So Obamacare has so far been a disaster, with the laughably incompetent and staggeringly overpriced rollout of a relatively simple website and the realization that the twin promises upon which passage of the bill was based – lower costs and the ability to keep your current doctor and health care plan – were bold-faced lies.
But honestly, why would anyone be surprised that this giant new government bureaucracy is showing complete ineptitude and corruption, combined with a deaf ear to “customer” satisfaction, regarding a takeover of some 15% of the US economy?
Putting aside for a moment the questionable constitutional authority and majority public disapproval of ACA, we should have known for certain the government would not do this well because the part of healthcare they already operate, the FDA, is rife with – you guessed it – ineptitude and corruption, combined with a deaf ear to “customer” satisfaction.
Two current issues clearly illustrate these systemic cancers in the FDA: their position on a new drug called tolvaptan, and on electronic cigarettes. Instead of protecting people as it should do, the FDA may actually be expediting their demise.
Issue 1: Tolvaptan. How safe would you need a drug to be before you took it for a disease that will kill you sooner rather than later? Would you prefer to take a shot at an uncertain outcome, or hold out for assured drug safety knowing that your disease is marching you surely and steadily into an early grave? Many of the more than half a million Americans with polycystic kidney disease would like some relief from their condition which generally results in kidney failure.
The FDA has decided that a new drug proven to help people with the disease should not be allowed to be prescribed or taken, because some side effects might be harmful. Harmful side effects are indeed cause for concern – but only in relation to the harm the disease itself delivers to its victims. The same can be said for the likelihood and significance of efficacy. Why aren’t doctors and patients allowed to make those choices for themselves?
Certainly, most everyone would agree that the FDA should require requisite warning information on drugs, and use its powers to seek punishment for individuals or companies who defraud patients by soft pedaling harms, or inflating successes. What it should never do is decide for adults what their level of risk tolerance should be, or what level of remediation constitutes “worth it” for them.
Issue 2: The E-cig. Electronic cigarettes are helping hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, to quit smoking. The name is somewhat of a misnomer because e-cigs are not cigarettes at all, but an electronic device that vaporizes a nicotine solution. The user inhales the vaporized solution which contains no smoke at all, and receives the desired level of nicotine. This is essentially another version of the nicotine patch or nicotine gum, except that it actually simulates the act of smoking. Health advocates are fond of reminding smokers that there are at least 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, and at least 50 cause cancer. Do you know what chemical does not cause cancer? You guessed it – nicotine. (In fact, there are actually some positive health benefits to nicotine when it is not inhaled in a cigarette).
So the FDA and public health officials must be lining up to hand out e-cigs to smokers, right? No. In fact, quite the opposite. They went so far as to confiscate all the vaporizers they could find being imported into the country. Were they defective or a fire hazard? No again. The federal judge who ruled against the FDA called the action part of “its tenacious drive to maximize its regulatory power.” This agency simply wanted to broaden its powers. Shocker, huh?
Why wouldn’t the FDA stick to making sure the nicotine solution is accurately labeled. Why wouldn’t they be concerned about protecting consumers from fraudsters and cheats? Well, because they know better than you, and because you are simply too unintellegent or perhaps naive to understand the complex issues involved. Let’s face it – the FDA is involved in another massive power assertion. They never argue for less power. They always want more – more regulation over more products, and more regulation over the products they already regulate. That is the nature of the beast.
There are times when it is admittedly difficult to sympathize with drug companies. They have sometimes misbehaved as large companies in highly regulated economic sectors often do. They lie about the safety and efficacy of their products. They buy politicians and regulators to make the world a harsher place for their competitors, or to make maximize profits. Not so different from toy companies, telecommunications companies, or energy companies. They all do it. The difference is that pharmaceutical companies actually save lives.
The FDA got its start with the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906. This was essentially a truth in labeling law designed to deliver federal sanctions to companies defrauding American consumers. The subsequent expansion of the powers then granted – to the point where the government decides what is and is not good for us – including raw milk, imported cheese, tolvaptan, or e-cigs, shows the initial disaster with Obamacare is hardly a bump in the road, but rather the road itself. It is the nature of government regulatory agencies. They will advance their own desire for control because they have virtually unlimited budgets, unchecked power and no competition.
But like the FDA deciding what risk tolerance is acceptable for you, we see now that bureaucrats and politicians have decided that all health insurance policies must have coverage for maternity care and substance abuse counseling. So what if you are an 80 year old male who never took a drink and don’t plan on getting pregnant anytime soon. They are the smartest people in the room, and they know what is best for you.
It is beyond question that, as with the long history of FDA, the government’s desire to elevate its authority related to the nascent Obamacare will only increase over time…to the further detriment of the American consumer.
