In the United States, if you are seriously depressed, you can purchase anti-depressive drugs like Prozac, but only if you have a prescription from a doctor. Anti-depressants are enormously beneficial to millions of people but they are also potentially dangerous if used improperly. So, you have to see a doctor and get an assessment before you can go to a drug store and purchase one.
But in the United States, in places like Virginia, a seriously depressed or deranged person can walk into a store and buy a semi-automatic handgun and a box of ammunition. All you need is two forms of identification. You don’t need permission from a doctor or counselor or anyone in the business of screening people to make sure they’re fit to have a gun.
We can debate the relative benefits and dangers of anti-depressants and semi-automatic handguns, but if 30,000 Americans were killed each year by anti-depressants, as they are by handguns, anti-depressants would be even more strictly regulated. So why aren’t handguns? Consider the politics.
The Pharmaceutical Manufacturer’s Association is thought to be one of the most powerful lobbies in America. Years ago, it was illegal to advertise prescription drugs. Now, due in part to Big Pharma’s clout, our airwaves and magazines are filled with images of happy people who weren’t until their physician prescribed a pill. But Big Pharma still hasn’t been able to cut out the physician altogether because the process for screening people before they can buy an anti-depressant is just too important.
By contrast, the National Rifle Association — with more money and organization than even Big Pharma — has eliminated almost all screening measures for buying guns. In recent years, the NRA has even shielded gun dealers from liability. Not even Big Pharma and the powerful American Medical Association have managed to shield doctors from liability.
Look abroad and you have another useful point of contrast. In United States, many people who are seriously depressed can’t afford to see a doctor, let alone get a prescription. Unlike every other advanced nation, we do not provide universal health care, or ready access to mental health services. But unlike every other advanced nation, we do allow almost anyone buy a handgun.
April 2007
4 posts
Can Paul Wolfowitz hold on to his job at the World Bank after revelations he broke rules to pay his girlfriend a non-taxable $193,000 a year? Can Alberto Gonzales hold on to his job after revelations he actually knew what he said he didn’t know about directives to fire eight U.S. attorneys? Can Karl Rove hold on to his job after revelations that he “accidentally” erased email messages about his role in the firings? How did Cheney hold on to his job after the Valerie Plame affair?
While we’re at it, why couldn’t Don Imus hold on to his job, after making his racial slur?
The heat against Wolfowitz is coming from other nations that are members of the Bank. Their furor is fueled by his role as a former Bushie who strongly advocated the invasion of Iraq. Hence, Bush’s support for Wolfowitz gets him nothing. My guess: Wolfowitz won’t be able to hold on much longer.
Gonzales is a pawn in the battle over who fired the U.S. attorneys for not playing political ball. The most dangerous heat for him is coming from several Republicans in Congress who played a role in the firings – prominently among them New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici, who need a scapegoat to deflect attention from themselves but who can’t and dare not find one inside the White House. If public outrage lasts another few weeks on this one, thereby endangering Domenici and other Republicans, Gonzales will be sacrificed.
Cheney and Rove are too important to Bush. They’re his eyes, ears, and brains. Their jobs are safe because Bush is a lame duck with almost nothing left except his eyes, ears, and brains.
Imus had to go because he was part of the media establishment and the public will not tolerate an establishment bigot – which means neither will establishment advertisers. Unlike Coulter, Limbaugh, and many of the self-described anti-establishment low-life that inhabit the drains and ditches of America’s shock-jock underworld, Imus had cozied up to the major names in mainstream politics and the press who eagerly appeared on his talk show. He tried to effect a maverick image but he was as mainstream as they come – a major feature on both CBS and NBC. So to allow his bigotry would legitimize bigotry everywhere. Thankfully, Americans still distinguish between the mainstream media and the polluted media, and still want our mainstreams clean.
The emerging scandal over student loans – and finiancial aid administrators that have cozy relationships with lenders – is only the tip of a scandalous iceberg.
Consider: The Federal government subsidizes college loans in two different ways, giving colleges and universities the option of which way to go.
The first way is for the federal government to lend students the money directly. Students get a good deal because the government, being the government, can raise funds at a lower interest rate than can banks or other private lenders. The alternative is for the federal government to subsidize student loans indirectly by guaranteeing banks and other private lenders that if a student doesn’t repay the loan, the government will. The government also gives banks and private lenders additional subsidies to ensure they get a profitable return on any student loan they make.
Obviously, this second alternative is a great deal for the banks and other lenders. Hey, a guaranteed return on a no-risk loan! But it’s a lousy deal for American taxpayers. According to a study by the Center for American Progress, taxpayers pay about $7 more for every $100 lent by the private lenders than they do on direct government loans.
That amounts to billions of taxpayer dollars each year. Billions that could be saved if the direct loan program was the only program. Billions of savings that could be put, for example, into Pell Grants for needy students.
So here’s the multi-billion-dollar question. Why does the federal government continue to provide colleges and universities the option of going with the more expensive program when the government can offer direct loans more cheaply? Why is it that some fifteen years after the direct student loan program was first established, more than three-quarters of student loans still come through the more expensive system?
Let me hazard a guess. Because the banks and other private lenders have enormous political clout in Washington. They also have clout within colleges and universities.
This is the real scandal of student loans, and it’s got to stop. There’s no good reason for the federal government to waste taxpayer money by subsidizing banks and other private lenders when government direct loans are cheaper.
