Presidential candidate Ron Paul hauled in a nice chunk of change over the last three months (Boston Globe), due in part to his opposition to the liberation of Iraq and in part due to his loud fealty to the Constitution – and his supposed refusal to support any government spending or regulation that goes beyond its enumerated powers.
His supporters might be shocked to know that, in Paul’s mind, “constitutional government” includes de facto price controls on prescription drugs. Three links from National Review Online provide the details on the House Democratic plan. and here, in Roll Call 23, is Ron Paul’s “Yes” vote.
So, in Ron Paul’s’ mind, Saddam Hussein isn’t nearly as dangerous as pharmaceutical companies – and more to the point, neither is intrusive government.
Constitutional government, my foot.
I’m not defending the “yes” vote, but I want to point out that your comment is a little over the top. According to the first of the NR pieces to which you link, the law is arguably the first step down the slippery slope to price controls, and not a form of price controls in itself.
(“But this legislation is just the first step down the road to Medicare serfdom.” The author then goes on to briefly describe “the tiny legislative tweaks” necessary to actually end up in a regime of “full-blown price controls.”)
Even if we buy the slippery slope argument, one would be hard pressed to reasonably conclude that a vote in favor of the law means that one supports de facto price controls. That’s just unnecessary and unhelpful hyperbole.
But I would be interested in seeing other comments explain the “yes” vote.
If the pharmaceutical companies don’t want to sell to the government at the price they are offering they don’t have to take part in the Medicare drug program (which Ron Paul voted against by the way).
You take the king’s shilling, you do the king’s bidding.
Would you call the Pentagon negotiating on the price of fighter jets price controls?
Some of Paul’s comments on this bill from the House floor are here.
Shot in the dark here! Congresman Paul has been in congres for 20 yrs. I’m going to guess that he knows much more about what’s going on than I do.
That being said, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that maybe, just maybe, his “yes” vote was taking into consideration that under the U.N.s Codex program, which hour congres has approved, vitamins, natural health products, and herbs will all be in the control of big pharma. That being the case, maybe everything under it’s umrella will be subject to the same “price controls”, thus avoiding what’s taking place in Europe, under this Codex program, making herbs, vitamins and natural remedies so expensive and not covered by insurance, that a person has no choice but to settle for the synthetic, toxic offerings of big pharma.
This would be in keeping with his “earmark” stance, in which he asks for them, thus working withing the system as is, but voting against the bills these earmarks are attaced to.
Just a guess.
After all, DR. Paul not only has the burden of being the best candidtate, he also has to educate the majority of Americans in a very short amount of time. I’m will, based on his record and integrity, to trust him on this one.
Shot in the dark here! Congresman Paul has been in congres for 20 yrs. I’m going to guess that he knows much more about what’s going on than I do.
That being said, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that maybe, just maybe, his “yes” vote was taking into consideration that under the U.N.s Codex program, which hour congres has approved, vitamins, natural health products, and herbs will all be in the control of big pharma. That being the case, maybe everything under it’s umrella will be subject to the same “price controls”, thus avoiding what’s taking place in Europe, under this Codex program, making herbs, vitamins and natural remedies so expensive and not covered by insurance, that a person has no choice but to settle for the synthetic, toxic offerings of big pharma.
This would be in keeping with his “earmark” stance, in which he asks for them, thus working within the system as is, but voting against the bills these earmarks are attached to.
Or maybe he thinks the Dept. of Health & Human Services will actually negotiate on the the recipients behalf (opportunity for scruples in govt…fat chance)
Just a guess.
After all, DR. Paul not only has the burden of being the best candidtate, he also has to educate the majority of Americans in a very short amount of time. I’m will, based on his record and integrity, to trust him on this one.
Hah!!! OOOooohh! BAD BAD Ron Paul wants to make government-protected monopolies charge less for their products when dealing with the government…
Ron Paul’s thinking on this is incredibly simple and correct:
1. The government shouldn’t be providing drugs for citizens. He voted against Medicare etc.
2. He didn’t get his way and now we have Medicare, so you better believe he’s gonna try to save the taxpayer some money by not paying whatever the hell the Pharmaceutical companies want. If we’re spending the taxpayers’ money, we better get the best price available.
Anyone trying to say Ron isn’t a real limited government constitutionalist libertarian conservative is really gonna be grasping at this type of nonsense…
-Chad
Issue resolved by his comments.
Please try again.
I’m deeply amused at how government intrusion suddenly becomes OK if Ron Paul approves.
It appears the rationalization Paul and the Paulites are grasping is this: Medicare D should never have been passed, but since it was, we should at least keep cost low via government negotiation.
Here’s the problem: Ron Paul is smart enough to know that government “negotiation” will be anything but. The massive size of Medicare, including Part D (and he and I agree it should never have been enacted) ensures the government has artificial monopsony power. Giving it the ability to use it is in and of itself a perversion of the free market. The Ron Paul who wasn’t running for president would see right through this.
Sadly, we don’t have that Ron Paul anymore, and his legions seem to be drifting right along with him to the left. Nice going, fellows.
Are you saying then, that pharmaceutical companies should be able to set prices for govt plans without having to negotiate them? Wouldn’t that benefit the crony at the expense of the taxpayer?
This relates to a govt plan, Medicare, not how private plans are managed. If it allowed govt to meddle in private negotiations, I would agree with you. But it doesn’t appear to do that, except through the huge market distortion that already exists from its participation in the healthcare market. It does appear that he’s just trying to limit the graft.
As far as I can tell, this bill is has nothing to do with price controls in the market and everything to do with the government negotiating prices for what it doles out to seniors. Seeing as Ron Paul is as close to an econ expert as you’ll find in congress, I think it’s safe to say he understands this issue. And as he is a preeminent exponent of free-market values, I think its safe to say he voted correctly on this issue. As the CFG described him: “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”
What did you think of his comments on the bill?
Sorry, Bert, he should know better. The government’s too deeply involved into the drug market as it is. If it started negotiating drug prices, it would hve enough market power to set the price for the tnire country.
That’s what monopsony power is, and it is the very thing the government should NOT have.
Monopsony is when one buyer faces many sellers, thus having some power to manipulate prices in its own favor. However, as long as the market supply can be liquidated, with the producers finding other buyers, actual manipulation is difficult and largely ineffective.
Removing one side’s power to negotiate does not correct the problem. It merely delivers the power from one side to the other, and actually adds a layer of obfuscation between producer and consumer, for price manipulations to be hidden.
It could be argued that the operation of supply and demand to set commodity prices in the free market relies on a form of monopsony, since all consumers benefit from the price reductions realized by the pressure from the efforts of the largest market players, even if we are not part of their organizations.
[...] fact is, each candidate has problems on domestic issues – even Dr. Paul is not perfect. However, on the gamut of issues (defense of pre-born life, free trade, taxes and spending, gun [...]
[...] off the rails and into big-government land when the subject shifts to microeconomics (such as his support for government price controls in prescription drug [...]
[...] off the rails and into big-government land when the subject shifts to microeconomics (such as his support for government price controls in prescription drug [...]
[...] Which candidate has supported using the American government’s monopsony power to distort the market in such a fashion? Not Mitt Romney [...]
[...] Dr. Paul, of the two candidates who made the Virginia ballot, he is the only one who is on record in support of allowing the federal government to use its monopoly/monopsony power to influence price… – a position I consider far, far more dangerous than the individual mandate; he has openly [...]
Ok, how about you give Ron Paul the choice of not doing this but getting rid of Intellectual Property laws instead? It’s funny you talk about use of monopoly power by the state when the only reason that generics aren’t produced faster is state granted monopoly.
So now the solution is to erode intellectual property rights?
Really?
“So now the solution is to erode intellectual property rights?
Really?”
Yes, really. Since you appear to be an expert on monopoly, then you are aware that patents are a gov’t granted privilege, i.e. monopoly, and therefore it is a consistent libertarian position to be against so called “intellectual property.”
Solving the sick care mess in the US is simple, although not easy. Abolish all gov’t interference at every level. Medical care would instantly be cheap, medical info would be more plentiful, more understandable and sound and few would bother with insurance, which is a racket anyway.