Concentration Camps: Is the US still the "savior" or will they happen here? Fascism on the rise in health and everything else.

Recently, in Trieste, I visited the San Saba concentration camp, also known as the Rice Mill because that’s what it had been. On the scale of concentration and extermination camps of the Third Reich, it was small. “Only” 3000-5000 people, mostly Jews, were incinerated here, although others were shipped off to Auschwitz to experience a similar fate. It was my first visit to a concentration camp, and I do not know that I will ever go to Auschwitz, or Treblinka, or Sorbibor, or Belsen, but it was very disturbing. However, at one point the guide noted that it had been liberated by the Americans on May 1, 1945.* My eyes, already full of tears of sadness, teared up yet again but this time with pride. It was the same pride I have felt ever since I was a little kid, born only a few years later, every time I hear about my country, the US, standing strong against Nazism and Fascism, and liberating the camps.

But today it was a bittersweet feeling, because in just the last two weeks my country has been rapidly moving toward fascism. The separation of powers, the core structure of our Constitution has been ignored by the current President. I used to call him the Trumpenik, because it sounds very like the Yiddish word “trombenik”, defined by Wiktionary as 1. a lazy person or ne'er-do-well, or 2. a boastful loudmouth, both of which were good descriptions of him. But now he has decided to become Il Duce, another comparison that is very scary here in Italy.  And he, who was at least elected President if not dictator, hasn’t even been doing all this work himself. He has let Elon (who he sometimes calls Leon) Musk do it. Musk, not elected to anything, not appointed to anything with the advice and consent of the Senate, has taken control of the government’s two most critical functions, the funding of it and the information it possesses on all of us, including Social Security and Medicare. Medicaid has already suffered serious threats to its continued ability to help provide healthcare to poor people. As a federal/state partnership, the federal government pays from about 60-80% of the cost, higher in the poorer states – which are often also the most Republican states. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds health and medical research; the largest amounts are spent on cancer research, though many other conditions that affect many Americans – heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and many others – as well as basic science research that sets the stage for discoveries on diseases we recognize. In addition to the direct funding of the research, the institutions grantees work at also get indirect funds to “keep the lights” on and to provide many of the resources that allow research to go on. The Musk lackeys see this as pork, or worse, things that “enable a leftist agenda” by, I assume, funding universities. The issue of NIH direct and indirect funding is well described by Dr. Jeff Burns, a neurologist and researcher at the University of Kansas Medical Center, in a Facebook post that unfortunately doesn’t have an out-of-FB link**.

Medicare and Social Security are the most popular programs in the country, put in place by Democratic administrations (as have virtually all programs that actually benefit a significant percent of the American people), and its recipients, mostly seniors, aren’t going to be happy to have those programs cut. It is not clear if anyone in the administration cares. Musk has his own ideas of what programs are worthwhile and what are not (often colored by his personal history and interest) and wasn’t elected to any position and is unlikely to be. Decimating the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which will be devastating to working people in the US, serves the interests of folks who run major corporations like himself and Jeff Bezos of Amazon. It has also been suggested that his animosity to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) may in part be a result of its support for the majority population of South Africa, from which country’s minority white former rulers Musk comes. And their investigation of his company Starlink’s contracts with Ukraine. And Trump himself is unlikely to run for election again – he got this job and will stay out of jail and make a lot of money and get his revenge on his perceived enemies. And maybe cancel future elections. But going after senior and rural people and programs that benefit red-state residents is not going to increase his popularity.

I care a lot about healthcare and the healthcare system as well as health research, but the moves toward fascism go much farther. Every agency, especially those tasked with enforcing the law and pursuing criminals (like say, felon Trump) has had its professional staff replaced with loyalists and ideologues, especially both the Department of Justice (including the FBI) and the Department of Defense. There are some glimmers of light, particularly from the federal courts, in decisions such as ‘Judge halts Access to Treasury Payment Systems by Elon Musk’s Team’, and indeed the NY Times suggests that the federal judiciary may be the last obstacle to him. But the top decision maker in the federal judiciary is the Supreme Court, to which Trump appointed three justices and has been very friendly to him. And it will be a long time before a lot of those cases get through the courts. And someone has to enforce it. And who thinks that Musk and his Gen-Z minions who have gotten access to and control of federal databases and funds will all of a sudden, even if these cases are successful, rewrite the codes to be the way they were and not leave themselves backdoors to get in? You can’t un-ring a bell.

Enough of this by me. There is plenty of detail being provided by many other sources, and almost all of it is depressing. Let us get back to my feeling of pride in the US and its fight against Nazis and Fascists, of being, on the world stage, the good guys. Of course, it was not always true that we were – plenty of countries were invaded by the US or had their governments overturned by CIA-supported coups, etc., and even in WWII there were the Allies, including the Soviet Union which lost 20,000,000 people! And there were pro-Nazis and fascists in the US, always. Even US concentration camps (if not death camps) were started by FDR, for Japanese-Americans.

But the idea that an opponent of democracy and freedom, a person who wants to be Mussolini, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Putin, or even Viktor Orban, is the President and has moved so quickly to dismantle our Constitution and has had no significant opposition? That makes me sad, and I wonder when we will re-create camps like the one I visited in Trieste, or worse?

 

*Actually, Trieste was first freed on May 1 by Yugoslav partisans. New Zealanders came May 2, and other allies (US and UK) a couple of days later.

**Jeff Burns’ FB post:

Why Cutting Indirect Rates Means Cutting Medical Research

Medical centers aren’t just buildings—they are the foundation that makes research possible. They provide specialized lab spaces, maintain infrastructure, ensure compliance with safety regulations, and handle the complex financial and regulatory requirements that keep research running. None of this is cheap, and none of it is optional.

The NIH is one of the most powerful vehicles for turning ideas into reality—funding research that directly improves lives. Securing an NIH grant is an ultra-competitive process and a gold standard for top notch research. When researchers like me win a grant, the funding covers the research itself (“direct costs”), but the university also receives “indirect costs” to support everything that makes the research possible: the facilities, oversight, administration, and ecosystem that allow scientists to do their work. Without that support, it becomes harder to do the work that advances medicine. And, NIH funding isn’t just about research—it’s an investment in people and communities, with significant downstream effects on the economy.

Cutting indirect rates doesn’t just trim a budget line—it makes research harder to conduct, slowing scientific discovery and the development of treatments that help people. For my own work in Alzheimer’s disease, this means fewer studies, fewer discoveries, and fewer opportunities to change lives. I work alongside hundreds of clinicians, scientists, students, and staff who have dedicated their careers to tackling this disease. But dramatically and suddenly cutting indirect support shakes the very foundation that allows us to take on these big scientific challenges.

This isn’t about cutting waste—it’s a massive, across-the-board budget cut to science. And the hardest hit won’t be the elite universities with massive endowments; it will be the institutions where every NIH dollar is critical. Less investment means less medical research—period. Cutting indirect rates isn’t just bad policy—it threatens innovation, economic growth, and the future of medical discovery.

The NIH - Moderna patent controversy: private profit at public cost is a major problem

The NY Times recently reported on the controversy between Moderna and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) regarding the patenting of the Moderna (which NIH has called “NIH-Moderna”) vaccine for COVID-19. Moderna has applied for sole ownership of the patent, while NIH claims that at least 3 scientists it employs were instrumental in the basic science behind the vaccine’s development. This issue is important for a number of reasons: the specifics of this particular – and major – controversy regarding the vaccine, the larger issue of taxpayer support through NIH for projects that become private profit centers, the wider use of federal funds to support private profit, and even more generally the willingness and enthusiasm of both corporations and individuals to benefit from public expenditures while abjuring the responsibility for paying the taxes that make them possible.

The specific case of the “Moderna” COVID-19 vaccine is about more than money or glory; the Times reports

If the three agency scientists are named on the patent along with the Moderna employees, the federal government could have more of a say in which companies manufacture the vaccine, which in turn could influence which countries get access. It would also secure a nearly unfettered right to license the technology, which could bring millions into the federal treasury.

These two issues are very important. Most of the people in the world have not had access to the vaccine, and if the US government (through NIH) owns or controls the patent, it could (although so far it has not, and arguably could also do it under the Defense Production Act) ensure that poor countries with need can get it, and get it at an affordable price. This is far more important than the second, which is that it could make money from selling it to countries that can afford to buy it. It could even license the production of the vaccine by other countries in their own manufacturing process. This is a critically important concern; if all people across the world do not have access to effective vaccination, the coronavirus will continue to spread and mutate and spread back to the US and other more privileged countries. Getting vaccines to the world’s poorest countries must happen, but Moderna has been the worst of all the vaccine manufacturers (and none have been great), refusing to make the vaccine available to most countries, only offering it to those wealthy countries that can pay. (The company will make at least $18B from the vaccine.)

The larger issue is the support that the NIH gives to basic science research, mostly in universities, which is then acquired by pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the drugs based on that research and make enormous profits. No one disputes the huge profits made by Big Pharma, and only the most willfully blind (and of course the companies themselves) argue that they are fair or justified. Pharmaceutical companies like to talk about how much they spend on “R&D”, Research and Development, but (while cost allocation can be done in a number of ways), they spend much more on marketing than on R&D.   

 

NIH spends over $40B annually on scientific research, and in 2020 and 2021 each about $5B specifically on emerging infectious disease research.  Most of the profit goes to the pharmaceutical companies, sometimes with some going to the universities who did the research, using NIH money, through collaborative agreements. But YOU* paid for the basic research.

Thus, beyond any issue with Moderna, the federal government spends lots of your money to support scientific research at the basic level, where the highest risk is (i.e., where the probability of discovering something that is likely to be marketable is lowest) with the drug companies acquiring only the most promising innovations to develop further. And it goes beyond drug companies, although they are among the most regular feeders at this government trough. Remember the bailout of the banks and financial services industries? The savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s which cost the US government (and YOU*, the taxpayer) $32B a year for 30 years, followed by the much larger bailout of the financial services industry in 2009? Remember “too big to fail”? Huge banks and other financial companies nearly wrecked our economy in offering subprime mortgages and other flawed instruments, and were happy to take the profit when it was coming in. While the capitalist principle is supposed to be that their profits are justified by the risks they take, it turns out that they took the profit but eschewed the risk. When it all collapsed, and threatened to collapse the entire economy, they were bailed out by the federal government to the tune of, ostensibly, $700B, but as Forbes columnist Mike Collins reported, this was the tip of the iceberg, with a total cost of over $16 TRILLION!!! To the BANKS, which were, by the way, thrilled to return thereafter to the old way – that is, they make and keep all the money – immediately after being bailed out by YOU*. Just think about the fuss being made about President Biden’s Build Back Better (BBB) proposal, of whether it should be $3.5T or $1T over 10 years (or nothing!) and keep that $16T+ we GAVE to the wealthiest banks in the US in mind! So, the subsidization of pharmaceutical companies like Moderna and others is right in the tradition of YOU* taking all the risk while big corporations make all the profit.

The final issue is that these big corporations often pay little or no tax, as a result of having the money to pay scads of accountants who are adept at finding the loopholes that have been written into the tax laws by a Congress often dependent upon contributions from these same corporations (which would often be illegal corruption at the state or local level but is legal for Congress). Using tax havens abroad, incorporating elsewhere, stashing money in Ireland and the Caymans and other countries may be beyond what you can do, but you do have an important role to play: bankrolling it! Thus my * on YOU* several times above; especially if you are employed and have your federal income tax withheld and thus are paying your taxes, you are funding all this while these corporations – and the billionaires who pay little or nothing, and even less thanks to the $1T Trump tax cut for them – are getting a free ride. No, more than a free ride, they get to charge you – and charge you a lot – for the ride that they are taking!

The sad part – well, it is all sad – is that the YOU* includes lots of minimum wage workers, lots of people who are members of marginalized minority groups, lots of folks just squeaking by (or not), lots of folks who cannot afford and do not have health insurance, and cannot pay for the drugs they need, who are paying the taxes that support the drug companies and the banks. Yes, the fallacy of the common good (see this interesting analysis which identifies the fallacy in the tragedy of the commons) means that there are many regular people who wish they were not paying, or paying so much, in taxes despite the fact that they are happy to benefit from and think they are entitled to benefit from publicly funded (ie, tax-funded) things like roads, fire and police protection, national defense, Social Security, etc. This is short-sighted and wrong, but most of us just get to grouse and still pay.

But not the corporations, banks, pharmaceutical companies. The COVID-19 vaccine patent controversy, while very important, has implications far beyond the immediate issue.

The denominator matters: we only have a quality health care system if everyone can access it!

Denominators.

Even if you are not a regular user of statistics, you probably remember that word from arithmetic. You know, the “4” in ¼, as opposed to the “1”, the numerator. Why is this important in the current policy debate? Well, if you know, for example, that a majority of, say, Republicans (or Democrats) like a policy, it would be a mistake to assume that a majority of all people like it. In health care policy, in particular, denominators, and how they are chosen, are important, because by choosing an inappropriate one you can “prove” a point that is wrong.

I recently was present for a debate on the issue of “health care is a human right” in an undergraduate class. The students did well, and although almost all personally supported the “pro” side, the “anti” side was able to find arguments in the literature, often from organizations like the CATO Institute. To a significant degree, however, they were either philosophical objections (“what is a human right?”) or, conversely, pragmatic irrelevancies to the issue (“a lot of doctors don’t take Medicaid”). Many of the assertions are belied by the facts. For example, the Northwestern economist Craig Garthwaite, interviewed in VOX, notes that if drug companies can’t make huge profits, innovation will go down, and most of the world depends upon the innovations discovered in the US. In fact, of all New Molecular Entities (NMEs) discovered, a little over 1/3 are in the US. But even this ignores another important point – many or most of these were not originally discovered by pharmaceutical companies using their hard-earned profits on Research and Development (R&D), on which they spend much less than on marketing, but by government (National Institutes of Health, NIH) supported university research, which the drug companies skim for the most promising ones. So what is the denominator there? All NMEs, or only those funded by drug companies?

The students also cited these opponents of healthcare-as-a-right or Medicare for All who also assert that, in a similar manner, it would cause quality to decrease. If everyone has access, and hospitals and doctors can’t make more money on some, they opine, then those people will not get all the best, most modern and effective care. This is where denominators come back in. Even if it were true that there might be decreased quality for those who currently have unfettered access (very questionable), it is obvious that the quality of care would increase for those who now get little or none! Overall, when the whole population is considered as the denominator, the quality of care would absolutely go up. Denial of care, as asserted long ago by Schiff, Brennan and Bindman, is “the gravest of all quality defects”.[1] If a hospital, for example, reports excellent outcomes for people treated there for heart attack, but only those with good insurance were admitted for treatment and the overall rate of death from heart attack in the community rose, it would be painting a very skewed picture. If what you mean is “I have real privileges, and I am afraid that by spreading access out to everyone I might lose that privilege”, then say that; don’t dress it up by pretending quality would decrease!

A common assertion we hear, particularly from “moderates”, or at least from the politicians, pundits, and media who assert that they speak for moderates, is that “Most people obtain health insurance through their employers and are generally satisfied with their choice of providers, coverages and the amount they contribute to their family’s healthcare.” This may be true, or it may not be. The majority of people current have health insurance coverage through their employer, but whether they are generally satisfied is another question. The main thing is that they are much more likely to be satisfied when they are healthy and do not have to utilize health care very much or at all. Even then, the copays and other surprise costs can prove burdensome, but it is only when something happens that causes them to need to use a lot of healthcare that it becomes critical, bankrupting them and often even making that care inaccessible. When you and the members of your family are not sick, costs can be low (and you can be satisfied) but when you are sick is when all the hidden costs kick in. In this case, the important denominator might be a smaller group, those who used healthcare, rather than everyone.

These excess costs include the various legal scams described by Elisabeth Rosenthal “Where the frauds are all legal” on December 7, 2019 in the NY Times (discussed by me in Scamming Medicare: It's the providers and insurers, not the patients!, December 19, 2019), when her husband had a serious accident. They also include the “surprise bills” that come because, even though you went to a hospital that was in your insurance network and saw a surgeon who was in your network, it turns out that the ER group or the anesthesiology group contracted by the hospital, or the assistant surgeon your surgeon picked, is not in network. Boom! $10,000, $100,000 bills! No one is “satisfied” by this.

Such problems are most often faced by those with multiple chronic diseases, often older people, who have to see the doctor, be hospitalized or be operated on more often. Most people, in most years, are not in need of major or expensive care, so they are the “satisfied well”. But something bad and expensive could happen to any of us any day: Your doctor surprises you by telling you that you have cancer! You are in a car (or bicycle) accident and need big surgeries! Your baby was premature and needs to be in neonatal intensive care! We are all at risk in a system where only some people are covered, and only some of the time, and for some things, and for certain providers.

Recently, there was big news when the large Culinary Workers of America union came out to oppose Sen. Sanders’ Medicare for All plan, which the union suggests would void the excellent health care coverage that they have won for their members. The union deserves tremendous credit for having negotiated this coverage in the current and recent negative environment for unions, especially for a membership that is largely relatively low-paid, minority, female, and often non-English speaking. However, to suggest that it would be a loss for their members is deceiving. For one thing, the coverage of a Medicare for All plan would be at least equal to this excellent plan; it would cover everyone for everything. Health coverage is a great benefit, but the money that employers pay for their contribution (which unlike workers’ contributions is tax-deductible) is money that they don’t pay in wages. The benefits of M4All compared to the CWA plan are well-described in this Quote of the Day by Dr. Don McCanne. And the CWA contract is a relative outlier and not guaranteed to be as good next time; remember the many General Motors workers who were the exemplars of having “Cadillac coverage” during prior healthcare insurance debates, but who lost most of those benefits when GM “restructured” after bankruptcy – if they were not laid off altogether?

At least as important are the relatives, friends, and neighbors of those covered workers who work for small companies without good – or any – health insurance plans, or are disabled, or unemployed for longer or shorter periods. This is the “community”, the “population” that needs to be considered as the denominator. Many CWA (and other union) members realize this; while the union leadership may rightly be proud of their accomplishments in negotiating, this does not bring excellent health coverage or care to all of the people. The denominator needs to be all of us.

Only a universal single payer system, an improved and expanded Medicare for All, will do that.

---

[1] Schiff GS, Brennan AB, Bindman TA, A Better-Quality Alternative Single-Payer National Health System Reform, JAMA 272(10):803-808, September 14, 1994.