Here’s an idea for saving money on Alzheimer’s Disease (AD): Cure it. That might seem rather obvious, but in fact, we have made little or no progress on AD treatment, even as the disease escalates toward epidemic proportions in our aging society. Newt Gingrich, in a speech to the Alzheimer’s Association today, will advocate changing that costly status quo, proposing regulatory and legal reform; he will likely even float an idea of “Alzheimer’s Bonds” as a private-sector finance mechanism. If that hopeful message — a polio-vaccine-like revolution in public health — gets out there, it could be a game-changer for 2012 politics, but for Gingrich, there’s always that “if.” His appearance on Meet the Press, to take one example, raised new issues that could cloud out his anti-AD message.
Gingrich’s basic idea can be stated in five words: Cure is cheaper than care. In a speech to the Brookings Institution last month, Gingrich noted that that AD costs the U.S. $183 billion a year, and that the cost is rapidly mounting as our population is aging — to a total of some $20 trillion by 2050. Yet if we could slow down the onset of AD by just five years, on average, we could cut those future expenses in half.
So what’s not to like? Nothing, in the view of this author, but Gingrich has more than one message on health care. An NRO headline written in the wake of his MTP appearance reads: “Newt Tacks Left, Slams Ryan’s Medicare Plan.” That would be Paul Ryan’s budget plan, of course, beloved by libertarians and not so loved by most Americans. Gingrich had been warning all along that the Ryan plan’s deep cuts were a non-starter with the public; indeed, if Ryan had led instead with a Gingrichian “cure” message, he’d be a hero to most Americans right now.
In addition, on the same MTP program, Gingrich endorsed the idea of personal responsibility in health care, which brought him perilously close to seeming to be nice to Mitt Romney’s Romneycare. Blared the Newsmax.com headline, “Gingrich Backs Obamacare’s Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance” Yet it’s a simple reality that even if the Obamacare mandate is repealed, we will still end up paying, one way or another, for the uninsured. Yet in the heat of this anti-Obama moment, few Republican primary voters want to think about replacing Obamacare with anything other than nothing.
So those two issues — Ryan and Romney — threaten to overshadow Gingrich’s Alzheimer’s speech. If so, that will be a shame, because health itself is more important than health-care finance.
— James P. Pinkerton served as a domestic-policy aide in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses. He is the editor of SeriousMedicineStrategy.org and a contributor to the Fox News Channel.
Mr. Pinkerton, I am convinced that the polls you refer to regarding the Pathway to Prosperity are unreliable. Whether through bias or simple incompetence, the questions they're asking frame the issues in ways that essentially adopt the Dems' talking points.
I put my faith in the only polls that matter, the electoral polls.
With due respect, I also disagree with you: it's not the right time for public spending on research. The market ought to decide what research is worth funding, not the federal government.
We're sick of big government solutions. Mr. Gingrich seems not to grasp that, which makes him less appealing as a candidate. And his shots at Ryan were indeed the most newsworthy part of his appearance; the NR folks and others who's focused on it have used sound political and news judgment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, no. Gingrich is an awful candidate. And we shouldn't be making budgetary policy on the HOPES of curing a devastating disease. Yes, research the cure, and of course it makes sense to devote resources to searching for a cure, but don't make it the centerpiece of our budget fixes.
"Hope" was the message of candidate Obama, and hoping that some miracle would occur to solve our budget woes, while keeping the voters happy, is not a healthy policy prescription.
Gingrich is doing severe damage to the body politic with this approach. He's continuing the leftist idea that we can solve all these problems without causing any real pain to anybody. He is, thus, proving that he is first and foremost a politician dedicated to getting himself elected, rather than actually making the difficult decisions that will be required to get us out of the fiscal hole that has been dug for us over the past generation or two (or three).
Shame on him, and shame on you, Mr. Pinkerton, for supporting that sort of pie-in-the-sky, let's get elected at all costs thinking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm all for cures, but they don't have anything to do with the Federal government. If Gingrich thinks private-sector "Alzheimers bonds" are commercially viable, let him sell them and make even more money for himself. But leave the government out of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCURE the disease! So simple! Why didn't I think of that? Of course, finding the cure is always the tricky part. Where would we be without a leader like Gingrich to help us see the light!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy does a candidate for president need a "message," hopeful or otherwise, on Alzheimer's?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith all due respect to Mr. Pinkerton ... is he out of his mind? He recommends that Gingrich engage in happy talk about curing Alzheimer's, a cure that may be 10 years or 10 decades away. Gee James -- curing a dread disease. Great idea! Why didn't anyone else think of that? And just think how much more we could save if we also cured the common cold. So let's make sure we do that, too. And with the government in charge, how could we fail? All in all, just another "conservative" advocating that we avoid hard choices, happy talk our way to temporary congressional majorities, and kick the can further down the road.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe 2 previous comments lay out many of the obvious objections to Gingrich's playing around in healthcare policy for his own selfish purposes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy question is for Pinkerton; How long has Newt had your lip prints on his rear end? And how far are you willing to twist the facts to pump this publicity-at-all-costs friend of Pelosi up in the pages of NRO. Newt's been dead to conservatives since he sat on the love seat with his BFF Nancy. Why try to revivify his moldering political corpse? Playing these stupid inside DC games with the country's future is disgraceful.
I agree with Bill. The poll you linked to is not good at all. It basically ask if they want Medicare to stay the same or change. They should have asked: A) Medicare should remain as it is today, with a defined set of benefits for seniors AND HIGHER TAXES. OR, (B) Medicare should be changed so that seniors who join Medicare in 2022 receive a fixed amount of money from the government each year that they can use to shop for their own private health insurance policy, WITH NO INCREASE IN TAXES." I know it would have changed the response rate.
Additionally, just throwing money at AD won't solve it. It takes time too. There is still discussion as to what exactly causes AD. Once that is figured out and a drug created, it will be 7-10 years to get through all the regulatory hurdles and clinical trials.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Pinkerton’s post boils down to lauding Gingrich for advancing pie in the sky happy talk about curing Alzheimer’s, while marginalizing both Romney and Gingrich’s support for the Individual mandate, while concluding with a pop shot at Ryan’s plan, the only serious attempt to address the Medicare funding crisis . My reaction to this is….. WHAT?????
Platitude’s about curing disease are all well and good, but they aren’t serious policy even if they’re easier positions to take than Paul Ryan did. The Individual Mandate can’t be so easily marginalized as an issue, if the Government can force citizens to buy health insurance, then there’s not much the Government can’t do. ObamaCare/RomneyCare fundamentally shifts the relationship of the citizen to the State away from free citizens to wards of the state, its repeal should be the primary issue of the 2012 primary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"CURE the disease! So simple! Why didn't I think of that? "
Well, Kennybbb, I'll go one up on newt. Heck, why not two:
To save even MORE money, I propose instead of just treating cancer and AIDS, we come up with CURES for cancer and AIDS!
Vote for me in the primaries! I have the added benefit of never having done a commercial with Nancy Pelosi!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother brilliant Newt idea. "Alzheimer Bonds". The issuer never has to make any interest or principal payments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn 1996, Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin won a Senate race in part by promising to cure cancer by 2015, a hollow promise roundly condemned by conservatives and many liberals.
External Link
It is shameful and disgusting for Newt to engage in the same type of behavior.
It is embarassing that a contributor to NR actually applauds Newt instead of calling out this charlatan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlzheimer's Disease is not a disease of just the aging! It was originally diagnosed in a woman 55 years old. There are many brain diseases that are primarily found in children also found in those diagnosed with AD. As a former President of the local chapter in Houston and having served on the National Board of AA - I challenge all researchers to follow in Dr. Glenn's shoes and insist on brain autopsies! Let's get to the root of this matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't wait to hear more policy proposals from Mr. Gingrich. Presumably along the lines of the following:
Dependence on foreign oil - invent fusion power!
Missile defense - invent a force field we can just project over the US!
Space exploration - invent warp drive!
This is "serious medicine strategy"? Seriously?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Cure is cheaper than care"
NO! This is silly beyond words. Cure can be cheaper than care, cure is very often cheaper than care, but it is also more expensive at times. If cures mean expensive yearly procedures to find a disease early enough the cure is often more expensive than the care. Why? Because we might have to test everyone to cure the really small number of people who contract the disease. The costs of that testing can add up to more than the cost of the treatment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse