EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democrats in Pay-For-Play Deal With PhRMA?
The NYT is reporting that PhRMA will spend $150 million in advertising to support the White House health care plan in August:
The drug industry has already contributed millions of dollars to advertising campaigns for the health care overhaul through the advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA. It has spent about $1 million on similar advertisements under its own name.
All of the commercials closely echo common Democratic themes about medical care for all, consumer protection and "health insurance reform." Some supporters of the overhaul have hired public affairs and advertising firms with close ties to the White House and Senate Democrats, including GMMB, which worked on the Obama campaign, and AKPD, which previously included David Axelrod, who is now the president's top political adviser.
In a statement released by the President on June 20:
I am pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached between Senator Max Baucus and the nation's pharmaceutical companies that will bring down health care costs and reduce the price of prescription drugs for millions of America's seniors. As part of the health reform legislation that I expect Congress to enact this year, pharmaceutical companies will extend discounts on prescription drugs to millions of seniors who currently are subjected to crushing out-of-pocket expenses when the yearly amounts they pay for medication fall within the doughnut hole any payments by seniors not covered by Medicare that fall between $2700 and $6153.75 per year.
Former Blue Dog Billy Tauzin, who now heads PhRMA, told the New York Times it was a "rock solid deal." Jim "Stickboy" Messina (Obama's "Josh Lyman") "confirmed Mr. Tauzin's account of the deal in an e-mail message" to the NYT.
McJoan asked the other day if Baucus is writing the White House's health care bill. I don't think there is any question that he is, that Tauzin knows he is, and that the idea that he's "holding up" the White House is not grounded in reality. And that the deal cuts the legs out from underneath Jeff Merkeley, who was trying to negotiate for $63 billion in rebates for drugs provided under Medicare.
The only question is how much the Democrats got in exchange for gutting the government's ability to control health care costs.
During the campaign, this was Obama's position:
Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion.
It no longer appears on the health care page at mybarackobama.com.
But, let's do the math. In ten years, $30 billion a year would mean $300 billion in savings. The deal cut by the White House is for $80 billion in savings. So the pharmaceutical industry gets to keep $220 billion for the low low price of $150 million in August to pass health care reform so Rahm Emanual won't be 13-1.
A hundred fifty million for two hundred twenty billion in savings: an excellent return on investment by anyone's standards.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


14 Comments so far
Show AllI don't care who supports it or puts their money behind it, if the idea is crappy and it is I "JUST SAY NO".
Wasn't Billy Tauzin a Republican? Not that it matters since both parties are snug in bed with Big Pharma giving them "teddy bears" of their own to keep us poisoned. Like Wall $treet, another bailout but this time to Big Pharma ! More power to Big Pharma to keep POISONING America to her deathbed ! Some "change" you can believe in huh?
As for Obama's site, he's been changing a lot of things on his site I'll bet and he reeks even more of LIES ! As much as I can't stand Dubya and his lies, I can't stand this man getting worse.
JenniferBedingfield August 9th, 2009 5:19 pm.........Bush was/is a liar with an extremely low IQ with no no ability to think on his feet or think at all, for that matter, He got away with the smaller lies as a petty little rich spoiled brat/bully from childhood (which he actually never left). When it came to the bigger lies, his face always gave him away. As in that classroom reading the goat story when he was told about the 9/11 attacks. His eyes narrowed more than usual and he got that empty look...it was his "tell". Obama likely has a fairly high IQ with an ability to think on his feet. He has obviously learned from his predecessor how to hide the lie in his face. Summed up; he's simply a smarter, more accomplished liar. But, A liar just the same....and certainly more dangerous. (BUT, no where near as dangerous as the Bush Family Conglomerate)
More bad news.
Huffington Post is now reporting that Dick Durbin-D, IL:
"...hinted on Sunday that a public insurance option could go by the wayside as Congress hammers out its health care legislation.
Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), one of the chamber's foremost progressives, said that while he supported a government-run option for insurance, he was "open" to alternatives.
"Just understand that, after we pass this bill -- and I hope we do -- in the Senate, it will go to conference committee," said Durbin. "We'll have a chance to work out all of our differences."
"So we'll see how this ends, but I don't want the process to be filibustered to failure, which unfortunately, many senators are trying to do," Durbin added. "I want to make sure that we do something positive for the American people."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/09/another-blow-to-public-op_n_254961.html
** This is practically a white concession flag being waved as Durbin is not only one of the most powerful Dems in the Senate but a close friend of Obama. If Durbin concedes, as apparently he is doing, the ballgame is over.
Another scenario would be the House rejects the compromise bill because Republicans and the House progressives (57 of them) vote no on the corporate-backed health *insurance* reform bill. That may be the best outcome of all, because THEN single payer will come up, and those Dems who vote against it, MAY have progressives to run against in 2010 primaries. If the progressives outrun the Blue Dogs in the House in 2010, (say 2 to 1) and if public pressure mounts for single payer in 2011, we may get where we need to go. I have no predictions. But the ballgame is never over. Politics, unlike baseball, has an infinite number of innings.
Running 'progressives' in primaries is stupid.
You almost always lose, your issues are off the table in the months leading to the general election, and the Dem sheep get suckered into voting for the Dem candidate anyway.
Independent and third party - the only sensible way to go. Stay in the race, keep the issues alive in the general election, offer voters a choice, show numbers in registration and give the Dems a scare from the left.
Show some spine and defeat triangulation!
If the public plan for health insurance goes by the wayside, I'm afraid Mr. Obama will end up being a one-term President. I certainly wouldn't vote for him again.
It would behoove him to refresh his understanding of the word "promise!!!!"
See? Once again, a progressive bemoaning the 'pay-for-play' system as if suddenly, everyone's gonna wake up and go, "That's it - from now on, it's honesty all the way!"
Whatever happened to 'if you can't beat em, join em"? It only takes $150M in ads to buy our government? Seriously, that's it? We progs and libs have BILLIONS at our disposal - why don't we just offer the greedy SOBs $151M in ads to do the right f@#king thing for a change?
Oh, right, forgot - bribing 'our' leaders is beneath us... no, I got it, sure, let's keep doing what we've been doing and doing and doing. We're bound to get a different result sooner or later...
Has anyone ever made that argument who's actually in favor of single payer?
"let's keep doing what we've been doing and doing and doing. We're bound to get a different result sooner or later"
But what we're doing is pay for play.
It costs us more than any existing single-payer system - or any other system, for that matter - and they ARE rife with dishonesty.
"We progs and libs have BILLIONS at our disposal"
I like the news. Whose mattress is that under, though?
Frank, I'm missing your point somehow, aren't I?
What's wrong with a bad idea failing.
Assumptions of the glorious future Single Payer sys in the US may not work has they do in small single culture countries.
Why not? No matter their class or culture once they try single payer they will never want anything else.
Please list these "small single culture" countries.
Then detail why single payer can not work in a country because it has a larger landmass, and or in a country because it Multi Ethnic or has less population.
I would like to see sound reasons by way of example.
How so?
Gw - Europe = small single culture's have common understanding much like rural towns or neighborhoods w/i cities.
No large landmass country has succeeded w/central healthcare w/o coercion = Soviets & Mainland China.