longer the case.
In CrossFit-land, I am still a baby beginner. The coaches do not want anyone trying to lift crazy amounts of weight without first having learned to do the movements with consistently good form. My trainer (who also happened to be the coach for yesterday's group class) has explained this to me many, many times, along with the reasons (to avoid injury and burnout). So I know the rationale. I do.
And I still felt embarrassed to be doing overhead squats with 55 pounds, when the other women in the class were doing one and a half times to twice that. I didn't want to write my squat weight on the big board where people write their accomplishments, and I really didn't want to write how many double unders I was able to do in the tabata session. (It was 27, whereas others in the class were getting anywhere from 85 to 200; although I have the cardiovascular conditioning to have done more, I haven't yet mastered the movement well enough to do them consistently without tripping on the jump rope.)
So, it's time for more self-talk. I need to remind myself that my classmates who are doing way more weight and way more double unders have been doing this for months or years, whereas I've been doing CrossFit for all of three weeks. Hell, I may never be able to do as much weight as that -- and that's okay. To paraphrase Jenn Casey, being upset that I can't do as much as other CrossFitters is being second-handed about my workout; being first-handed, on the other hand, means focusing on what's right for me at this point in my training. At some point it may very well be appropriate for me to be shooting for a 105-pound overhead squat, after I have learned how to do it properly and after I have spent time working up to that weight. That point is not now, and that's okay.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Freedom and fitness
As the New York Times reports, traditional full-service gyms, whose business model relies on large numbers of members paying monthly fees for classes they may or may not take, lots of equipment, and perks like towel service and steam rooms, are not doing as well as they used to. Instead, consumers are turning to alternatives at both ends of the price spectrum -- no-frills, no-trainer gyms that offer nothing but standard cardio equipment and weights, and that charge a correspondingly low price; and a la carte, small group classes that can add up to more money per month than a traditional gym membership, but that offer a greater sense of community and support when working out.
I'm an example of this trend. I had a membership at New York Sports Clubs, a local big-box gym conglomerate, for years. I finally quit in September, once my husband and I moved into an apartment building with a small gym in the basement. It doesn't offer any classes, nor does it have a TV built into every cardio machine, but it has everything I need for the kind of workout I do, so it's no longer worth $80 a month to me to be a gym member. On the other hand, I've just finished Foundations training at CrossFit South Brooklyn, and although working out there twice a week is going to cost me nearly twice as much per month as I used to pay for unlimited workouts at NYSC, I consider it money well spent because I'm going to be learning skills that will make me stronger, with plenty of attention from coaches throughout the process.
Now here's where I make this a post about health care, and not just about fitness: Isn't it a beautiful thing that we who like to work out have so many options? If all I need is a treadmill and some free weights, I can join a cheap gym like Steel, an NYC no-frills gym. If I want classes with an engaged (and engaging) teacher, I can choose from CrossFit, yoga, Core Fusion, Pilates, martial arts, and any number of other options. Or I can join a big-box gym like NYSC, if I like having access to a wide variety of classes and a number of locations across the city.
Why isn't health care like that? Why am I stuck with a choice of only three very similar health insurance plans chosen by my company, rather than being able to decide between a myriad of options -- from low-cost insurance, if all I want is to be protected in the event of a serious medical emergency, to high-premium, comprehensive policies?
The answer is that fitness remains far freer of government regulations and taxes than medicine. Without regulations dictating what kind of services a gym has to offer in order to open its doors, or whom it has to grant membership to, or what kind of prices it can charge, voila! You get customers with all different kinds of demands -- and entrepreneurs who find creative ways to deliver what the market is asking for.
I'm an example of this trend. I had a membership at New York Sports Clubs, a local big-box gym conglomerate, for years. I finally quit in September, once my husband and I moved into an apartment building with a small gym in the basement. It doesn't offer any classes, nor does it have a TV built into every cardio machine, but it has everything I need for the kind of workout I do, so it's no longer worth $80 a month to me to be a gym member. On the other hand, I've just finished Foundations training at CrossFit South Brooklyn, and although working out there twice a week is going to cost me nearly twice as much per month as I used to pay for unlimited workouts at NYSC, I consider it money well spent because I'm going to be learning skills that will make me stronger, with plenty of attention from coaches throughout the process.
Now here's where I make this a post about health care, and not just about fitness: Isn't it a beautiful thing that we who like to work out have so many options? If all I need is a treadmill and some free weights, I can join a cheap gym like Steel, an NYC no-frills gym. If I want classes with an engaged (and engaging) teacher, I can choose from CrossFit, yoga, Core Fusion, Pilates, martial arts, and any number of other options. Or I can join a big-box gym like NYSC, if I like having access to a wide variety of classes and a number of locations across the city.
Why isn't health care like that? Why am I stuck with a choice of only three very similar health insurance plans chosen by my company, rather than being able to decide between a myriad of options -- from low-cost insurance, if all I want is to be protected in the event of a serious medical emergency, to high-premium, comprehensive policies?
The answer is that fitness remains far freer of government regulations and taxes than medicine. Without regulations dictating what kind of services a gym has to offer in order to open its doors, or whom it has to grant membership to, or what kind of prices it can charge, voila! You get customers with all different kinds of demands -- and entrepreneurs who find creative ways to deliver what the market is asking for.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Drug dealing by the federal government
Apparently the Obama administration thinks we have an extra billion dollars (for initial financing, not to mention the costs down the road) to start a new research institute whose purpose is to find new drugs, because pharmaceutical companies haven't come up with enough innovative new therapies. How typical of Washington to blame private industry for problems Washington itself has caused with its strangling regulations and taxes.
As I argued in my 2008 Objective Standard article, "How the FDA Violates Rights and Hinders Health," the FDA is a major reason -- perhaps the primary reason -- that developing a new drug costs, on average, $800 million. Eight hundred million dollars! This has the effect of discouraging pharmaceutical companies from looking for new drugs to treat diseases that affect a small number of people (because that $800 million cost doesn't change whether the drug treats 200 people or 200 million), as well as encouraging them to look for drugs that are "tweaks" to existing therapies rather than completely new strategies. (The upside of finding a truly innovative therapy that does something no other drug has done before is, by far, offset by the huge risk of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a drug that the FDA will ultimately reject, whereas a "tweak" strategy has higher odds of getting past the regulators.)
So it's the government that has caused the drug industry's dwindling pipelines. And the government now wants to cure the problem by doing research of its own? I somehow doubt Uncle Sam is going to do better at identifying targets for research than private companies have. The plan is that the government institute would come up with targets and pass that information on to drug companies...but the government won't be removing a single one of the obstacles it places in the path from "interesting target" to "therapeutic drug able to be sold to patients."
The government can help the pharmaceutical industry become more innovative...by getting the hell out of the way. This new institute won't do a thing but pour more of our tax dollars down the toilet.
As I argued in my 2008 Objective Standard article, "How the FDA Violates Rights and Hinders Health," the FDA is a major reason -- perhaps the primary reason -- that developing a new drug costs, on average, $800 million. Eight hundred million dollars! This has the effect of discouraging pharmaceutical companies from looking for new drugs to treat diseases that affect a small number of people (because that $800 million cost doesn't change whether the drug treats 200 people or 200 million), as well as encouraging them to look for drugs that are "tweaks" to existing therapies rather than completely new strategies. (The upside of finding a truly innovative therapy that does something no other drug has done before is, by far, offset by the huge risk of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a drug that the FDA will ultimately reject, whereas a "tweak" strategy has higher odds of getting past the regulators.)
So it's the government that has caused the drug industry's dwindling pipelines. And the government now wants to cure the problem by doing research of its own? I somehow doubt Uncle Sam is going to do better at identifying targets for research than private companies have. The plan is that the government institute would come up with targets and pass that information on to drug companies...but the government won't be removing a single one of the obstacles it places in the path from "interesting target" to "therapeutic drug able to be sold to patients."
The government can help the pharmaceutical industry become more innovative...by getting the hell out of the way. This new institute won't do a thing but pour more of our tax dollars down the toilet.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
We need more articles like this
The New York Times offers an article entitled "How to Plan For and Handle the Cost of Braces" today. Among the helpful information: Ask about payment plans, look for a college or university with an orthodontics program that offers care from trainee orthodontists at a reduced cost, seek out charities that connect low-income patients with orthodontists willing to donate their work.
You'd never see an article like this about how to plan for and handle the cost of medical care, because we don't have anything like a free market in medical care, whereas orthodontics, considered "cosmetic" and "unnecessary," remains relatively free of government interference.
Granted, the need for medical care can't always be anticipated, as the need for braces usually is. This is where insurance -- real insurance, not prepaid medical care -- would come in, in a free market. But, in a free market, individuals could plan and pay for routine, and even nonroutine but noncatastrophic, medical expenses. We'd have more money to do so, because we'd be pouring less money down the toilet for taxes and crazy-expensive health "insurance" premiums. We'd be asking for advice just like the kind the NYT is giving for braces -- and getting it.
You'd never see an article like this about how to plan for and handle the cost of medical care, because we don't have anything like a free market in medical care, whereas orthodontics, considered "cosmetic" and "unnecessary," remains relatively free of government interference.
Granted, the need for medical care can't always be anticipated, as the need for braces usually is. This is where insurance -- real insurance, not prepaid medical care -- would come in, in a free market. But, in a free market, individuals could plan and pay for routine, and even nonroutine but noncatastrophic, medical expenses. We'd have more money to do so, because we'd be pouring less money down the toilet for taxes and crazy-expensive health "insurance" premiums. We'd be asking for advice just like the kind the NYT is giving for braces -- and getting it.
Friday, January 14, 2011
You don't ban cars because people drive them off cliffs, part 2
Back in 2009, I wrote that the FDA was considering banning prescription painkillers such as Vicodin and Percocet, on the grounds that they contain acetaminophen, a common over-the-counter drug that can cause liver damage if taken at too high a dosage. Especially as patients become inured to the effects of the opioid portion of such painkillers, they end up more likely to take more of them and thus expose themselves to life-threatening doses of acetaminophen.
As I argued then, the government doesn't ban cars just because some idiots drive cars off cliffs; it doesn't ban pencils because pencils can be shoved into the eye; and it has no business banning a painkiller just because some patients don't know how to use it correctly.
The FDA has decided not to flat-out ban these opioid medicines, but it HAS now ordered the makers of opioid/acetaminophen combinations to find a way, within three years, to reduce the amount of acetaminophen in their pills below a prespecified amount, or else pull the products from the market.
Sounds easy, right? Why should something as simple as cutting the dose of one component of a pill take three years to accomplish?
Because the FDA won't accept drug manufacturers doing just that, that's why. Not without the manufacturers performing studies to show that the new formulations are just as effective as the old ones, that they don't present additional potential for addiction, and that they're safer. So the manufacturers of Vicodin and Percocet will have to spend all kinds of money -- money that they could have spent on research and development of innovative new drugs -- just to prove that something that already works deserves to stay on the market.
And all this money will be spent to force pharmaceutical companies to take responsibility for patients who weren't responsible enough to learn about the risks of something they're putting in their own bodies. Huh?!
Here's how this would work in a free market: If a substantial number of people were getting liver damage and dying because of Vicodin and Percocet, patients and doctors would start avoiding the drugs and demanding new, lower-acetaminophen options, giving pharmaceutical companies an incentive to offer those options. The drug companies wouldn't have to prove to a government agency that opioid drugs work on their own or with lower doses of acetaminophen, so patients could have those drugs right away. And patients and doctors would have an incentive to ask questions -- Is this drug safe? Are there other drugs I should avoid taking when I'm taking this drug? How much of this drug can I safely take? Instead, we have a nanny state holding back new options and trying to make drug companies responsible for protecting patients instead of allowing patients to protect themselves.
As I argued then, the government doesn't ban cars just because some idiots drive cars off cliffs; it doesn't ban pencils because pencils can be shoved into the eye; and it has no business banning a painkiller just because some patients don't know how to use it correctly.
The FDA has decided not to flat-out ban these opioid medicines, but it HAS now ordered the makers of opioid/acetaminophen combinations to find a way, within three years, to reduce the amount of acetaminophen in their pills below a prespecified amount, or else pull the products from the market.
Sounds easy, right? Why should something as simple as cutting the dose of one component of a pill take three years to accomplish?
Because the FDA won't accept drug manufacturers doing just that, that's why. Not without the manufacturers performing studies to show that the new formulations are just as effective as the old ones, that they don't present additional potential for addiction, and that they're safer. So the manufacturers of Vicodin and Percocet will have to spend all kinds of money -- money that they could have spent on research and development of innovative new drugs -- just to prove that something that already works deserves to stay on the market.
And all this money will be spent to force pharmaceutical companies to take responsibility for patients who weren't responsible enough to learn about the risks of something they're putting in their own bodies. Huh?!
Here's how this would work in a free market: If a substantial number of people were getting liver damage and dying because of Vicodin and Percocet, patients and doctors would start avoiding the drugs and demanding new, lower-acetaminophen options, giving pharmaceutical companies an incentive to offer those options. The drug companies wouldn't have to prove to a government agency that opioid drugs work on their own or with lower doses of acetaminophen, so patients could have those drugs right away. And patients and doctors would have an incentive to ask questions -- Is this drug safe? Are there other drugs I should avoid taking when I'm taking this drug? How much of this drug can I safely take? Instead, we have a nanny state holding back new options and trying to make drug companies responsible for protecting patients instead of allowing patients to protect themselves.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Another Objectivist CrossFit noob...
Inspired by the success of Diana Hsieh, Jenn Casey, and other Objectivists who've tried CrossFit and found that it's improved their strength and overall fitness, I decided to make giving CrossFit a try one of my goals for 2011. I have plenty of endurance, as the four marathons I've completed will attest -- but I've never in my life been able to do a single unassisted pull-up. I'm also so inflexible that I can barely force my legs to a 90-degree angle for a floor sit. This, I've decided, needs to change.
I'm coming at CrossFit from a different starting point than many other Objectivists: Although I've tried a few fitness fads in the past (spinning, kickboxing), I never found anything I could stick with until I started to run. I huffed and puffed through my first five-mile race, with a time well above 45 minutes (I can torch that now!), but kept at it. Nearly five years later, I've now completed four marathons (beating my personal record each time), am at the lowest weight I've ever maintained as an adult, and have had no injuries beyond a brief bout with plantar fasciitis a couple of years ago, which strength and stretching exercises seem to have permanently cured. I don't want to stop running; I love it, even on the days when I have to convince myself to do it (like when it's 26 degrees out, as it was on Saturday!). I was a bit apprehensive of CrossFit because of my commitment to running; would I be able to fit such an intense type of workout into the high-mileage work I already do?
With this apprehension in mind, I approached the CrossFit South Brooklyn gym and asked some questions. The owners assured me that, in addition to dedicated CrossFitters, they also have many members who integrate CrossFit workouts into training for running, triathlons, or boxing. They also invited me to come to a free teaser class, which I was finally able to do this past Saturday.
The workout, although challenging, was not nearly as hard as I've gotten the impression CrossFit can be; I suspect that the gym makes the teaser classes easy so as not to scare newbies away. On the other hand, I was tantalized by the potential of this type of workout to make me fitter. The range-of-motion exercises with which we opened the workout really helped me loosen up, and when we jumped into what I would call a "WOD-lite" (as many rounds as possible in 10 minutes of 10 push presses, 10 air squats, and 10 sit-ups), although I did very well relative to the other newbies, I could see where practice would improve me tremendously. (For example, our instructor dropped off squats with his butt below parallel with his knees, seemingly as easily as breathing; I could consistently hit parallel, but could go no lower.)
So, I enjoyed the class very much, and have signed up for private instruction to complete the gym's mandatory Foundations training (learning the basic moves so you don't hold back others in a group setting). I'm hoping to get my first lesson scheduled this week, and to be finished with Foundations work by the middle of next month.
Here's to a fitter and stronger New Year!
I'm coming at CrossFit from a different starting point than many other Objectivists: Although I've tried a few fitness fads in the past (spinning, kickboxing), I never found anything I could stick with until I started to run. I huffed and puffed through my first five-mile race, with a time well above 45 minutes (I can torch that now!), but kept at it. Nearly five years later, I've now completed four marathons (beating my personal record each time), am at the lowest weight I've ever maintained as an adult, and have had no injuries beyond a brief bout with plantar fasciitis a couple of years ago, which strength and stretching exercises seem to have permanently cured. I don't want to stop running; I love it, even on the days when I have to convince myself to do it (like when it's 26 degrees out, as it was on Saturday!). I was a bit apprehensive of CrossFit because of my commitment to running; would I be able to fit such an intense type of workout into the high-mileage work I already do?
With this apprehension in mind, I approached the CrossFit South Brooklyn gym and asked some questions. The owners assured me that, in addition to dedicated CrossFitters, they also have many members who integrate CrossFit workouts into training for running, triathlons, or boxing. They also invited me to come to a free teaser class, which I was finally able to do this past Saturday.
The workout, although challenging, was not nearly as hard as I've gotten the impression CrossFit can be; I suspect that the gym makes the teaser classes easy so as not to scare newbies away. On the other hand, I was tantalized by the potential of this type of workout to make me fitter. The range-of-motion exercises with which we opened the workout really helped me loosen up, and when we jumped into what I would call a "WOD-lite" (as many rounds as possible in 10 minutes of 10 push presses, 10 air squats, and 10 sit-ups), although I did very well relative to the other newbies, I could see where practice would improve me tremendously. (For example, our instructor dropped off squats with his butt below parallel with his knees, seemingly as easily as breathing; I could consistently hit parallel, but could go no lower.)
So, I enjoyed the class very much, and have signed up for private instruction to complete the gym's mandatory Foundations training (learning the basic moves so you don't hold back others in a group setting). I'm hoping to get my first lesson scheduled this week, and to be finished with Foundations work by the middle of next month.
Here's to a fitter and stronger New Year!
Friday, January 7, 2011
Pauline Chen, my favorite punching bag
This week she tells the story of a 17-year-old girl awaiting a liver transplant whose insurance company stonewalled approval of the operation; when the insurance company finally caved under public pressure and paid for the transplant, it was too late and the young girl died. This is cited as an example of how greedy insurance company executives kill people in their quest for profits. Unsaid in the article, but strongly implied, is that private industry has no business making these kinds of decisions.
But...government bureaucrats should? Take a look at countries where they do, like the UK; they have an entire government agency (ironically named "NICE") whose job it is to decide how much a patient's life is worth. If we had public health insurance in this country, we'd have our own NICE -- and, unlike with private insurance, we would have no recourse should such an agency deny treatment. (Note that, if a patient in the UK wants a drug that NICE hasn't approved, he can buy it -- but only if he pays the entire cost of his treatment, including everything that NHS normally would have covered. This, whether or not he has paid taxes to fund what the NHS would have paid for.) At least the family of Nataline Sarkisyan, the 17-year-old of the story, would not have been forced by her insurance company to pay for all of her previous treatment had they been able to raise money to pay for her transplant!
Chen is absolutely right that insurance companies, in their quest to make as much money as possible, often say no to medical care, and that the care they say no to might have been lifesaving in some cases. Does this bother you? It should. Do you want someone you don't know, who doesn't know you, your situation, your values, your full medical history, deciding whether or not you get a medical treatment? I sure as hell don't.
But the answer is not government intervention. All that means is that it's a government bureaucrat, who more often than not will be making decisions on a political basis (Breast cancer advocacy group waging a campaign for mammograms? Sure, we'll cover mammograms! Fiscal watchdog think we're doing too many unnecessary MRIs? Sure, we'll slash coverage for MRIs!), will be saying no, not that everyone will get a "yes."
The answer is a free market in medicine -- so that the only person saying yes or no is you, based on your values and what you can afford. In a free market, most of us wouldn't purchase the kind of low-deductible, routine-expense-covering policies we call "insurance." We'd very likely buy real insurance against catastrophic events, pay out of pocket for routine expenses, and save gobs of money -- some of which we could budget for emergencies. We could shop around to make sure that catastrophic coverage really did cover what we want it to. We'd have more money in our pockets to donate to charity, if we chose, so that a truly unfortunate person who believes an experimental treatment could save his life, but whose insurance company doesn't, could ask for help.
But...government bureaucrats should? Take a look at countries where they do, like the UK; they have an entire government agency (ironically named "NICE") whose job it is to decide how much a patient's life is worth. If we had public health insurance in this country, we'd have our own NICE -- and, unlike with private insurance, we would have no recourse should such an agency deny treatment. (Note that, if a patient in the UK wants a drug that NICE hasn't approved, he can buy it -- but only if he pays the entire cost of his treatment, including everything that NHS normally would have covered. This, whether or not he has paid taxes to fund what the NHS would have paid for.) At least the family of Nataline Sarkisyan, the 17-year-old of the story, would not have been forced by her insurance company to pay for all of her previous treatment had they been able to raise money to pay for her transplant!
Chen is absolutely right that insurance companies, in their quest to make as much money as possible, often say no to medical care, and that the care they say no to might have been lifesaving in some cases. Does this bother you? It should. Do you want someone you don't know, who doesn't know you, your situation, your values, your full medical history, deciding whether or not you get a medical treatment? I sure as hell don't.
But the answer is not government intervention. All that means is that it's a government bureaucrat, who more often than not will be making decisions on a political basis (Breast cancer advocacy group waging a campaign for mammograms? Sure, we'll cover mammograms! Fiscal watchdog think we're doing too many unnecessary MRIs? Sure, we'll slash coverage for MRIs!), will be saying no, not that everyone will get a "yes."
The answer is a free market in medicine -- so that the only person saying yes or no is you, based on your values and what you can afford. In a free market, most of us wouldn't purchase the kind of low-deductible, routine-expense-covering policies we call "insurance." We'd very likely buy real insurance against catastrophic events, pay out of pocket for routine expenses, and save gobs of money -- some of which we could budget for emergencies. We could shop around to make sure that catastrophic coverage really did cover what we want it to. We'd have more money in our pockets to donate to charity, if we chose, so that a truly unfortunate person who believes an experimental treatment could save his life, but whose insurance company doesn't, could ask for help.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Is she STILL beating that drum?!
Nancy Pelosi, that is. In the face of a possible effort by the House to repeal ObamaCare, she's still claiming it will save taxpayers $1.3 trillion? Sure, if you:
- Assume that no individual or company will change its behavior to avoid new taxes and regulations. Uh-huh. Good luck with that.
- Move all kinds of health care-related spending to other bills, so it looks like this one saves people money. Medicare rate fix, anyone?
- Keep pretending that government force can ever produce anything.
*eye roll*
Monday, January 3, 2011
My silence on Avastin
As Paul Hsieh, Tom Bowden, and others have written about, the FDA recently pulled its approval for Avastin, a drug that has effects in many types of cancer, as a treatment for breast cancer. This decision has huge implications for the government's ability to control your medical care. So why haven't I said a word about it?
Avastin is marketed by Genentech, which is a major client of both the advertising agency I work for and its parent agency. Suppose I criticize the FDA for its decision. Suppose the FDA thinks my clients put me up to it. The FDA could take legal action against Genentech -- for words I say as a private citizen. Yes, it's 100% possible. After all, this is the same agency that thinks doctors can't be trusted to make decisions based on their medical judgment if pharma companies give them gifts like laser pointers and pens -- and that's how PhRMA, the industry trade association, got pressured into "voluntarily" disallowing such gifts by its member companies.
It's one thing for my clients or my employer, without government coercion, to say, "We do not want anyone who works for us to comment publicly on our products outside of the workplace." In that case, I am being offered a value (employment and the commensurate salary) with conditions attached. I am free to accept the conditions or to walk away if I don't wish to accept them. That's called a trade.
But when the government says, "We will punish you for anything you say about drugs that we don't agree with," I am not being offered any kind of value in return for my silence. That's not a trade. That is a violation of rights at gunpoint.
So, no. I'm not giving anyone my opinion about the Avastin situation...but the fact that I'm not giving it says something very loudly about the level of government intrusion in health care.
Avastin is marketed by Genentech, which is a major client of both the advertising agency I work for and its parent agency. Suppose I criticize the FDA for its decision. Suppose the FDA thinks my clients put me up to it. The FDA could take legal action against Genentech -- for words I say as a private citizen. Yes, it's 100% possible. After all, this is the same agency that thinks doctors can't be trusted to make decisions based on their medical judgment if pharma companies give them gifts like laser pointers and pens -- and that's how PhRMA, the industry trade association, got pressured into "voluntarily" disallowing such gifts by its member companies.
It's one thing for my clients or my employer, without government coercion, to say, "We do not want anyone who works for us to comment publicly on our products outside of the workplace." In that case, I am being offered a value (employment and the commensurate salary) with conditions attached. I am free to accept the conditions or to walk away if I don't wish to accept them. That's called a trade.
But when the government says, "We will punish you for anything you say about drugs that we don't agree with," I am not being offered any kind of value in return for my silence. That's not a trade. That is a violation of rights at gunpoint.
So, no. I'm not giving anyone my opinion about the Avastin situation...but the fact that I'm not giving it says something very loudly about the level of government intrusion in health care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
