Today's Wall Street Journal contains an excellent editorial, "The FDA and Slower Cures," that points out the irony of a government that wants more new drugs (badly enough to get itself into the business of research and development, at taxpayers' expense) and yet does so much, via the FDA, to make it impossible for the pharmaceutical companies to offer any kind of real innovation.
The editorial follows the story of pixantrone, a drug for patients with an advanced form of lymphoma -- a drug doomed, not because it doesn't work, but because the FDA doesn't like the way the clinical trial used to prove that the drug does work was conducted. Says WSJ, "The Catch 22 is that if a trial deviates from protocol, even with such impressive real-world results, it becomes more difficult to generate the 'proof' beyond any doubt that the FDA requires." In other words, the drug is guilty until proven innocent -- and the result is that people who are dying don't get to decide for themselves whether to take a chance on a new drug.
As WSJ says, "The real victims" of this policy "are the patients with no attractive options who needlessly suffer when the government delays drugs like pixantrone." Too true. I submit that all of us are deprived, not just patients who have run out of options to treat a fatal disease. We have no idea what kinds of cures and therapies for all manner of ailments, from mild to serious, could have been developed if the FDA would just get the hell out of the way.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Enforced paid maternity leave? No, thank you.
The Boston Globe reports that America "lags behind" other nations in having a nationwide policy of paid family leave -- that is, that we are behind other countries in forcing those who don't have children to subsidize those who do.
In California and New Jersey, paid leave is "financed entirely through small payroll tax contributions by workers." Well, "contribution" is just a euphemism for "money taken without the consent of the person who earned it." Why should those who are single and childless fund paid leave for those who choose to have a child? Why should those who stop at one kid have to pay for those who have three or four? They shouldn't, of course; no one is his brother's keeper, and those who want a child should be prepared for the financial implications, rather than placing some of the burden of their choice on the shoulders of others.
I'm sure the far-lefties would prefer that paid parental leave be financed, not by payroll taxes, but by simply forcing businesses to offer it (why shouldn't those evil corporations have to pay for everything?). What such people fail to realize is that not only are they violating rights (of employers to offer employment on whatever terms are mutually agreeable to themselves and employees), but that childless employees will still pay the price for paid parental leave, in the form of lower salaries than they would receive in a free market. Who knows but that employers might be less likely to hire women of childbearing age, in hopes that their costs for paid leave will go down?
Ah, says the lefty, but we have laws to prevent discrimination. Well, those are bad, too -- it is absolutely an employer's right to hire according to whatever bias he chooses (although, if he's irrational enough to have a bias that has no basis in fact, he's probably not going to be successful enough as a business owner to be making that much of a difference in the job market anyway). I've always had a suspicion that the fact that it's illegal to ask certain questions in a job interview (age, whether the employee has children or intends to have them, etc.) only hurts job applicants -- especially women, one of the groups such laws are intended to protect. Example: I'm a woman in my early thirties, and I look approximately my age. Suppose I'm interviewing for a job. The employer isn't allowed to ask me whether I have children or whether I have plans to have any. So instead of asking me and getting a forthright answer from me ("yes, I am married, but my husband and I do not plan on having children for another two to three years"), the employer is likely going to look at me, see that I'm a woman, recognize that women are more likely than men to take an extended leave upon the birth of a child (or to miss work to care for a child who's already there), and make an assumption. Perhaps he'll bypass me in favor of an equally qualified man or older woman, simply because those people look less likely to choose a child's needs over an employer's needs. (More likely, given that my industry is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, he'll call as many former coworkers of mine as possible off the record -- but this isn't possible in many industries.)
I don't want to pay for other people's choices, nor do I want anyone else paying for mine. When it comes time to have a child, if I can negotiate paid leave because I am of such high value to my company that they consider it an investment in my future at the company, I'll take it. I don't want it on the terms of other workers being forced to pay for it, or because some anti-discrimination law caused my employer to hire me despite preferring someone else who's less likely to ask for such a perk.
In California and New Jersey, paid leave is "financed entirely through small payroll tax contributions by workers." Well, "contribution" is just a euphemism for "money taken without the consent of the person who earned it." Why should those who are single and childless fund paid leave for those who choose to have a child? Why should those who stop at one kid have to pay for those who have three or four? They shouldn't, of course; no one is his brother's keeper, and those who want a child should be prepared for the financial implications, rather than placing some of the burden of their choice on the shoulders of others.
I'm sure the far-lefties would prefer that paid parental leave be financed, not by payroll taxes, but by simply forcing businesses to offer it (why shouldn't those evil corporations have to pay for everything?). What such people fail to realize is that not only are they violating rights (of employers to offer employment on whatever terms are mutually agreeable to themselves and employees), but that childless employees will still pay the price for paid parental leave, in the form of lower salaries than they would receive in a free market. Who knows but that employers might be less likely to hire women of childbearing age, in hopes that their costs for paid leave will go down?
Ah, says the lefty, but we have laws to prevent discrimination. Well, those are bad, too -- it is absolutely an employer's right to hire according to whatever bias he chooses (although, if he's irrational enough to have a bias that has no basis in fact, he's probably not going to be successful enough as a business owner to be making that much of a difference in the job market anyway). I've always had a suspicion that the fact that it's illegal to ask certain questions in a job interview (age, whether the employee has children or intends to have them, etc.) only hurts job applicants -- especially women, one of the groups such laws are intended to protect. Example: I'm a woman in my early thirties, and I look approximately my age. Suppose I'm interviewing for a job. The employer isn't allowed to ask me whether I have children or whether I have plans to have any. So instead of asking me and getting a forthright answer from me ("yes, I am married, but my husband and I do not plan on having children for another two to three years"), the employer is likely going to look at me, see that I'm a woman, recognize that women are more likely than men to take an extended leave upon the birth of a child (or to miss work to care for a child who's already there), and make an assumption. Perhaps he'll bypass me in favor of an equally qualified man or older woman, simply because those people look less likely to choose a child's needs over an employer's needs. (More likely, given that my industry is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, he'll call as many former coworkers of mine as possible off the record -- but this isn't possible in many industries.)
I don't want to pay for other people's choices, nor do I want anyone else paying for mine. When it comes time to have a child, if I can negotiate paid leave because I am of such high value to my company that they consider it an investment in my future at the company, I'll take it. I don't want it on the terms of other workers being forced to pay for it, or because some anti-discrimination law caused my employer to hire me despite preferring someone else who's less likely to ask for such a perk.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Let's compensate ALL donors.
Kumud Majumder, the father of a preteen boy who died waiting for a bone marrow transplant, writes in the USA Today that Americans should be allowed to offer compensation for bone marrow donors -- currently a federal crime, even when the compensation is simply to reimburse the donor for time lost from work or for housing costs. Mr. Majumder is one of a number of Americans who is challenging the law that makes compensation for bone marrow donation a crime. He correctly asserts that this law has done nothing but create shortages -- just 2% of Americans are registered as bone marrow donors, and many of those decline when actually asked to donate because they can't take time off work for the procedure. Given that a perfect match between two unrelated individuals is so rare, what this means to patients with cancer and other bone marrow diseases is that they may have to wait for years to get a transplant, if they get one at all.
Compensation, Mr. Majumder argues, would alleviate this shortage. If we could just pay donors a modest amount, he says, we could increase the number of people willing to donate. Perhaps scholarships would encourage younger Americans -- who are most likely to have usable marrow -- to give.
I say Mr. Majumder is on the right track, but he hasn't gone far enough. He understands that the bone marrow shortage that killed his son could be remedied, if only the federal government weren't standing in the way. What he doesn't understand is that we need a fully free market in tissue donation -- and organs as well.
It's not just a modest amount of compensation that should be allowed; those who need bone marrow should be allowed to offer as much wealth as they want in exchange for the tissue they need. Leftists would argue that this creates inequities -- why should a rich person have access to marrow if a poor person doesn't? Well, why not? As long as the rich person has earned or inherited his wealth and not stolen it or gotten it by political favors, he can properly use it to buy anything he likes from anyone who will sell it to him -- and that includes bone marrow from someone who wouldn't sell it at a price the poor can afford. Nobody has a right to anyone else's bone marrow; the only way a patient should be able to get some is by mutual agreement between donor and donee (or, in a proper society, buyer and seller). By cutting off the possibility of any kind of compensation at all, the government simply makes it undesirable for nearly all Americans to donate; by allowing compensation but only at a modest level, the government would increase the pool, but not by as much as removing all restrictions would do.
Furthermore, Mr. Majumder makes an error when he argues that bone marrow donor compensation, but not organ donor compensation, should be allowed because bone marrow can be regenerated by the body, but organs cannot. Tell that to the families of those who have died waiting for a kidney, a heart, or a liver. In fact, organ donor compensation is desperately needed precisely because organ donation is more final than bone marrow donation. Currently, if you want an organ from a stranger, that stranger has to die -- what living person would give up, say, one of his kidneys for nothing more than a "thank you"? As I argued in my 2009 post "Not Enough Encouragement," most of us want to have full organ function, and would only give it up in exchange for a greater value, like the life of a loved one -- not the life of a stranger. But if there's money or other compensation involved, perhaps that compensation would be a greater value to some people than the continued use of their organs. What if, with the proceeds from giving up a kidney, a young mother could afford to quit working and stay home with her child for a year? Or a man who's been looking for seed money for his small business could finally have it? It would not be cruel and inhumane to allow this kind of transaction -- in fact, the exact opposite! Both parties would gain an enormous benefit -- the donor, a substantial sum of money; the donee, his health. Yes, allowing financial incentives would mean that many Americans would be confronted with a decision that the government currently makes impossible to them -- the permanent loss of an organ along with a better financial situation, or keeping the organ and the financial difficulties? But we should allow Americans to make that decision for themselves, not assume paternalistically that selling the organ is never the correct choice and that Americans should be forced not to make that choice.
Mr. Majumder is right -- compensation for bone marrow donation should be legal. And he's wrong -- because compensation for organs should be allowed, too.
Compensation, Mr. Majumder argues, would alleviate this shortage. If we could just pay donors a modest amount, he says, we could increase the number of people willing to donate. Perhaps scholarships would encourage younger Americans -- who are most likely to have usable marrow -- to give.
I say Mr. Majumder is on the right track, but he hasn't gone far enough. He understands that the bone marrow shortage that killed his son could be remedied, if only the federal government weren't standing in the way. What he doesn't understand is that we need a fully free market in tissue donation -- and organs as well.
It's not just a modest amount of compensation that should be allowed; those who need bone marrow should be allowed to offer as much wealth as they want in exchange for the tissue they need. Leftists would argue that this creates inequities -- why should a rich person have access to marrow if a poor person doesn't? Well, why not? As long as the rich person has earned or inherited his wealth and not stolen it or gotten it by political favors, he can properly use it to buy anything he likes from anyone who will sell it to him -- and that includes bone marrow from someone who wouldn't sell it at a price the poor can afford. Nobody has a right to anyone else's bone marrow; the only way a patient should be able to get some is by mutual agreement between donor and donee (or, in a proper society, buyer and seller). By cutting off the possibility of any kind of compensation at all, the government simply makes it undesirable for nearly all Americans to donate; by allowing compensation but only at a modest level, the government would increase the pool, but not by as much as removing all restrictions would do.
Furthermore, Mr. Majumder makes an error when he argues that bone marrow donor compensation, but not organ donor compensation, should be allowed because bone marrow can be regenerated by the body, but organs cannot. Tell that to the families of those who have died waiting for a kidney, a heart, or a liver. In fact, organ donor compensation is desperately needed precisely because organ donation is more final than bone marrow donation. Currently, if you want an organ from a stranger, that stranger has to die -- what living person would give up, say, one of his kidneys for nothing more than a "thank you"? As I argued in my 2009 post "Not Enough Encouragement," most of us want to have full organ function, and would only give it up in exchange for a greater value, like the life of a loved one -- not the life of a stranger. But if there's money or other compensation involved, perhaps that compensation would be a greater value to some people than the continued use of their organs. What if, with the proceeds from giving up a kidney, a young mother could afford to quit working and stay home with her child for a year? Or a man who's been looking for seed money for his small business could finally have it? It would not be cruel and inhumane to allow this kind of transaction -- in fact, the exact opposite! Both parties would gain an enormous benefit -- the donor, a substantial sum of money; the donee, his health. Yes, allowing financial incentives would mean that many Americans would be confronted with a decision that the government currently makes impossible to them -- the permanent loss of an organ along with a better financial situation, or keeping the organ and the financial difficulties? But we should allow Americans to make that decision for themselves, not assume paternalistically that selling the organ is never the correct choice and that Americans should be forced not to make that choice.
Mr. Majumder is right -- compensation for bone marrow donation should be legal. And he's wrong -- because compensation for organs should be allowed, too.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Getting better at life takes time
At my last Foundations session for CrossFit, the coach wound me down after the workout of the day (known by CrossFitters as the "WOD") by talking to me about the trajectory of a new CrossFit athlete. The idea is not to kill yourself to get into a bikini by Memorial Day, then let yourself go once swimsuit season is over. You're working, as he put it, to "get better at life." Which means you have the rest of your life to do it...and that means take your time and get it right. You're not supposed to jump in full-force right away, because that can lead to injury.
What I'm finding this means is that, with the advice of the coaches, I err on the side of caution a lot. Sometimes this turns out to be a good thing, in that I'm not as strong in one area as I thought I was and a light weight or a low number of reps does, in fact, turn out to be a very challenging workout. But sometimes it means I have a workout that's considerably easier than I hoped it would be. That happened today; the prescribed WOD was as many rounds as possible in 10 minutes of 5 deadlifts at 155 pounds and 20 double-unders (jump rope so that the rope passes under your feet twice with each jump). When scaling the weight for the deadlift, I only had one prior workout to go on when asking the coach for advice; I don't have lots of data like one-rep maximum or how I feel at a weight of X pounds, the way other CrossFitters do. So we set my deadlift weight at 75 pounds.
This turned out to be wussy. The workout didn't feel nearly as intense as I knew it should, especially given that I had to do my rope jumping as single-unders (I haven't yet mastered doubles, so I would have spent the whole ten minutes trying to do 20 of them). I felt frustrated that I didn't work as hard as I now know I could have.
But you know what? That's okay. I now know some important information about my capabilities that I didn't before. And the next time deadlifts show up in a WOD, I sure as hell won't be doing them at 75. I just need to keep in mind Coach Fox's motto that I am doing this, not with some hard time goal in mind, but to get better at life. I will not get better at life if I err in the opposite direction, throw too many plates on my barbell, and injure myself. I will get better at life if I take this slowly and learn by experience how much I can do.
What I'm finding this means is that, with the advice of the coaches, I err on the side of caution a lot. Sometimes this turns out to be a good thing, in that I'm not as strong in one area as I thought I was and a light weight or a low number of reps does, in fact, turn out to be a very challenging workout. But sometimes it means I have a workout that's considerably easier than I hoped it would be. That happened today; the prescribed WOD was as many rounds as possible in 10 minutes of 5 deadlifts at 155 pounds and 20 double-unders (jump rope so that the rope passes under your feet twice with each jump). When scaling the weight for the deadlift, I only had one prior workout to go on when asking the coach for advice; I don't have lots of data like one-rep maximum or how I feel at a weight of X pounds, the way other CrossFitters do. So we set my deadlift weight at 75 pounds.
This turned out to be wussy. The workout didn't feel nearly as intense as I knew it should, especially given that I had to do my rope jumping as single-unders (I haven't yet mastered doubles, so I would have spent the whole ten minutes trying to do 20 of them). I felt frustrated that I didn't work as hard as I now know I could have.
But you know what? That's okay. I now know some important information about my capabilities that I didn't before. And the next time deadlifts show up in a WOD, I sure as hell won't be doing them at 75. I just need to keep in mind Coach Fox's motto that I am doing this, not with some hard time goal in mind, but to get better at life. I will not get better at life if I err in the opposite direction, throw too many plates on my barbell, and injure myself. I will get better at life if I take this slowly and learn by experience how much I can do.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Brook/Watkins series on health care in Forbes
I'm excited about an upcoming series of articles on why our health care system is broken by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins in Forbes. The first installment in the series ran yesterday.
America needs to hear these arguments in a forum as large as Forbes. I preach to the choir a lot about this stuff, but these men will be addressing many more people who don't understand why the government shouldn't meddle in medicine. I'm sure that Brook and Watkins will cover the moral case for a free market in health care -- which desperately needs to be heard -- along with the many pragmatic reasons we need one.
America needs to hear these arguments in a forum as large as Forbes. I preach to the choir a lot about this stuff, but these men will be addressing many more people who don't understand why the government shouldn't meddle in medicine. I'm sure that Brook and Watkins will cover the moral case for a free market in health care -- which desperately needs to be heard -- along with the many pragmatic reasons we need one.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Emphasis wrong?
John Stossel writes of Michelle Obama's attempts to persuade restaurants to serve smaller portions and "healthier" food:
"At least what Michelle is doing appears to be voluntary."
I would argue that the emphasis is on the wrong word:
"What Michelle is doing appears to be voluntary." As in, it really isn't. We've already seen that her husband is a firm believer in the (nonexistent) right of Washington to force us to do what it deems best for us, and that this belief extends to deciding what foods Americans will eat. The President joked around that his signing of the school lunch bill was part of maintaining marital bliss with the First Lady. Maybe he was joking, but the truth is that if restaurants don't do Mrs. Obama's bidding voluntarily, she can talk her husband into forcing them to serve food as she deems best. After all, it's not like he believes restaurateurs, or anybody else, have rights -- all they have are duties to other Americans (in this case, to keep us thin).
If Mrs. Obama were truly just an American citizen trying to get restaurateurs to adopt her cause by persuasive means alone, I would say have at it. But I don't believe for a second that that's what's really happening. This is "let me talk you into doing what I want" with an undertone of "or my husband will force you into doing what I want."
"At least what Michelle is doing appears to be voluntary."
I would argue that the emphasis is on the wrong word:
"What Michelle is doing appears to be voluntary." As in, it really isn't. We've already seen that her husband is a firm believer in the (nonexistent) right of Washington to force us to do what it deems best for us, and that this belief extends to deciding what foods Americans will eat. The President joked around that his signing of the school lunch bill was part of maintaining marital bliss with the First Lady. Maybe he was joking, but the truth is that if restaurants don't do Mrs. Obama's bidding voluntarily, she can talk her husband into forcing them to serve food as she deems best. After all, it's not like he believes restaurateurs, or anybody else, have rights -- all they have are duties to other Americans (in this case, to keep us thin).
If Mrs. Obama were truly just an American citizen trying to get restaurateurs to adopt her cause by persuasive means alone, I would say have at it. But I don't believe for a second that that's what's really happening. This is "let me talk you into doing what I want" with an undertone of "or my husband will force you into doing what I want."
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Stick to recipes, Mark Bittman.
I have a love-hate relationship with Mark Bittman, author of How to Cook Everything and The Best Recipes in the World, among other excellent cookbooks. I love him because he's the author of those cookbooks; the two I mentioned are the most food-splattered in my kitchen, evidence of their frequent use. His recipes are easy to make, which means they're terrifically useful for turning out tasty meals on weeknights. They're not what I would call gourmet, but in terms of bang for the effort buck, he's authored a lot of great stuff.
I hate him because he also writes crap like this. I read this article without looking at the byline at first, and through the first bullet point I was nodding my head emphatically. Yes, indeed, we should stop subsidizing corn and soybeans! After that, though, the article runs off the rails. Instead, Bittman says, we ought to be subsidizing farmers' markets, giving the FDA the powers that the USDA has now, taxing "unhealthy" foods, subsidizing home cooking, and "encouraging" recycling (Bittman doesn't specifically say that the government should be doing the encouraging, but it's strongly implied).
According to Bittman, "This isn’t nanny-state paternalism but an accepted role of government: public health." Well, just because public health is a commonly accepted role of government nowadays doesn't mean it isn't nanny-state paternalism!
Yes, I want the government out of subsidizing crops that make Americans fat. But I also don't want the government in the business of subsidizing food that will supposedly make us healthier, either. (Who gets to decide what that food is? Oh wait...LOBBYISTS!) I don't want the government making soft drinks more expensive (unless they do so by removing corn subsidies), I don't want the FDA deciding what I get to eat (goodness knows it does a crappy job deciding what drugs I get to take), I don't want the government paying me to cook at home. All I want is to be able to decide what I want to put in my belly, without interference and based on prices and data generated by a free market!
So, Mr. Bittman, stick to cooking and writing recipes. It's what you're good at.
I hate him because he also writes crap like this. I read this article without looking at the byline at first, and through the first bullet point I was nodding my head emphatically. Yes, indeed, we should stop subsidizing corn and soybeans! After that, though, the article runs off the rails. Instead, Bittman says, we ought to be subsidizing farmers' markets, giving the FDA the powers that the USDA has now, taxing "unhealthy" foods, subsidizing home cooking, and "encouraging" recycling (Bittman doesn't specifically say that the government should be doing the encouraging, but it's strongly implied).
According to Bittman, "This isn’t nanny-state paternalism but an accepted role of government: public health." Well, just because public health is a commonly accepted role of government nowadays doesn't mean it isn't nanny-state paternalism!
Yes, I want the government out of subsidizing crops that make Americans fat. But I also don't want the government in the business of subsidizing food that will supposedly make us healthier, either. (Who gets to decide what that food is? Oh wait...LOBBYISTS!) I don't want the government making soft drinks more expensive (unless they do so by removing corn subsidies), I don't want the FDA deciding what I get to eat (goodness knows it does a crappy job deciding what drugs I get to take), I don't want the government paying me to cook at home. All I want is to be able to decide what I want to put in my belly, without interference and based on prices and data generated by a free market!
So, Mr. Bittman, stick to cooking and writing recipes. It's what you're good at.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
If there's one good thing about ObamaCare...
...it's that Congress ramming unwanted legislation down the country's throat has caused many Americans, myself included, to take a closer look at what the Constitution actually says, and to agree that it's a good thing that there's a document limiting how much power the federal government has.
I knew about the Democrats' lame attempts to justify forcing all of us to buy insurance as a legal government power under the commerce clause. Right...because not buying something constitutes commerce. Judge Vinson was quite right to show the absurdity of this creative reading of the Constitution and how it would quite literally give Congress the power to force us all to buy whatever food, clothing, shelter, or any other product it can label as necessary.
I did not know that, following the earlier strikedown of ObamaCare's individual mandate on the grounds that the commerce clause doesn't justify it, that the Democrats had turned to a new "argument" based on the Necessary and Proper Clause. As the Wall Street Journal puts it, "That clause empowers Congress to enact 'all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution' its enumerated powers." Oh, that little thing about the powers having to be enumerated first? Not too meaningful to liberals who think they know best.
As lawmakers who want to do whatever they want love to cry, the Constitution is not, in fact, a perfect document. For example, as originally written, it allowed for slavery in America; as amended, it allows for income taxation. But, imperfect as it may be, it still provides limits on what the government may do, and it makes the process for expanding those limits difficult on purpose. That's so that it's not easy for power-hungry lawmakers to run roughshod over the rights of Americans.
I hope that ObamaCare's defeats continue to get the American people interested in what the Constitution actually says and why it was written that way.
I knew about the Democrats' lame attempts to justify forcing all of us to buy insurance as a legal government power under the commerce clause. Right...because not buying something constitutes commerce. Judge Vinson was quite right to show the absurdity of this creative reading of the Constitution and how it would quite literally give Congress the power to force us all to buy whatever food, clothing, shelter, or any other product it can label as necessary.
I did not know that, following the earlier strikedown of ObamaCare's individual mandate on the grounds that the commerce clause doesn't justify it, that the Democrats had turned to a new "argument" based on the Necessary and Proper Clause. As the Wall Street Journal puts it, "That clause empowers Congress to enact 'all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution' its enumerated powers." Oh, that little thing about the powers having to be enumerated first? Not too meaningful to liberals who think they know best.
As lawmakers who want to do whatever they want love to cry, the Constitution is not, in fact, a perfect document. For example, as originally written, it allowed for slavery in America; as amended, it allows for income taxation. But, imperfect as it may be, it still provides limits on what the government may do, and it makes the process for expanding those limits difficult on purpose. That's so that it's not easy for power-hungry lawmakers to run roughshod over the rights of Americans.
I hope that ObamaCare's defeats continue to get the American people interested in what the Constitution actually says and why it was written that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
