Bacon, Guns & Whiskey

Dozens of people, CGI and animation,, ziplines in topical paradises, and productions that are closer to short movies than brief advertisements for products — it all adds up to one thing: they have a lot of money to spend. And it makes sense, right? After all, the United States is just one of two countries on Earth that allows “direct to consumer” advertising by drug companies. The big pharma lobby has spent a crap ton to ensure that — and the lack of regulation is one of the biggest reasons why the US pays more for prescriptions than anyone else on Earth (including other developed countries).

We don’t know each other well yet, so I have to actually say this one: I am not an advocate for government-run healthcare. After all, name one thing the government has done — that does not start with “fight the _ in World War _” — and has done well. You can’t. I’ll settle for naming one thing the government has done for the price it said it would. (Spoiler: you can’t.) Why? Because it’s the same government that reportedly throws away brand new stuff so they can buy replacements to ensure it uses the entire budget (aka “use it or lose it”).

All of that to say: healthcare can’t be a government thing, but I can make a decent case (in my opinion, at least) that regulating drug advertising is one of the few things the Commerce Clause actually applies to. (You’ll notice a common theme with Congress is that the overwhelming majority of the legislation they pass is ostensibly born out of the authority granted by, you guessed it: the Commerce Clause.) If Congress’ role is to regulate the bear minimum it needs to so the country and the states can operate efficiently — including ensuring its citizens aren’t scammed or taken advantage of — then this makes sense, right?

But yet, here we are. And this has been happening long enough that, short of some sort of dramatic shift in public disengagement in our political and economic systems, big pharma knows they’re safe and sound — while you shell out $1,000+ per dose of that drug that cost $100 to make. They have to pay for all of the R&D to create that drug, you say? You’re not wrong.

But if that drug is truly needed and works well enough that those commercials don’t take 30-45 of their 60 seconds to talk about all the side effects that are worse than what the drug treats, then they should sell enough to make a profit — enough that their initial costs are covered, and then some — while ensuring that you don’t have to be in the top 25% of earners to afford it. Right? And if drug companies can’t woo you with fancy, expensive ads so that you push your doctor to prescribe the drug because you think you, too will be able to zipline in the Amazon after taking it, then those drugs become commodities and now have to win sales based on price and merit — just like everything else you buy.

So if government is terrible at everything (maybe not “everything,” but definitely “most things”), and the Commerce Clause gives it power to regulate “larger interstate commerc[e]” (Cornell Law’s summary of SCOTUS’ ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden), then there is a way to ensure the free market is preserved while also ensuring companies don’t screw consumers because they need a medication (which is even more important when that medication is life saving).