Tax Reform

In Rachel’s detailed commentary about the tax reform bill she illustrates the relevance that this bill has towards the state of the nation currently, especially the middle class. Rachel says based on the article that regardless of the Democratic senator’s votes the bill will still pass. She states the facts and even uses a relevant television commercial to parallel the outcome of the votes. While I originally disagreed with the tax reform bill the basic numbers she presents are something to consider. If small businesses benefit and it makes it easier on families with kids, referring to the child tax credit, is it possible that this is the better decision. I appreciate this perspective because her article poses a question for me, asking if this tax reform bill is worth it. Honestly, I would enjoy paying less taxes. I think I would have to experience both sides before deciding on what is necessarily better for the economy. For now, I am still hesitant when she says the corporate tax will be lowered, are they not making enough money already? It appears to me the bill appeals to most and reels you in with the middle class and small business incentives then whispers, oh also, 20 percent tax for “us” we corporations need more money anyway. It is curious why the Democrats are fighting it so much. For now, I stay undecided.  

Pharmaceutical Price War

In the article “To Cut Drug Prices, Academy of Sciences Tells the Government to Negotiate With Manufacturers” it talks of how the government should be responsible for regulating the prices and distribution of prescription drugs across the country. This is because of the continually emerging problem of individual citizens lacking access to prescription medications that they need due to high cost and limited support from insurance programs. While it is a noble case that they are making it is altogether unfeasible.

The analogy that comes to mind is if one were to make a case against McDonald’s for their poor food quality, or to Apple for employing cheap overseas labor. The Pharmaceutical Enterprise is too big and established for anyone to care about regulating it. The amount of of effort that would be required for limited government resources to be allotted to the heavy regulation of medications all over the country makes it an unattractive and unnecessary proposition to the powers at large. The government of the United States of America operates as a Republic, voting in representation at every level of legislation. In this framework it would be highly unrealistic to request that they heavily regulate an industry which seems to be running effectively to all standards of measurement that they care about. Can’t afford medications? Get better insurance. Can’t afford better insurance? Get a better job. The system works if the individual is worthy of accessing it.

Along with being a republic, America is also a capitalist country in which such propositions may be promptly confused with socialist measures. Now do I agree that something needs to be done in order to make medications more accessible to lower income citizens? Absolutely. But do I think that lobbying for the government to come in and regulate is the effective process to achieve the desired result? Absolutely not. The most that will happen from a proposal such as this is the insurance companies having to report more accurate data on their medication prices; not so different from McDonald's having to report how many calories are in a double cheeseburger. I believe the only way to make medications more accessible, the only way to get anything done for the benefit of the masses, is to develop a case that in some way makes the new system more profitable/attractive to the private powers; insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies etc. The U.S. government doesn’t have time for this.