September 28, 2006
New Election Year Should Mean New Ads

Mike McGavick's campaign blog has a thorough takedown of Maria Cantwell's current ad on the topic of prescription drugs, and I mean thorough. As particularly astute readers may recall, Cantwell's "new" ad recycles footage and themes from her 2000 campaign (for the record, I recall this photo as well from my days on the other side of the 2000 campaign, that vacant grin on the older gentleman and the Fig Newtons being easy to remember).

More importantly, the content of the "new" ad is all fluff. I remember my first thought on seeing this version being, "why is she talking about prescription drugs and middle class famlies? Don't most 'middle class' families have health insurance? What's she going to do, mandate lower co-pays?" If Senator Cantwell is serious about helping middle class families with healthcare costs, perhaps she could talk about lowering the premiums which most families know can be the highest healthcare-related drain on the checkbook.

The real irony is that going into this campaign season Democrats were expected to use such ads to whine about the new Medicare Prescription Drug program. I guess in this case they may have actually read the memo, or this one from a firm of former Clinton staffers as well. I guess, in all fairness, maybe they didn't have enough footage to recycle on that topic to put something together.

Posted by Eric Earling at September 28, 2006 07:29 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Doesn't anyone (including Mike) see the capitalism aspect of importing price capped drugs? By importing drugs from Canada, where the prices of the drugs are capped by the government, you are effectively instituting price caps here in the U.S. Who is going to buy drugs at the normal price when you can buy the imported drugs at the capped price? While it sounds like a fine idea to help joe middle class, what does it do long term to the profit motive of pharmaceutical companies in this country who spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing these drugs? Remove or reduce the profit motive in this equation and innovation goes out the window.

The United States is effectively subsidizing the rest of the world in terms of innovation in developing drugs that extend people's lives, and paying the cost of that development, while most of the rest of the world gets a discount on those prescriptions through price caps.

What's the solution? In cases where the pharmas have used public research money through universities or other grants to develop a drug, have the pharma repay those grants through profits from the sale of those drugs through discounts to poor and middle class families. If the drug was developed through complete private financing the choice is up to the pharma - it's capitalism and they can charge what is necessary to recoup their investment. And the rest of the world should pay what we pay.

Posted by: Palouse on September 28, 2006 08:04 AM
2. Canada gets a quota of different drugs, at a set price. If US citizens go up and buy all the drugs at the cheap price, Canada will have to replenish at a higher price. This will force their pricing to a more market level. I suspect that if we pass laws to allow drugs to come this way, the Canadian govt will pass its own law to prevent US citizens from doing so.

This is the free market at work. If the Canadians want new technology, let them pay the same price we pay. If they want to price them below, then they can put up with outsiders coming in and snapping up the supply.

Posted by: Janet S on September 28, 2006 08:13 AM
3. I seem to recall that Canada passed a law, or talked about one, that would make the "reimportation" illegal.

Anyone recall what actually occurred?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 28, 2006 08:36 AM
4. Not hoping the old couple ill health.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if one of them has passed away in the last 6 years and Maria is still using their photo.

Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on September 28, 2006 08:54 AM
5. I saw the ad last night and was astounded. It seemed to focus on the elderly. Has that woman (I can't call her Senator without gagging) been told that the Medicare Part D program was put into effect? You're right, Eric, that she used old footage, and is using old issues, because she doesn't have anything else. Empty suit. And there are so many pharmaceuticals now running their own programs that subsidize prescription drugs for those who can't afford them, that I think the issue is a red herring. As usual, she can't think of any real issues to talk about or to even act on, so she's creating boogey men, of course, right before the election.

Posted by: katomar on September 28, 2006 09:21 AM
6. Nothing new here. The Dems have been recycling the same stale socialist messages for decades. New material is not their strong suit because their ideology is dead whether they are willing to admit it or not.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 28, 2006 09:39 AM
7. OT: Seattle Times looks at Cant(figure)well's campaign finances: link here [short form : what's that smell?]

Might be worth a front page note from a regular contributor...

Posted by: Doug O. on September 28, 2006 10:13 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?