This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which deregulated American freight…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Happy 40th to the Staggers Rail Act, Which Deregulated and Saved the U.S. Rail Industry

This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which deregulated American freight rail and saved it from looming oblivion.

At the time of passage, the U.S. economy muddled along amid ongoing malaise, and our rail industry teetered due to decades of overly bureaucratic sclerosis.  Many other domestic U.S. industries had disappeared, and our railroads faced the same fate.  But by passing the Staggers Rail Act, Congress restored a deregulatory approach that in the 1980s allowed other U.S. industries to thrive.  No longer would government determine what services railroads could offer, their rates or their routes, instead restoring greater authority to the railroads themselves based upon cost-efficiency.

Today, U.S. rail flourishes even amid the coronavirus pandemic…[more]

October 13, 2020 • 11:09 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Using Lifesaving Drugs as a Means of Redistribution Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Wednesday, July 29 2020
The ICU is no place for social engineering.

When lifesaving drugs run low, hospitals have to choose which patients get a scarce drug, while others go without. Some even die. Historically, medical ethicists have recommended giving the drug to the patient most likely to benefit or using a lottery to give every patient an equal chance. 

Not any more. Pennsylvania hospitals are tilting the scale in favor of patients from "disadvantaged areas." If you're middle class, you're toast. 

To "redress social injustices," Pennsylvania is applying a "weighted lottery" statewide, to hike the odds that the scarce drug remdesivir for COVID-19 will be given to patients from poor neighborhoods in preference to other patients. 

Remdesivir is a medicine that speeds recovery and, according to its maker, Gilead Sciences, increases survival by 62%. 

If you can get it. Your ZIP code could literally mean the difference between life and death.

"This is all very new," explains Douglas White, an ethicist at the University of Pittsburgh, who helped devise the weighted lottery. 

Some medical ethicists are urging that other states follow suit. South Carolina reports that if remdesivir runs short there, the state will apply preferences like UPMC's lottery, according to Dee Ford, professor at the Medical University of South Carolina who helped design the South Carolina approach. 

The public needs to speak out before this deadly scheme comes to their state.

In the past, if many patients needed a scarce drug, deciding who got it involved only their medical conditions. That's consistent with the American Medical Association guidelines  that the patient most likely to benefit medically from the drug should get it. 

It's a far cry from favoring patients from low-income ZIP codes. 

The Greenwall Foundation, a medical ethics group, advocates "mitigating health disparities" by prioritizing who gets remdesivir and future COVID-19 therapeutics. So do researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. 

This isn't just about remdesivir. Giving medical preferences to the economically disadvantaged is gaining steam. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network floated a proposal in January to require transplant candidates to provide household income on their applications, as a first step toward increasing the number of transplants offered to patients with low "socioeconomic status." It's provoked considerable controversy from other transplant advocacy groups. 

Academics are using the pandemic as a launching pad to push their redistributionist agenda. But it's not what the public believes is morally right. A majority of people say a hospital's goals should be saving the most lives and treating people equally, according to a June 2020 poll. 

Many physicians agree. Downstate Medical Center cardiologist Jeffrey Borer says, "a means test in either direction is unethical." 

New York has so few COVID-19 hospitalized patients that it recently sent remdesivir to Florida. Texas is reserving its supply for patients not yet on ventilators. Minnesota emphatically rejects socioeconomic preferences. 

Most states are not rigging the system  yet. But it's likely to spread fast if left up to university medical ethicists, who are trying to keep it quiet. Families won't know if their ZIP code had something to do with why Dad died in the ICU. 

The Pennsylvania lottery's designers say they were inspired by a weighted lottery for oversubscribed charter schools that gave preferences based on address. 

That should be a warning. Preferential admissions have roiled the nation. Preferential treatment in hospitals, where it could determine who survives, would be even more divisive.

On the other hand, it's common sense that when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, it should be distributed to disadvantaged neighborhoods first to prevent the most cases. Residents there are more likely to live in crowded conditions, unable to socially distance, and to work on jobs in mass transit and grocery stores that expose them to the disease. 

But caring for hospital patients is a different matter. Equal treatment is the only morally acceptable rule. 

Patients need to trust that their caregivers are doing all they can. The ICU is no place for social engineering. Preferential treatment there is frightening. The public needs to stop it now. 


Betsy McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. 

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the first 20th century presidential candidate to call for a Presidential Debate?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Joe Biden's tax proposals have gone through a variety of iterations over the course of his campaign, but lately, he's settled on a pledge not to raise taxes on those earning under $400,000.This pledge is not consistent with his current proposals, but he's even less likely to be constrained if he's elected president.Even if Biden claims he would not directly raise income tax rates on those earning…[more]
 
 
—The Editors, Washington Examiner
— The Editors, Washington Examiner
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you believe you will be better off over the next four years with Joe Biden as president or with Donald Trump as president?