Table of contents
1 Introduction
2 Economy
3 Health care
4 New Rx Drugs
5 Comparing Rx Drugs
6 Conclusion

Introduction

What are the two things that are very often on the minds of the people of the world? Better health and more money, of course. We are all striving for long, healthy lives, while earning as much money as possible. But for most of us with modest income, the price of staying healthy is often excessive. There is a constant introduction of new prescription drugs coming onto the market; some based upon new innovation, some competing with an older version. Also, they most usually have retail prices comparable to rival drugs in the same field, or, if one of a kind, they would have a higher than normal price. But, in the comparison of new and old prescription drugs, we have a sometimes lower cost option, often neglected. What is that option: generic drugs. Often times the non-prescription, generic drugs are overlooked for the expensive prescriptions. In truth, generic is often times equivalent.

Looking at health care in the broader scheme, health care plans (insurance) can either lower or broaden the costs of wellbeing. Health care comes in various forms from medicare to regular insurance, and such. The elderly, as they often need various medications, face large expenses for proper health. That is where new plans for lowering the cost of prescriptions, or allowing patients’ access to many physicians or clinics to visit come into place. But these plans often need government funding, and this is often only available in a growing economy. When doing well, larger expenses often will seem more plausible, than when we are in a mild recession. That seems to be the main difference between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy.

Economy

Prices of goods, such as prescription drugs and health care plans, can always seem lower than they are under the right circumstances. The primary circumstance is the condition of the economy. Prices will always seem lower to consumers when they are in a bull (growing) economy rather than in a bear (recessive) economy. In the eight years that Clinton was president, from 1992 to 2000, we experienced what the Journal of Commerce was calling one of “the longest economic booms in peacetime history” (Journal of Commerce). But who was responsible for such good times? Politicians would answer that it was primarily Clinton’s doings that led to the economic boom of the ages, but most, if not all, economists would answer that it had more to do with the times we lived in than anything. According to The Institue for Public Affairs (IPS for the sake of this article), the economy “was built on three unsustainable bubbles” (Institute’s Article). The bubbles were stock, dollar, and housing bubbles. Unless you were living in a cage for the last ten years or so, it is obvious that the stock bubble was primarily from the technology boom. The stock market boom created plenty more money for consumers, which led to increased consumption and far less savings. It also led to more investment in stocks, equipment, and software. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, more than 2 trillion dollars were poured into technological products, and corporate spending grew 22 percent. These investments gave way to a rise in productivity; far beyond anything we have ever seen (NCPA). Virtually all economists point to the tech boom of the 1990’s as the reason we did not have a usual business cycle, but instead, clear growth, for so long. According to Reuven Brenner, an economist at McGill University in Canada, the boom was a result of happenings, none of which had to do with Clinton. He said, “Ronald Reagan's drastic lowering of taxation planted the seeds of the current U.S. expansion. Under Bill Clinton, despite some marginal tax increases, the Roth Investment Retirement Account effectively lowered taxes. Add in the effect of drastic deregulation of financial markets, telecommunication, and now electricity and even water, and the reasons for prosperity are obvious. Mr. Reagan's much-maligned Star Wars defense plan, which drove the Soviet Union to bankruptcy, saved much military spending. And Alan Greenspan, the U.S. Federal Reserve chairman, continued Paul Volcker's anti-inflation stand and belief in a strong currency” (Canadian Economists). Though politicians would like to think that they have a great influence upon the economy, most fluctuations will come as a result of business cycles, and at furthest, from the Fed.

...economic boom of the 1990’s, President Bush has had little to do with the economic downturn we have been experiencing for the last several years. In fact, even before Pres. Bush was elected, a professor of economics at The George Washington University, Robert M. Dunn Jr., who said, “Few if any economists believe the United States has repealed the business cycle. There is a recession out there waiting for us, whether the stock market's current problems augur one or not.” According to Mr. Dunn, with the way American households are overspending, the high trade deficit, and the natural way of business cycles, a recession was on its way (GW Prof Editorial). Though the unemployment rate is very high at this point, Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, reminds us that due to the tech boom, companies are receiving the same productivity with less man power (Cato Institute Article). That is obviously a better and cheaper option, though it is obviously not good for workers. But as business cycles work, we will make it back to a bull market, and, according to Lou Dobbs, we may already be in a bull market. Dobbs asserts in a recent NY Daily News column that many factors are bringing our economy back to strength, such as increasing business investment and inventories, a new federal tax cut, an increased money supply, and lower interest, inflation and energy rates. Also, is the fact that, “they're (investors) not thinking out one or two or three months, they're starting to think out one, two or three years. Investors are seeking value in the stock market by extending their time horizon and seeing opportunity” (Lou Dobbs Article). Thus, even though economics will always play a big role in politics, most economists will agree that the economy is a constant turning business cycle, which should be left to the Fed.

Health care

Health care is something that we all need in order to keep medical costs low should bad health plague someone. But not all health care plans are too helpful, such as the Clinton plan back in 1994. Though Pres. Clinton’s plan claimed to help out average Americans by lowering costs of health care and forcing businesses to purchase coverage for all workers, it did not seem that it would truly help. In fact, Donna E. Shalala, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, declared “that 40% of Americans who now have health insurance would pay more” (NY Times Report). That is quite startling when the Clinton administration continuously claimed that costs would decrease for nearly all. Also, according to Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times, if the cost savings predicted by the plan did not take shape or form, he would truly consider raising taxes (NY Times Article). Thus, even if you were in the category of 60% of Americans that saved money on insurance, in the end, with higher taxes, costs would still go up. The details of the Clinton plan changed from here to there, but in the end, it was basically the same ideas, with four main points. They were: universal coverage regardless of health or employment, health alliances to negotiate with providers to offer a few plans, businesses paying at least 80% of their employees’ coverage, and law controlled insurance premiums (Plan Details). Though there were many skeptics of the Clinton proposed plan, the most outspoken were the health insurance industry, which purchased ads to attack the plan. Though obviously motivated by profits, their ads attacked the fact that consumers would have less choice of coverage. The Health Insurance Association stated that, “The association dislikes the President's proposal to require all businesses with 5,000 or fewer employees to buy insurance through the purchasing groups known as regional health alliances. The association also opposes Mr. Clinton's proposal to establish Federal limits on insurance premiums and to charge roughly the same premiums for all people in the alliance” (Health Insurance Assoc. Reaction).

Though Clinton’s plan tried many radical changes, it was only going to speed up the process of transforming the health care industry. The major companies were already beginning to form health maintenance organizations, especially by investing in HMO’s. According to Peter Kerr, a columnist for the New York Times, “As medical costs have spiraled upward, some insurers have invested billions of dollars in H.M.O.'s and other systems designed to control what services are used and what patients are charged” (NY Times Article). That was roughly nine years ago. As we look at the health care industry today, we can see the H.M.O.’s are becoming very big for Americans. Though it does leave fewer choices, it seems that it does lower costs.

New Rx Drugs

New drugs are constantly entering the market, and a consumer should always be aware of their options. Informed consumers are better able to stay healthy, and the internet is the best place to learn. For instance, according to CNN, the FDA has approved a nasal mist vaccine to fight the flu, which is particularly useful for those afraid of needles. Though it is not available for all to use, it is a good alternative for those in the 5 to 49 age group, without asthma (Nasal Mist). Another new drug recently released is an anti-smoking drug by Pfizer that has the possibility to be a blockbuster. Roughly half of those treated with this oral medication were able to quit smoking all together within 7 weeks (Anti-Smoking). However, not all research that is done results in a new drug. Instead, some studies show certain lifestyles lead to better health, such as, the study by the National Cancer Research Institute in Tokyo, Japan. Their study shows that the “miso” (fermented soy bean paste) in miso soup actually helps protect women against breast cancer (Miso Soup). The point being that we are constantly striving to live longer and healthier, with these examples being just a few of many new drugs/foods that will help us achieve that. Costs will also fall with each new addition, as the market will become increasingly competitive, with more and more companies striving to make their drug more used, a win-win for all involved.

Comparing Rx Drugs

In comparing prescription drugs, you will be able to find quality medications for lower prices. With new drugs entering the market, there are plenty more options for the consumer to choose from. As I said earlier, the extra choice will for sure lower costs for all. Not all drugs that one buys, however, must be brand named. There are many lower cost, equally effective generic drugs available for consumption. In the land of medicine, most of these generic brands are often forgotten about when talking to a doctor or consultant. By remembering the generic brand, even more options open up to remain healthy at a proper cost (Meds and Their Generic). This site, which I just linked, is a great way to become informed about what many drugs do, and whether their generic (low-cost option) is available for it. The internet is fast becoming a top place for commerce, and its touch has gone as far as prescription drugs. There are many online pharmacies today, and a whole lot of them claim lower costs by ordering there. This may be true in most cases (Price Comp. and Alternatives), such as that link, where it finds the lowest prices by searching many of the online pharmacies and providing low cost alternatives. However, according to (Price Comparison), that many online pharmacies charge a hidden consultant fee or make it seem there are more savings than there actually are. It is often smartest to look into all aspects before buying online, but it does seem like the best place to buy after receiving true consultation from a doctor.

Conclusion

With all of the research and investment put into medications, many new and exciting drugs have or will hit the market. They may just be competing brands of already established meds, different forms of the same meds, or new meds altogether. Either way you look at it, we are beginning to have more and more of a choice of which types of medications to use, with even generic medications being pushed. However, even with all of these new meds on the market, prescription drug prices are still very high, which has led to the beginning of reform in the health care system. Now more than ever, health maintenance organizations, such as H.M.O.’s, are becoming more and more popular, as they are a way to control what services patients use and what prices they are charged. However, as is common sense, prices are relative to the times. In times of a flourishing economy, prices may seem lower than they actually are, as more can afford it. But in times of a receding economy, low prices may seem higher than they are, as more and more money is lost in the market. As our nation’s economy and health care system progresses, in the future, we can be sure to look forward to better health at lower cost.

Resources (used):

[1]

Institute’s Article

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Clinton_Health_care/HCP1.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Clinton_Health_care/HCP7.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Clinton_Health_care/HCP9.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Clinton_Health_care/HCP10.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/06/18/flu.spray.ap/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/17/news/companies/pfizer/index.htm

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/66/79886.htm?z=1728_00000_1000_ln_03

http://www.pslgroup.com/NEWDRUGS.HTM

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/66/79892.htm?z=1728_00000_1000_ln_05

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/06/15/australia.aids.gel/index.html

http://www.medicinenet.com/medications/article.htm

http://www.destinationrx.com/default_firstvisit.asp

http://www.best-online-pharmacy-guide.com/

Resources (unused):

http://www.businessweek.com/2001/01_06/b3718094.htm

http://www.syz.net/docs/the_alliance.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-09-congress-medicare_x.htm

http://www.newsrx.net/welcome_1024.cgi

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Clinton%20Health%20care/HCP2.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Clinton%20Health%20care/HCP3.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Clinton%20Health%20care/HCP4.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Clinton%20Health%20care/HCP5.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Clinton%20Health%20care/HCP8.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Clinton_Health_care/HCP11.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/11/bush.medicare.ap/index.html

http://www.cptech.org/pharm/waxman.html

http://www.applesforhealth.com/clintonhealth1.html

http://tt.mit.edu/V113/N45/bader.45o.txt.html

http://greggordon.org/clintonReform.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/Clinton_Health_care/HCP12.html/a

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Clinton_Health_care/HCP13.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Bush_v_Clinton_Economy/ECON1.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Bush_v_Clinton_Economy/ECON3.htm

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~rnath/Bush_v_Clinton_Economy/ECON4.htm

http://www.bushwatch.com/economy.htm

http://www.practicalradical.net/cs_economy.html

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060303/content/rush_is_right.guest.html

http://www.cato.org/current/corporate-governance/pubs/niskanen-0207.pdf

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa409.pdf

http://www.cato.org/events/030618pf.html

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/moore-030109.html

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rahn-020717.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp

http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB4548/

http://www.rand.org/hot/press.03/05.06.html

http://www.rand.org/hot/press.03/06.10.html

http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB4553/

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3921312.html

New Approved Drugs

Diabetes Treatment

AIDS Barrier Gel