Feeling John Kerry's pain...

Today, I spent over ten hours trying to compose a letter to the editor on about the cost of prescription drugs, and why the Kerry-Edwards ticket gets my vote on this issue.

I want my letter to be truthful. I want to compare and contrast their proposed policies with Bush's record. I want to cite sources, so that if a skeptical newspaper reader wants to check the validity of my claims, s/he can.

But trying to find, online, what the various bills and resolutions actually say is like trying to find the proverbial needle in the proverbial haystack. And then, once you find the info? Oy! There is no exciting, snappy way to write a sentance comparing Senate bill S812 to Congressional HR-1853 (or whatever it is, the actual number slips my mind, right now). I'm writing the damned letter, and my eyes start to glaze over when I read the terminology I have to use...

I swear, we should come up with a new way of titling legislation -- like the way we name hurricanes ... or better yet, come up with a "legislation title generator" based on old-time Japanese movie monsters. Don't you think more people would take an active interest in politics if congressmen and senators held floor debates between Pharmazor and Cashzingra?

...Okay, yeah... it's late. I'm going to bed.

So! I just finished my letter to the editor

Here it is:

Dear Editor:

In the fall of 2000, my doctor prescribed new asthma drug for me. It worked wonders. For the first time in years, I could breathe freely. I was thrilled, even though it cost close to $90 for a month's supply. I trusted that the price would eventually come down. Instead, the price has risen to over $120. Air is not free if you have respriratory disease.

It would save me (and the federal government) a lot of money if this drug were available as a generic. That's why, way back in 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act. This law was designed to limit the amount of time brand-name drug companies can keep generic drugs off the market (to five years), and to make it easier for generic companies to bring less expensive, but equally safe and effective versions to market. But the law was full of loopholes, including one that allowed brand-name companies to file patent infringement lawsuits against makers of generic drugs -- even when they knew they'd never win. Winning was never their goal -- keeping cheaper competition out of the marketplace was.

In the summer of 2002, Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards co-sponsered a Senate bill (S812) that would have put much stricter limits on these lawsuits. With Edwards' help, the bill passed with strong bipartisan support, 78 to 21, and won praise from such organizations as Consumers' Union. But, thanks in part to lobbyists from the brand-name pharmaceutical companies, the bill died in the House.

Months later, Bush implemented own set of regulations aimed at shortening the time it takes for generic drugs to come to market. Unlike the Senate bill, however, the Administration's plan places no limits on when a brand-name company can file for patent protection, putting the release of generic drugs on hold indefinitely. And the current Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, which Bush touts as a great success, doesn't allow the government to negotiate for lower drug prices, leaving taxpayers and workers to foot the bill -- paying whatever price the drug companies demand.

Spokesmen for the brand-name pharmaceutical industry insist that high prices, and policies that keep generic drugs off the market provide incentives for research and the creation of new drugs. But where's the the incentive to take risks on new drugs when companies can make as much money as they want on products already in the market, for as long as they want?

Sincerely,

Ann Magill,
Chesapeake

I was originally going to include a list of websites where I got my information, but decided against it. This is a (short) editorial piece -- not a research paper, even if I did do a lot of research to back up what I say, thankyouverymuch.