Biotechs Skewer Massachusetts Over Gift-Ban Bill
40 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 12th, 2008 // 9:42 am
When three of the state’s politicians, led by Governor Deval Patrick, visit a major biotech conference in San Diego next month, they’re likely to receive a cool reception. They hope to use a $1 billion initiative to lure biotechs to Massachusetts, but biotechs are upset over a provision in bill aimed at controlling health care costs that also would ban industry from giving docs any kind of gift, the Associated Press writes.
“Strictly interpreted, the `anything-of-value’ ban could bring clinical trials to a halt in Massachusetts, severely cut into necessary and mandated continuing educational studies undertaken by physicians and mean that fewer new medicines are readily available to patients in the state that is the global hub of medical innovation,” the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council wrote in a May 1 letter to state legislators.
BIO, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, wrote House Speaker Sal DiMasi on April 30 that “the gift-ban provision threatens research and treatment for patients in the commonwealth.” And Glaxo also wrote letters to Deval, DiMasi and Senate president Therese Murray accusing the Massachusetts political establishment of harboring “a strong anti-biopharmaceutical streak.”
Murray, who proposed the ban, declined comment to the AP on the letters, but two lawmakers who helped push the bill through the Senate this month were happy to respond, with each saying that gifts are a form of bribery that drive up health care costs by overusing expensive meds.
Mark Montigny, a state senator who authored the gift-ban provision, told the AP the legislation wouldn’t harm medical research, and the state’s Life Sciences Initiative itself is proof Massachusetts isn’t opposed to the biopharmaceutical industry. The bill also expressly allows for docs to continue receiving free drug samples from the manufacturers.
“They are very loose with the truth,” Montigny, a Democrat, tells the AP. “They’re smart enough to read the law but not smart enough to keep from misrepresenting it.”
Richard Moore, a state senator and Democrat who chairs the Health Care Financing Committee, says the bill was aimed at preventing drugmakers from currying favor for their meds by providing free lunches for a doc and staff, flying them to resorts for work conferences or slapping their name on pro-drug medical journal articles they haven’t even written.
“There are plenty of academic studies that have been written that have concluded that this does influence prescribing inappropriately,” Moore tells the AP. “They’re obviously trying to sell drugs, and to sell them at the highest cost.”
Patrick is hoping to sign the bill - which would add $1 billion to R&D efforts over 10 years - into law by June 17, when all three politicianst travel to San Diego for the biotech conference hosted by BIO. The conference is expected to draw 20,000 people and 2,200 companies from 70 countries. Last year, the conference was held in Boston and Patrick used the occasion to announce his Life Sciences bill.
This year he hopes turning talk into action will help him lure companies “home.” While his acdtions have triggered talk about naming Patrick “Governor of the Year” at this year’s conference, that honor is now in doubt based on the gift ban, the AP writes. A Patrick spokesman tells the AP the governor hasn’t taken a stand on banning gifts, despite his support for the overall bill.
BIO members are hoping he will end up opposing it. “For the Life Sciences Initiative to achieve its full promise, every link in the value chain must remain unencumbered, thereby allowing the flow of important medical information to doctors and patients,” the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council told lawmakers.
Former Pharmaceutical Marketing Executive
This should be very interesting as I have a contract to be at ASCO this year.
I will certainly be on the look out…
Big Pharma Guy
Please, let’s not go overboard with these cries for help. What the government wants to do is get rid of bribes and inducements. They shouldn’t be allowed, but investigator initiated research studies shouls be able to stay. This assumes they’re totally legitimate and not a payoff.
M Helm, MD
The assumption of total legitamcy of investigator initiated studies (or “phase IV”/seeding studies for that matter) is a giant one. Consequently, Big Pharma Guy, I can’t tell if you are serious or sarcastic.
And while I’m at it… Do PhRMA manufacturers really need “clinical consultants” to tell them anything about their own medications?
Personally, I think a ban on samples dispensed through the MD would do more to lower the total costs of healthcare. Maybe there could still be “free trial” vouchers, but these should be coordinated through pharmacy. There is a public health/safety concern which is often conveniently overlooked. Only your pharmacist knows what other medications you are actually taking which could interact with a new treatment. Further, they only know this if you fill all of your medicines at the same store/chain. There is good evidence that the use of samples alters physician prescribing practices and increases medication costs (even despite the initial “freebie”). Sampling strategies are also employed by the folks who sell street drugs.
Another useful reform would be to require consideration of the “free” lunches provided to office staff as a form of compensation. This should be a taxable benefit, like the personal use of a company car, for the employees of clinics who eat for “free.” (Not to mention the value of the lunches and dinners PhRMA pays for the reps to eat, who as often as not would prefer not to be caterers anyway.) If the practices incurred additional payroll taxes on the value of lunches provided to employees by third party vendors (PhRMA and others), there would be considerably less interest in “who’s bring lunch today?” I think this would work, even without a ban on the practice (plus the side benefit of extra tax revenue).
Saber-rattling to support the status quo or extort concessions from local, state or federal governments is one of the least attractive features of any industry. My good wishes to the sovereign Commonwealth of Massachusetts - Courage.
ol cranky
Sadly, the assumption that investigator initiated studies are unbiased is as inaccurate as the assumption they’re all investigator initiated.
Pharma Vet
While I recognize that there are examples of bad conduct behavior by certain pharma manufacturers, but there also appears to a fair amount of hypocrisy with this issue. The state wants to encourage biotech investment so companies can locate in Mass. Any pharma or biotech company can only make that investment if they expect a return on that investment. At the same time the state is trying to lure pharma they are simultaneously trying to reduce profitability of that same company within the state. It does not make any sense.
Dave T
Massachusetts is doing the right thing. No silly games of bribing with lunches,snacks,speaking.Let the companies sell the drugs not buying off MD’s.Let the physicians decide on the merits of the drugs,not on perks.Do other industry’s get governmental aid in research-no,tax free land-no, or allowed to bribe their customers?
Alex C
Its a shame - the problem is not with the pharma co’s but rather the doctors that are “bribed” and make prescribing decisions for reasons other than quality patient care and outcomes. Most doctors these days are concerned with their year end bonus from the managed care companies and therefore choose cheaper alternatives that may not be best suited or work as effectively or efficiently for a patient.
Other industries (insurance, software etc)actually do take clients golfing etc.,(which pharma does not) and no one bats an eye. Isnt BlueCross Blueshield non profit? Last time I checked, their CEO made 10 million a year.
Pharma is a for profit industry and someone needs to take a closer look at the doctor level and see why they prescribe certain meds..you may be surprised to see that doctors themselves care more about there bottom line (i.e.rebate from insurance companies for prescribing generic medications).
HorusCat
Dave wrote:
Do other industry’s get governmental aid in research-no,tax free land-no, or allowed to bribe their customers?
Actually, the answer is YES (tax-subsidized “research” for alternative fuels anyone? tax breaks for energy companies looking for “alternatives”? farm subsidies to farmers who are also getting paid to grow experimental seed?
Tax abatements for business relocating to municipalities are a given. So yes, free land to any company that promises to bring jobs and more tax revenue.
And what you call bribery is called marketing in every other industry.
Matt,
Are you new tax requirements going to cover every industry in which sales and marketing take their clients to lunch or dinner? or on a golf outing? Let’s see, in a lot of places, that would include government employees, politicians, bankers, doctors, auto dealers, etc., etc.
Once again, the government will use its billy club to shape behavior…suggested reading? Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.
Bob Freeman
HC, normally I don’t get annoyed but . . . .Liberal Fascism contains more lies and distortions than 5 minutes of Faux News’ Bill O’Reilly, which normally sets the standard for inaccuracies. My blood pressure went up so high I have to have a lie-down.
Bob Freeman
erratun: I meant 5 years of Faux News. I was choking on my own bile when I wrote the previous post.
Bob Freeman
erratum: erratum, not erratun.
Justice in Michigan
Bob - Take deep breaths. Do lie down. Once BP returns to normal, you may want to get a blood draw for the O’Reilly Factor. Of course, if it is positive; well, we’re looking out for you.
So is Homeland Security.
Bob Freeman
Justice, I’m all better now in spite of the assault on my senses.
M Helm, MD
HCat,
It’s funny, most of my adult life people have wanted to call me Matt. That’s not my name, but If you want to think I’m the Amercian James Bond, and look like Dean Martin, I’m ok with that.
Regarding the “free” lunch, I can see taking a client to lunch or dinner, or providing food or a snack for a working meeting. I’ve done that myself back before the MD when PhRMA companies were my customers. After I went to the manufacturer side, I had one supplier who would always bring some very nice pastries whenever he visited. The only people who fell over themselves to feed and entertain me were the advertising and PR agencies with whom we worked. Even that didn’t happen very often.
However, what often happens in physician’s offices is that the “marketing” is brought in for every single person in the office. It does not matter whether they are the billing specialist, the receptionist, a physician’s spouse (who just conveniently shows up from time to time) or the intended target - the MD who is just too busy to give a rep more than 30 seconds - everyone eats. There are offices where the expectation is that every day some company is sponsoring lunch, sometimes breakfast and/or an afternoon snack. You know, as do I there are clinics that make a science of this. Sometimes this is food for 30 people every day they are open - and we both know the leftovers aren’t donated to the local homeless shelter.
This is not the norm in any other industry or business relationship of which I’m aware. This is where in my mind it crosses the line to becoming an untaxed employment benefit… Actually working stiffs have to buy their own lunch with the cash left over after income and payroll taxes. So, yes, I think a tax on food and gifts received as a consequence of employment should apply to everyone.
Someone who knows more than I do may be able to confirm or refute this, but I thought that generally government employees are prohibited from receiving any thing of any value for personal use from vendors or customers. Perhaps I just got that from my dad (a very ethical fellow, and a former career government employee). As for politicians - well there are a different set of ethical rules there.
The point I was trying to make was that there is more than one way to skin a cat - no offense - I’m just low on cliches tonight. If I believe that government does, in fact, shape behavior with laws and policies designed to ensure conformance to some agreed upon societal norms, does that make me either a liberal, a fascist, or both. Either way, you got no worries, I’m not running for office.
HorusCat
M Helm MD,
Sorry!!! I don’t know where Matt came from, honestly (a brain fart; I have those).
You are right in the “science” part some offices have the mass feeding down to! I only have one or two of those offices–I actually like the coffee break idea, because it is a lot cheaper. I have to say that in those offices, the doctors do sit down and give me plenty of time. I would offer that I have a product that does involve many of the ancillary staff, from the nurses to the billing person, because it is biotech and getting it to the patient (with as low a co-pay as possible) can be involved. Thus, I spend much of time in those offices talking to the staff, making sure they understand the process, have the forms available, know how to deal with side effects questions, etc., because the doctors just aren’t going to remember it.
Government employees are restricted–you’re right. VA docs, for instance, are told to limit their freebies, but our VA has a process by which pharma provides lunches every week for certain departments. My company does not allow us to participate in those, because of the federal rules. In fact, my company has a disclaimer on dinner program invitations that federal employees are not supposed to receive freebies and if they are attending, it is not at the request of a company representative!
You’re right about the government trying to shape behavior; to a certain extent, this is what laws do to keep us civilized. My point is that trying to shape corporate behavior by regulating prices, interactions, marketing, etc., usually doesn’t work–the law of unintended consequences takes over. At the point where government is telling companies in detail how they can market, doctors how they can prescribe, companies how much they can charge and how much profit is “reasonable”…we are getting perilously close to state control of an industry, which is fascism. I am sorry, though, I wasn’t implying that you individually are a fascist.
HorusCat
Bob,
Are you British? I like the having a lie-down expression. It is very descriptive. Sorry, didn’t mean to push you into a hypertensive crisis. We don’t want any cerobrovascular events on our hands.
Did you know that when FDR died, his blood pressure was up around 300 systolic? Amazing. Many of our presidents died of stroke.
We’ll have to agree that one side always thinks the other is full of “lies and distortions,” kind of like liberals always calling conservatives “Nazi’s…” :+)
Relax and breathe…
harpy
Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Except for the “stringent socioeconomic controls” it sounds much like our current government. But I imagine it would be easy to argue that the creation of a class of ultra-wealthy corporate leaders, lack of a living wage (controlled by the government at the behest of business) and the off-shoring of jobs, wealth and resources could suffice to fulfill that requirement.
Nazism - a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader,
Unfortunately, you void the whole conversation by invoking Godwin’s Law.
Bob Freeman
Good morning, HorusCat–
No, I’m not British but I picked up “lie-down” from them because I like the expression. Too much time spent watching “Monty Python’s Flying Circus”, I guess. I have avoided terms like “way out” for exit, “boot” for trunk, lift, “car park” and flat though.
Goldberg’s book is sheer polemics. So there
M Helm, MD
HCat,
You said: “At the point where government is telling companies in detail how they can market, doctors how they can prescribe, companies how much they can charge and how much profit is “reasonable”…we are getting perilously close to state control of an industry, which is fascism.”
If that is the definition, we may already be there (or at least under socialism - I can’t figure out who would be the dictator). PhRMA as an industry is almost certainly among the most regulated. (Chemical manufacturers, tobacco companies and a few others come to mind also, so don’t feel like PhRMA is completely unique.)
I think I could make a reasonable case for the existance of harpy’s “stringent socioeconomic controls” requirement.
I certainly agree about “unintended consequences.” If there is a law, someone will figure out a way around it. Ordinarily, I think we need very few laws, but all should be strictly enforced. But, I’m also a big fan of transparency and individual responsibility. On the whole, public disclosure/reporting may be as effective as a ban.
I can’t decide if public disclosure/reporting (as in Minnesota) or a ban as suggested would be more effective at arriving at the desired outcome (in my mind more efficient allocation of scarce resources - this would include PhRMA). If Mass. completes a ban, there would be an opportunity to assess the comparative impact. Mass. may have more skin in the game due to the ‘universal coverage’ experiment, but I don’t live in that part of the world anymore, so I don’t know the status of that.
Maybe Ed can provide an update on that soon.
HorusCat
harpy,
Your definition of fascism is just one of many. Fascism generally revolves around the state. The state is the end-all, be-all, and stringent socio-economic policies may or may not be a part of that. Certainly, having the government regulate every aspect of our lives (often “for our own good”) is a form of stateism that I would define as fascist in character. Corporations are not always the beneficiaries of fascism, although they are survivalists and generally figure out how to go along for the ride.
Your remarks about the ultra-wealthy and a living wage suggest that you would support limiting a person’s income (based on what criteria?) and legislating the wages that can be paid. That is socialism, which is a kissing cousin of fascism when it isn’t identical to it.
M Helm,
You reinforce my point. I don’t believe the state should be in charge of allocating any resources. A regulated free market will do just fine. Otherwise, you end up with instances such as the UK deciding that disease-modifying drugs in MS are unnecessary (a waste of scarce resources), telling people they can’t smoke in their cars or their homes, paying farmers not to grow crops and subsidizing the sugar industry so that it can overcharge the American consumer, etc., etc. The law of unintended consequences doesn’t just encompass corporations/people “getting around” restrictions. It means that you do something, and then are surprised when something else happens. Like promoting ethanol as alternative fuel, then being amazed when Brazilians cut down the rain forests to grow more sugar cane to make more ethanol and poor Haitians start making cookies out of dirt because they can’t afford to buy subsistence-level nutrition.
Bob,
Have you actually READ the book? Or are you channeling Chait et al? (I’m smiling–this is not a snarking contest.) Also, I rock at crossword puzzles when they reference British-isms. I do sometimes say flat, but not lift and heaven forfend, “way out” or “torch” instead of flashlight. I like having enough room to swing a cat, being knackered and wankers. Generally, I don’t think the British are very creative at swearing; they tend to rely a lot on the c-word, which makes most Americans uncomfortable.
Bob Freeman
HorusCat, I read enough of it at B & N to become totally ticked off–No, I didn’t buy it because I don’t want one penny of my money going to that (I’m trying to think of the appropriate Yiddish swear word but it escapes me. Putz isn’t strong enough) expletive deleted.
If I remember correctly, one of their expressions is “knock you up”. I can’t remember if that means I’m going to call you? Anyway, I’ve avoided that term too.
Justice in Michigan
I have to get in on the fascism bit since this has been part my work for 30 years (writing and teaching about it). Fascism, militarism, and racism (some notion of blood or ethnic purity of “blood”) are always entwined. Hyper-sexism (which goes with militarism) is usually also essential.
There are probably some extreme left regimes (like the “Democratic Kampuchea” regime during the Cambodian autogenocide) that could be rightfully called fascist. In general, however, it has been a phenomenon of the extreme right.
While there are a range of histories, corporations have typically allowed themselves to join with the “national cause” so long as senior management was well served by that allegiance. In a number of cases, they have been true believers and eager to join, so that the state - from their perspective - becomes a sort of ultimate monopoly in which they retain significant power and influence.
Thus - the doctrine of free enterprise notwithstanding - corporations have certianly not generally served as a counterforce in nations embarked on fascist trajectories.
HorusCat
Justice,
We’d have to take this discussion to another thread, I think, since Ed will wonder why we are galloping off on such a tangent! Suffice it to say that associating fascism with the right has been a successful ploy of the left for many years.
Bob,
Probably better not to use “knock you up” here in the States. “Ring you up” would probably work, although I’m with you in not being quite sure what knock you up means.
There are many good Yiddish words for what you are thinking of. The great thing about them is that most people don’t know what they mean, so they don’t get affronted the way they do if you use the more common American terms (many of which involve the queen mother). What an interesting thing to study, this whole business of idiom and the development of “expletives” or pejoratives. Just yesterday, my middle son and I were wondering what the word for “ouch” is in Chinese (believe it or not, that was one of his spelling words). Things that seem like they should be universal (a cat really does sound like it is saying “Meow”) are intriguingly variable from place to place. The French translate a dog’s bark as “ouaou.” It does not seem to me that a dog sounds like that, but maybe French dogs are different.
Ed Silverman
Hi HC,
Although a bit of a tangent, the discussion is interesting and, in the context, of what state or federal governments should be legislating, it has its merits. So keep at it. If someone acts like a schmegeggie, I’ll let you know.
ed
Bob Freeman
Ed, HC, Justice, et al.
HC, a couple of idle observations about language before I get into the meat of this thread: I recall “bloody” in Brit English is considered extremely vulgar and not used routinely, same with the Yiddish word “putz”, which I think has largely lost its vulgarity. I vaguely recall a linguistic theory that attributes the English language’s frequent use of 4-letter words as due to the lack of gender in our language. In effect, we use 4-letter words to overcompensate. And, an even more obscure factoid: The Finish language is said to have no expletives. If a Fin were to stub his/her toe, s/he would utter the Finish word for restaurant. (I wish I could find a source for this trivia).
On the subject of the government’s right to regulate, I belong to the side of the agrument that says government has a legitimate role to intervene in markets that have failed and it has a role to regulate monopoly power. In the former, one could argue that pharmaceutical R & D into neglected diseases and diseases of developing countries represents a market failure because their is no market incentive to encourage the pursuit of R & D. Re neglected diseases, we have the Orphan Drug Act in the US and its equivalent in The EU. (It has been a success, but we’ll leave the off-label prescribing issue aside for the sake of brevity.) On the issue of monopolies, our laws recognize patents as necessary for innovation. One could agrue effectively that the US’ IP laws have greatly benefited pharma R & D, but we have paid monopoly prices for those benefits. This is a risky area to change and I don’t see much interest or will to change IP laws, other than to prevent patent-holders from “gaming” the patent system by blocking generic entry as patent expiry approaches.
The question of course is how much government intervention is necessary and what are the externalities of intervening in markets? Are price controls justified, for example? one can argue that they discourage innovation. On the other hand, pharma companies have adjusted their operating models in countries where price controls are in place and are profitable. Price controls are also associated with extraordinarily long market lives because price controls, which are never removed, present a disincentive for generic drug market entry and use.
I believe strongly that the health insurance market has failed to a far greater extent than have pharma markets, at least in the US. You have an industry that has a model where profitability is determined by 1) denying claims and 2) if that’s not possible, presenting barriers to their prompt payment. When you allow an industry to manage a public benefit (Medicare Parts C & D) you have violated a basic principle of social insurance. This is an area, in my opinion, that begs for reform.
Anyway, I digress.
Justice in Michigan
Well, I guess we have Ed’s permission. No fascist, he!
I noted that some extreme left regimes have been genuinely fascist (e.g., DK regime in Cambodia). But the wider, and more relevant, point, had to do with the interplay between corpororate capitalism and fascism. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, large corporations have more often served a fascist trajectory than opposed it. That does _not_ mean I think of corporations as “fascist.” (I hope at least that’s clear.) I was making an historical point about the way business and the state - although often set as opposing forces in conservative ideology - have been, in actuality, complementary forces in most of the _genuinely_ fascist contexts.
What HC calls “fascism” most conservatives call “socialism.” But since “fascism” is obviously a bigger curse word, it serves political jargoneering to use it. (The same folks usually emphasize the the Nazi party was an abbreviation for “national socialism” - and thus was really socialistic, not fascist, after all. So they get all their deviled eggs in one basket - socialists, fascists, communists, and liberals who want a Mommy State).
If one wants to avoid making thoughtful distinctions, this is a reasonably efficient way to do it.
HorusCat
Justice,
Careful, we’ll have Ed blogging on Politico or Little Green Footballs! If one thinks of fascism as the placement of the interests of the state above all, then mose examples of socialism in the past century have also been examples of fascism. Stalin’s USSR was both. The state above everything was Mussolini’s watch word. The congruence of interests of corporations and the state often lie in the areas of regulation–where large corporations see the opportunity to prevent competition by implementing regulations that are onerous to smaller competitors. Of course, fascism and socialism both have been associated with war in the past 100 years, so industry has benefitted from partnering with the state in those cases. Industry was slow to get on board with the Nazi’s, but came around when it saw the monetary benefit to going along. I don’t think a conservative would argue that corporations are antithetical to the state–rather a truly free market, which corporations and labor often oppose–are antithetical to both fascism and socialism.
Bob,
Hmm. I don’t know any Finns. I would like to ask them that question. Did you google it?
The big question is how much government is too much? Some regulation of the free market is necessary, because “corporations” are not altruistic by nature. But price controls almost always backfire, and I would submit that the state having a monetary stake in the practice of healthcare will have grave unintended consequences.
As for the insurance industry….well that is another discussion. As long as we have mass subsidization of health care costs (it’s not really “insurance”), we will have abuse on both sides–from patients and payors. If we had insurance that works the way car insurance or homeowner’s insurance works, we might see changes in the way claims are handled. The industry is doing what industry does–maximize profits. The consumer is doing what a consumer does when he does not perceive the true cost of goods–over-utilizing and over-demanding. And here we are.
Bob Freeman
HC, I have met Fins who have comfirmed that “restaurant” is a mild oath. I don’t have a Google link. They also don’t say “I love you”, maybe once in a lifetime. Very somber people, the Fins. I supposed living next to Russia and their climate might do that. (The “I love you” lack thereof came from a 60 Minutes segment some years ago that reported on the Fins’ passion for the Tango.
Justice in Michigan
Well, this does take us far afield, but I have to wonder why “restaurant” would be an oath. Is it, in Finland, considered equivalent to some version of, “Eat it!”?
Don’t worry, Ed. We’ll Finnish this up now.
Bob Freeman
Maybe it loses something in translation, Justice.
I realize I’m off-topic but speaking of the movie Lost in Translation I related to that film greatly. On my first extended trip to Japan I actually called my admin to ask her to send a fax requesting my urgent return to the US. I had to deliver a talk with a simultaneous translation and my experience was like Bill Murray’s character’s.
HorusCat
Bob,
That was a wonderful movie. Perhaps the warmer the climate, the more colorful and various the curse words? I’d be somber if I lived in Finland…dark half the time, cold all the time, terrible food…
Justice,
You deserve a misdemeanor citation for that little word-play. There are infinitely more subtle bon-mots than that…(it was in there, you just have to FINd it!)
Chris
I was in Japan for a presentation of market research data to a group of Japanese pharma industry colleagues. The English presenter made a point and then said “so my advice is to not put all you eggs in one basket”. Stony faces, utter incomprehension. Their British colleague - based in Japan - stepped in and said “what he means is don’t put all your rice on one bento box”.
Peals of laughter and point made. A good point almost lost in translation.
HorusCat
My sister and I have developed a mild oath of our own, when our frustrations with something overcome us…we say “platelet!” It came from a tedious phone conversation I had with my father where I had to repeat the word “platelet” about six times. I finally had to describe the cell and its function in order for him to understand what I was saying. Perhaps “restaurant” has such resonant origins.
pg
The Brits have a very long history of colorful oaths, many of which are Anglo-Saxon(search ‘british swearwords’).
“Bloody” started as ‘By my Lady’ (centuries ago) which developed into ‘bloody’ (say it fast enough and you’ll see how easy it reduces down) and as such is a relatively mild oath in comparison to a lot of others.
The Finns also have some vivid expletives (search ‘finnish swearwords’) so don’t let the Brits or the Finns tell you they don’t lol.
Justice in Michigan
HC - We can argue pharma, but when it comes to word play, I’m Bobby Fischer (except he was a schmuck - a word that a shmuck like him wouldn’t have appreciated.)
Glad to get that off my chess.
To the restaurant! (for Wry-Quips!)
Bob Freeman
PG, thanks. I was trying to remember the origin of “bloody” but hadn’t gotten around to it.
Justice, I have a picture taken of me in Germany standing in front of a store that had a sign reading “Die Alter Schmucker”. My friend thought it was appropriate. (I hope I got the spelling right–if there’s a spelling gene it skipped me.)
harpy
harpy,
Your definition of fascism is just one of many. Fascism generally revolves around the state. The state is the end-all, be-all, and stringent socio-economic policies may or may not be a part of that.
If we’re speaking of definitions - the definitions I gave above come from the American Heritage Dictionary via dictionary(dot)com. The other definitions for fascism were very close to that one, so I’m interested to see how else it has been defined. I’ll be more careful to label my sources and not just throw any old definition out there. HC - you say that Stalin’s USSR was socialism and fascism, whereas in reality it was communism. There are important, subtle distinctions to be made if language is to have any meaning. Government regulation of industry does not become socialism until government actually owns the industry.
HorusCat
Harpy,
Definitions that appear in dictionaries are shaped by the perceptions and beliefs of those who write them, who in turn are influenced by the prevailing political climate. Fascism in Italy did not involve government ownership of industry. Fascism involves a cult of the state above all, usually with a charismatic personality involved around which to shape it, and using a national or racial or class “myth” to invoke passionate belief on the part of the governed. When the state trumps the individual, fascism is lurking around the corner. Stalin was very polemical against fascism, not because the government of the USSR wasn’t fascist, but because he could label anyone who disagreed with him “fascist” and then do away with them. Stalin really inherited Lenin’s version of Marxism, which was fascistic in placing the state, serving the “interests” of the worker above all and justifying any means to that end, including the murder of many.
It is possible for a government to be both socialist or communist and fascist–in fact, I would argue that you cannot achieve the “utopia” of socialism without fascism. Ultimately, it is the state and the good of “the people” (whether it is one class of people (the proles), one nation of people (the Germans) or one race of people (whites or blacks or purples)) that trumps the rights of the individual in fascistic societies. The state becomes the arbiter of all that is good and right, and any means the state uses to accomplish those ends is justified. The individual is, in fact, a danger to the state, and so the elimination of thousands or millions (Stalin) can be described as necessary for the good of the whole.
That is why I say we are moving toward a soft form of fascism when we start regulating our industries very heavily. The government does not have to own the pharmaceutical industry in order to turn it into a tool of “the common good.” And the argument about drug companies needing to be more ethical and more altruistic than any other industry is one of those great sounding arguments that justify any means as long as the end is seen as desirable by the state. At what point regulation of a free market passes over into fascistic use of industry to further the goals of the state is arguable.
Justice in Michigan
If anyone wants good read related to this, I would recommend Eric Weitz, _A Century of Genocide: Utopias of Race and Nation_.
Weitz includes Stalinist USSR in his analysis, as well as Cambodia, Rwanda, Holocaust, etc. The book is as much about fascism as about genocide (which tend to go together).
The connecting link is the insistence on creating a “new” kind of human - perfect and superior to all others - which epitomizes and is “one with” the nation.
I do think “nation” is a better term for this than “state,” since it goes far beyond political institutions. Rather, it subsumes all aspects of natural culture which are to be “made pure” by unfailing loyalty, full willingness to extirpate the “impure” (others and whatever of that is in themselves), and full readiness to join in some version of race war (genocide) or class war (”kill the intellectuals”) in order to reach the utopian end.
If all too common, these remain extreme examples. There are a wide range of social democratic models which do not include the rascist, hyper-nationalist, militarist and demonic millenialism that is characteristic of fascism thus understood.
Justice in Michigan
This discussion good go on, so probably just as well I will be off-board for the next few days. Just a couple of particulars.
Preemption is an interesting issue within HC’s analysis. It is, indeed, the movement of virtually all power and authority within a sector to the center - under the control of a state agency (the FDA), which is itself under the control of the party in power. The counter-balancing institutions of state common law are extirpated as rivals, which can only bring “chaos, illness, and disorder” according to the preemptors. The state must therefore rule supreme.
Also, I would repeat again that thinking about regulation as anti-free market - let alone “fascist” - is a gross misreading of history. The Kefauver hearings were originally about price-fixing in the industry - the corporations’ decisions to end the “problem” of competition by, indeed, regulating drug prices among themselves (at which they were very successful). The role of the feds, in that case as in many, was to break that up. Once again, it was the industry, not the state, that was intent on destroying a competitive market.
That may also have something to do with why large corporations have rarely shown significant resistance to truly fascist regimes. The latter’s readiness to dissolve trade unions, enlist corporations as state suppliers, and provide other services (like slave labor or war-effort manufacturing) have generally led to alliances, rather than discord, between fascist regimes and the most powerful industries.