A Foul Goulash: Prescription Drugs, Economic Inequality, and Tax Policy

"Some Cut Back on Prescription Drugs in Sour Economy" notes the New York Times.

Democrats have a good argument to make based on this distressing news. Despite the flak the GOP is throwing up about "socialistic" "spreading the wealth around," Democrats should lean in to the argument and talk about economic inequality and how it can damage lives.

Consider the fate of those having to cut back on prescription drugs. The driving force behind such a decision is lack of disposable income. Economic inequality, in such circumstances, causes an inequality in healthiness, as those who have higher incomes will more likely continue to take their prescribed medications while others, as noted in the article, must cut back on those medications.

Tax policy intrinsically redistributes income and wealth. It can do so either upwards or downwards. But it will do so.

The question could be framed this way, for Democrats: Do we really want to give further tax cuts for the top 1%--who currently make 21% of national income--while those in the bottom 70% (or so) cut back on their prescription drugs? Isn't there a better way? Does everyone who makes less than $250,000 in disposable income deserve worse health just because of drug prices?

Additionally, those who have to cut back on their prescription drug medication will likely face further health problems limiting their productivity and income. This harms (1) national income and productivity, and (2) could lead to a self-reinforcing cycle of lower income creating less drug use, resulting in further health problems, etc.

Finally, to the extent that those who are cutting back may have no health insurance, one again as a possible side-effect of a low income, the health care costs they incur will likely be passed on to taxpayers, making it far more economically inefficient then necessary.

Ah, well, there's a case to be made out of that muddle of some sort or another.