This morning's New York Times continues to treat Al Gore's call for government-set price controls on medicine as an unremarkable development. You have to read down toward the bottom of a story in the national section to learn that Mr. Gore said the drug companies "do not support such plans because they fear that drug prices will come down. 'Well, they need to come down,' he said. 'They need more competition.'" The article reports that Mr. Gore "then switched targets from the drug companies to H.M.O.'s that he accuses of making financial decisions that usurp medical recommendations. 'Some bean counter behind a computer terminal who doesn't have a license to practice medicine and surely does not have a right to play god overrules the doctor because the H.M.O. or the insurance company doesn't want to shell out the money, even though you've been paying the monthly premium,' Mr. Gore said."
Doesn't anyone at the Times consider it newsworthy that Mr. Gore is calling for price controls on an industry that has been one of America's most powerful engines of innovation and economic growth, and in a country that has traditionally allowed free markets, not government regulators, to set prices? Doesn't anyone there think it might be worth calling some of the H.M.O.'s or drug companies, or at least their trade associations, for comment on Mr. Gore's charges? Doesn't anyone at the Times see any contradiction between Mr. Gore's claim that drug companies "need more competition" and his transformation of the price of medicine into a campaign issue? If Mr. Gore wants to make sure that the drug industry doesn't get any more competitive, one pretty effective way to do it would be to keep attacking the high prices, because no sane person would start a drug company if he knew that he wasn't going to be able to charge a fair market price for his product. Talk about bean counters behind computer terminals. Who is going to be deciding the price of medicine in a Gore administration?
Embarrassing Truths Department: This is from a news dispatch in this morning's New York Times about an unidentified woman who took off her shirt Saturday night in front of President Clinton: "Today, after Mr. Clinton finished a round of golf and Mrs. Clinton made a campaign appearance in Buffalo, family members met in Chappaqua, N.Y., where they had established residency to qualify for Mrs. Clinton's Senate bid." There you have it, straight from the New York Times: the reason the Clintons moved to Chappaqua was not because they liked it there or because they loved New York but "to qualify for Mrs. Clinton's Senate bid."