Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/34376
4A Daily News – Monday, June 20, 2011 Opinion Wally supports excessive drug industry profits D NEWSAILY RED BLUFF TEHAMACOUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U N T Y S I N C E 1 8 8 5 Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes let- ters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All let- ters must be signed and pro- vide the writer’s home street address and home phone num- ber. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submit- ted will be considered for publi- cation. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong com- munity newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehi- cles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its com- munities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the resi- dents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 As a relatively low-income American now living largely upon Social Security disability benefits since my pension has not yet kicked in I have become a very frugal shopper, always seeking the lowest prices for necessities. Like millions of Americans I have found great economies available by ordering my prescription med- ications from Canadian pharma- cies. One of my medications is not available in the U.S. in a generic form with the particular dosage and extended relief formulations. While locally available to the rest of the world at a cost of $70 per month, U.S. pharmacies charge is excess of $370. Another of my less urgent medications runs $90 per month from U.S. sources ver- sus less than $30/month through my Canadian pharmacy of choice. Not surprisingly, U.S. pharma- ceutical industry forces are at work to make it illegal, if not impossi- ble, for Americans to import their medications. Consequently I took the time to ask our U.S. Congres- sional representative Wally Herger to help support my cause, believ- ing that as a staunch Republican he would support my quest to keep the federal government from med- dling in my medical affairs. I real- ly thought this was one area that I could count on Wally’s help, but much to my chagrin, he continues to bat 0 when it comes to seeing things my way. Unfortunately it appears to me that he is more beholden to the U.S. pharmaceuti- cal industry than he is to the finan- cial realities of his constituents, particularly those that suffer from illness and are dependent upon Medicare and Medical for their health. Optional insurance poli- cies offered me no relief either. Below I present the unedited content of his letter to me on this matter: "Thank you for contacting me regarding the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada and other countries. I appreciate your taking the time to contact me regarding this very important issue. Like you, I am very con- cerned about the high cost of pre- scription drugs. While innovative therapies and new "wonder drugs" save more lives every year, high drug costs certainly impose a heavy burden on American con- sumers, especially seniors. I am concerned, however, that many of the proposals to allow the re-importation of prescription drugs would subject American consumers to unacceptable health risks. For this reason, I supported a provision in the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law allowing for the re-importation of pharmaceuti- cals from Canada only when the Food and Drug Administration has certified that these drugs can be imported safely. Americans deserve to have the con- fidence and peace of mind that comes from knowing that a medical- ly necessary drug has not been tampered with or adulterated in some fashion. While Ameri- cans largely take for granted the safety of their medications today, this could change should our nation open its borders to foreign drugs. Additionally, many in the development of fewer life- saving medications. It Richard have raised concerns that wholesale re- importation of prescrip- tion drugs from abroad would effectively impose foreign price controls on drugs here at home. Canada, along with many countries in Europe and throughout the world, has socialized medicine, allowing citizens to buy drugs at cheaper prices. This may sound appealing, but experience in these countries has demonstrated that with cheap- er drugs comes rationed care and less access to medications, making care less effective and endangering lives. There are serious concerns that price controls for prescription drugs, like the ones in Canada, sti- fle innovation and ultimately result Mazzucchi Positive Point would be incredibly irresponsible of policy- makers in Washington to advance proposals that might delay the development of the next cancer, AIDS, or Alzheimer's break- through. And although expensive in the short term, new prescription drugs save money in the long run by keeping people healthy and out of the hospital. While there is cer- tainly the need for vast improvement in the pre- scription drug market, I do not believe that wholesale drug re-importation - without safeguards - is the answer. Please rest assured that as Con- gress considers ways to make pre- scription drugs more affordable, I will be sure to keep your views in mind." To low-income Americans, Wally Herger’s concerns about pharmaceutical innovation and safeguards are nothing but lame defenses for his support of exces- sive drug industry profits. Richard Mazzucchi is a retired research engineer. He can be reached at living-green@att.net. Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Jim Nielsen (R) State Capitol Bldg., Room 6031 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 319-2002; Fax (916) 319-2102 STATE SENATOR — Doug LaMalfa (R) State Capitol Bldg., Room 3070 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 651-4004; Fax (916) 445-7750 GOVERNOR — Jerry Brown, State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160; E-mail: governor@gover- nor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Wally Herger (R), 2635 Forest Ave. Ste. 100, Chico, CA 95928; 893- 8363. U.S. SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Mont- gomery St., Suite 240, San Fran- cisco, CA 94111; (415) 403-0100. Fax (202) 224-0454. The Feds are broke, spent it all, want more Commentary That title could well be a theme for a multitude of opinion pieces; the cup of material literally "run- neth over," shall we say. I couldn’t avoid that thought last Tuesday while listening to the federal Fish and Wildlife Service folks (FWS) discussing, and responding to questions about, the proposed Cal- ifornia Foothills Legacy Area to encompass parts of northern Tehama, and southern Shasta, Counties. Americans are overwhelmingly concluding that governments at all levels are willfully incapable of liv- ing within the rather generous lev- els of revenue derived from taxpay- ers and businesses. However, agen- cies such as the FWS are pursuing ever more creative ways to spend in pursuit of questionable objec- tives. Think about that aspect to what the FWS, and their multitude of environmental, governmental and conservation-oriented non- governmental organizations (NGOs) and partners – so-called stakeholders – wish to accomplish. I never heard any kind of global budget figure that they anticipated would be needed to lock up current privately held rangeland property in perpetual conservation ease- ments. They quickly slipped past the fact that the source for the funds comes from off-shore lease payments, and what would other- wise be done with that money. Congressman Wally Herger’s posi- tion, which I find very supportable, is that such revenues should be devoted to maintaining and improving properties currently held by the FWS. I would add that before the CFLA projects are fund- ed, some thought should be given to reducing the trillion-plus dollar deficits Washington seems addict- ed to. As to the merits of the proposal – paying ranchers to place their spreads in conservation easements, removed from ever being devel- oped into single-family lots of var- ious sizes – it strikes me that the devil’s in the details, as they say. Consider the response I got when I posed the hypothetical but quite reasonable possibility that a land/range owner finds he or she needs to capture water runoff in a reservoir and needs to build a dam for that purpose. I heard the FWS rep give thought to the question and suggest that such "stock ponds" would be a normal part of such a ranching operation. That’s not the same as saying that the owner would have an undeniable right to build a dam and pond. Would he have to go through regulatory hoops involving inspections by federal agents? Would such agents insist on exam- ining where that runoff would oth- erwise go before giving the owner permission? What if they determined that there was a small seasonal marsh, complete with some little flower or bug deemed too precious to allow the rancher to cut off water, that would normally replenish said marsh, even on another's land? After all, the CFLA literature emphasized that a major motiva- tion for buying the easements is to preclude and forestall threats to species and habitat. I find it highly questionable that, at a time of such economic hard- ship, a federal agency is seeking to induce cash-strapped ranchers to sign away rights that they don’t even realize they have, rights to make improve- ments to their own prop- erty. They would be making irreversible deci- sions to forever give up the most basic rights a property owner has: the right to sell part or parts of their land, within allowed zoning restric- tions, by generations that have not been anticipat- ed, and in economic and development situations they can’t begin to fore- see. Don Another issue I raised, that drew a coun- ty planner to the front to respond, was the obvious overlap of these targeted undeveloped ranchlands on the I-5 corridor designated for future growth and development. I realize some NIMBY (not in my back yard) types that live in the Cotton- wood area would love to use OPM (other people’s money) to prevent more people from living among the rolling hills and oaks as they have already done. Our elected and appointed offi- cials have resolved the issue of future growth but some of these folks don’t like the result and share the BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody) philosophy. Unfortunately for them, local decisions take priority and precedence over a federal con- servation scheme to lock up open spaces from future development – Polson The way I see it development that spells economic growth to most of us. However, we can see that their environmental and gov- ernmental caped cru- saders are more than eager, when outright acquisition of property is financially or practi- cally unfeasible, to gain effective control through voluntary easements. And the beauty of the plan, from the perspec- tive of those pursuing preservation against development, is that landowners voluntarily put the chains and cuffs on themselves. It’s all about inexorably grab- bing whatever they can out of private owner- ship, and into the public domain, using the pre- text of species and habitat to fur- ther environmental, not human, priorities. Think about it and you’ll realize I’m right – the environmen- tal left just finds it preferable to take land and rights from people, voluntarily or not. Correction: My source for last week’s reference to Rep. Herger’s legislation was in error. He is a co- sponsor, with 33 other Republicans and 2 Democrats, of HR 1996. Herger introduced HR1485, "The Catastrophic Wildfire Community Protection Act." Accuracy matters to me. Don Polson has called Red Bluff home since 1988. He can be reached by e-mail at donplsn@yahoo.com.