TANSTAAFL

Fans of Robert A. Heinlein or students of Milton Friedman know that TANSTAAFL is an acronym for "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." Heinlein coined the term in his book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," published 40 years ago.

TANSTAAFL’s bottom line is that a person, a company or a class of people cannot get something for nothing because there is always some underlying cost to everything, and this cost, even if distributed or buried, must be borne by someone.

I just used the term and explained it on the Floor of the Assembly a few moments ago in relation to AB 2911 by Speaker Nunez. AB 2911 establishes price controls on the pharmaceutical industry ostensibly to reduce drug costs to Medi-Cal recipients. It was negotiated between the Speaker and Governor Schwarzenegger.

The problem with AB 2911 is that it costs between $800 million to $1 billion to bring a new drug to market, according to Sally C. Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute. Ms. Pipes goes on to note that had AB 2911’s drug giveaway provisions been in place nationwide 25 years ago that far fewer life saving drugs would have ever been invented in the first place.

AB 2911 largely mirrors the failed Prop. 78 from last November. It passed today on a 45-28 party-line vote and heads to the Senate for sure passage, then to the Governor’s desk for his likely signature.

TANSTAAFL

From The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:

"Oh, 'tanstaafl'. Means 'There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.' And isn't," I added, pointing to a FREE LUNCH sign across room, "or these drinks would cost half as much. Was reminding her that anything free costs twice as much in the long run or turns out worthless."

Comments

[Alex Brant-Zawadzki]

That's all well and good, Chuck, but problems arise when you look at the amount of money pharmaceutical companies spend on protecting their precious patent exclusivity.
Some of what we pay for drugs goes towards intricate campaigns to keep those drugs as expensive as possible and surpress generic counterparts.
Drug companies have gone so far as to claim in court that certain drug-specific endogenous compounds - molecules produced inside our bodies as our systems react to ingested substances - are technically patentable products of the respective drug company.
In that case, aren't we technically employees, and as such due compensation?
No. That's ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the pharmaceutical companies taking our money and using it to maintain their monopolies on medications.
In Britain, my prescriptions were free. Here it's hundreds of dollars a month.

[Chuck DeVore]

TANSTAAFL, Alex, TANSTAAFL.

"In Britain, my prescriptions were free."

No they weren't. Someone paid for them.

Chuck DeVore
State Assembly, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Gustavo Arellano]

I always thought it was "TINSTAAFL." But now I know!

[Chuck DeVore]

Probably because the AP Style Guide and your English teacher wouldn't allow the use of the word "ain't."

Gustavo, that just shows the rest of us how well educated you are -- except in classic science fiction literature...

(Posted from the lethargically chaotic floor of the Assembly at 9:49 p.m.)

[tag your it]

"In Britain, my prescriptions were free. Here it's hundreds of dollars a month."

Wrong.

In Britain they were paid for by people who actually went to work and did not post to the internet all day.

[Jeff Flint]

Chuck:

Great work.

Seeing how the voters decisively rejected Prop. 79 on the ballot last fall - the only position endorsed by Governor Schwarzenegger last fall where his position won - I don't see the politics of giving in on this.

Jeff

[the serrach]

i'm still enjoying picturing fans of heinlein.

heh heh.