- The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 5, 2002

Anyone who is honest must admit that Enron has created a mess. People have lost jobs, investments and retirement funds. But what, or more appropriately, who, is to blame? Pundits are struggling to make sense of Enron's ugliness.

In his Jan. 18 New York Times editorial, "A System Corrupted," Paul Krugman writes "The Enron debacle is not just the story of a company that failed; it is the story of a system that failed. And the system didn't fail through carelessness or laziness; it was corrupted." Shame on wingtip wearers everywhere.

George Gilder's recent Wall Street Journal editorial "A corporate crime wave?" offered, "If you believe the news coverage, corporate leaders are racing to despoil, mulct, defraud, poison, pillage and ruin their own businesses, their nation's soils and waters, their retirement funds, and the world economy." Take that, Mr. Krugman.

A careful review recent Enron-related editorials like Krugman's editorials that far outnumber the Gilder-style offerings reveals that, while perhaps overstating his case a bit, Mr. Gilder isn't far from the truth.

Anti-business, anti-free market factions are using Enron as ammunition for a constant barrage, which seeks to lay the blame for societal evils at the feet of large corporations while calling for greater government involvement in business dealings.

Enron provides an example of what happens when corruption leaks into and becomes part of the corporate culture. But Enron's failure is not an indictment of business, or even big business, as a whole. To the contrary, corporations have the potential to meet societal needs that no entity especially one that is taxpayer funded is able to address.

Case-in-point: This past week, another big company, often maligned in the media and by anti-business folks, did something interesting but not much was made of it, especially with Enron occupying the public eye. The company in question is Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant, which addressed a pressing need in our country: the availability of prescription drugs for the poor.

Approximately 65 percent of people over the age of 65 have some kind of coverage for prescription drugs. The remaining 35 percent have none but, of course, this does not mean all of them cannot afford supplemental insurance. Some portion of this population chooses not buy supplemental coverage, which is their decision. After removing those who have insurance and those who choose not to carry it, we get to the core: the poor, mostly elderly who have daily need of medication but cannot afford the supplemental insurance or the medicine itself. Horror stories abound about elderly widows would cut their pills in half because a partial dose seems better than none at all.

What to do about this? Prescription drug benefits were, after all, a major thrust of the presidential campaign debates in 2000. Both Democrats and the Republicans have floated plans. One Republican plan would cost $40 per month, have an annual deduction of $250, and cover half the cost of prescription drugs up to $2,100. A Democratic draft would cost $25 per month and pay half the cost of prescription medication up to $2,000.

The problem with these offerings, like all government programs, is that it is hard to target just one segment of the population. Equity is something our laws take seriously. People who can afford other forms of prescription insurance and those who choose not to carry supplemental insurance now seemingly should be included in the governmental coverage. But even then the proposals do little to address the real problem.

While each might provide a little relief, both fail to exclude those who don't really need the service and truly address the people who need help. But if these are the only options available, perhaps it is wise to choose one and hope for the best.

Enter Pfizer. The pharmaceutical giant, maligned for its greed, for profiting on people's illnesses, accused of lining the pockets of its wealthy stockholders with money taken from the poor, made an announcement a few days ago that does what no taxpayer-funded program can.

Beginning March 1, Pfizer will provide something called a "Share Card" which will allow the user to purchase a one-month supply of any Pfizer medicine for a flat fee of $15 dollars. To be a part of the program, you have to be 65 years or older or a Medicare enrollee, have an individual income below $18,000 for or $24,000 for a couple, and have no other prescription coverage. There is no monthly fee; the patient pays for what he or she uses. There is no membership fee or limit on the number of prescriptions and the enrollment form is simple. Participants can use the pharmacy of their choice.

It is a private industry plan that does something no government plan can do: it excludes those who really are not in need of help and it addresses in a targeted way those who are in need of relief. It does not create another giant government-run bureaucracy, and, like all great ideas, it is uncomplicated. Pfizer's plan has been endorsed by dozens of elderly associations, medical foundations, and politicians.

So what's the motivation? Pfizer, like most companies, is serious about its business. It is in its interest to make a profit and to benefit shareholders. (There ought to be no guilt or shame in stating this clearly.) It is likely that this endeavor will increase Pfizer's share of the pharmaceutical business. Moreover, as orders for medicine increase, the cost of production per piece will decrease.

But it is also good for consumers. Other companies will be forced to respond. They will either begin similar programs or they will lose a share of the market. Furthermore, consumers will benefit from the decrease in cost. In other words, it's good business.

Like most companies, Pfizer understands its responsibilities to its communities, and not just out of naked self-interest. Pfizer's actions demonstrate an understanding of the benefits such services offer both to the elderly poor as well its bottom line.

Enron is an example of all that is ugly in the free-market system. But there are other places to look to get a more balanced, realistic picture of the business world, and Pfizer is a fine example. It is possible to be serious about being profitable and being serious about social responsibility, despite all the left's opposing rhetoric.

Jerry Zandstra is the director of programs at the Acton Institute and is an ordained pastor in the Christian Reformed Church of North America.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide