Reply #115: Lets look at some more about what Dean is hiding:

[Nicholas_J]

Here is an interesting one:


Office of the Vermont Secretary of State
Vermont State Archives
Veto Message: Governor Dean
1994 (S.101)
An act relating to pharmaceutical services and health insurance.
STATE OF VERMONT
Executive Department.
Montpelier, Vt., June 13, 1994

The text of the communication from His Excellency, the Governor, whereby he vetoed and returned unsigned Senate Bill No. 101 to the Senate is as follows:

Robert H. Gibson, Secretary of the Senate
Vermont General Assembly
State House
Montpelier, VT 05602

Dear Bob:

I am herewith returning unsigned and without my approval and in the time permitted by the Constitution, S.101, a bill relating to pharmaceutical services and health insurance.

I have supported health care reforms aimed at controlling health care cost and improving health quality of Vermonters, but I do not believe that this bill furthers those goals. The bill would have a negative effect on the health care market and Vermont consumers. I believe that insurance costs will rise as a result of this bill. At a time when we are seeking to lower the cost of health insurance, this bill would undermine the gains we have made.

There is good reason that many employers, including the State of Vermont, have developed managed-care pharmacy plans. These plans keep costs down, and ensure proper utilization of prescription drugs. It is totally inappropriate for the state to tell the private sector that it cannot adopt what we have demonstrated to be an effective cost-containment policy. It is even more inappropriate for the state to exempt itself from the burdens of this bill. Moreover, because self-funded employer plans covered by ERISA will be exempt from the provisions of this bill, the burden created by the bill will fall unduly on small employers, who form the backbone of the Vermont economy. This would exacerbate the cost-shifting that is fundamental to solving this problem in our health care system.

This bill has been represented as offering Vermonters "Choice". I believe it will actually restrict choice. In other areas of our economy, Vermonters have a choice between paying a little more for the convenience of a local market, or saving a few dollars by going out of their way to a large retailer. Under this bill, a consumer who is willing to accept some inconvenience will no longer be able to gain a price advantage.

Because it places an undue burden on Vermonters and Vermont businesses, I am vetoing S.101.

http://vermont-archives.org/governance/Vetoes/1994DeanS101.html

As noted during the current campaign, one of the most prevalent causes of the high cost of prescription drugs is due to the managed care and particularly the way the pharmaceutical companies have "pharmacy benefit managers", in the private sector, who because they process hundred of thousands of claims, get rebates and other incentives on prescription that are passed on to the health care providers, but are not passed on to the consumer. In 2002, these kickbacks alone amounted to over 16 billion dollars, which were pure profit due to the health care providers recieving discounts that were not passed onto the consumers.

Deans veto simply gave more power to insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to keep gouging consumers.

Dean was paying back one of his major sources of campaign comntributions for his runs for governor.

Maine on the other hand passed legislation requiring that such savings be passed on.

Here is more about that piece of information:


Abstract A comparison of the Vermont and Maine cases of attempting to control pharmaceutical prices in the year 2000 shows that the Maine legislators were more successful in challenging pharmaceutical industry political power. This comparison shows that challenging the industry was aided by (1) mobilizing public support through grassroots organizations, (2) including independent pharmacists in negotiations over the legislation, and (3) developing state purchasing power leverage....



On 10 February, S 300 passed out of both the Health and Welfare and the Finance Committee unanimously. On the same day, Dean said he could not support price regulation unless other New England states enacted similar bills and that Vermont could not afford to defend itself in court if the industry sued the state over price controls (Sneyd 2000). On 25 February, the bill went to the senate floor. Republicans tried to delete price control provisions from the bill; they failed by a vote of 14-15. They spent six or seven hours asking questions about S 300. At the end, the bill passed (25-4), with most Republicans who had voted to delete price controls then voting for the bill...

After it was clear that S 300 was blocked, Governor Dean announced that he would not veto it. His "support" was too late. Had he acted earlier in the legislative session, he could have used legislative items sought by the blue dogs in bargaining with them on the prescription drug price bill. By the time the governor indicated his support, there was little left with which to bargain. His support also came too late for the independent pharmacists. Had his support come earlier, he might have helped persuade independent pharmacy owners that the bill would not reduce their revenues.

Senator Shumlin tried unsuccessfully to salvage price controls. He incorporated a number of compromises into S 300. One of his compromises was to set retail prices rather than wholesale prices as a way around the commerce clause problem. Another was to offer a multiyear waiting period in which nonregulatory approaches to lowering prescription drug prices could be tried first. His effort ended in failure on the last day of the session. The adjournment of the Vermont legislature, scheduled for 15 May, was held up until the wee hours of 16 May. Despite this delay, Senator Shumlin received no strong proposal on pharmaceutical prices from the governor. Shumlin decided that it was not worth it to let through a prescription drug bill without strong provisions on prices. The legislature adjourned without acting on prescription drug prices.

The waiver that Governor Dean had proposed as an alternative to S 300 was granted in October 2000. In January 2001, the state began signing up seniors under the waiver. The pharmaceutical industry challenged the waiver in federal court. That June, the court overturned the waiver, and the program was discontinued.


http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:EsWqHA-Se0cJ:www.metrostate.edu/cgi-bin/troxy/lproxy.cgi/URL-www.press.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_health_politics_policy_and_law/v028/28.1castellblanch.html+%22Howard+Dean%22+%22Peter+Shumlin%22+%22Cheryl+Rivers%22+%22Pharmaceutical%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8




The New Democratic Party, if Dean becomes its leader, will so closely resemble the Republican Party, that the U.S. might as well become a one party state.

Deans behavior as governor was pretty unscrupulously in favor of large businesses, and he found all sorts of clever ways to block any attempt to control the profits of both the health care industry and pharmaceutical companies in Vermont. Vermont was ripe for the plucking once Dean became governor.

A Vermont Case indicates exactly what influenced Deans veto of legislation designed to get prescription drug prices under control in Vermont:

Reports also described allegations that Governor Dean vetoed a pharmacy bill after collecting $ 6,000 in campaign contributions from drug companies. n10 State Treasurer Paul W. Ruse was "criticized <*16> for financing his campaign with contributions from Wall Street firms with which the state does business." n11 Another article stated that "Ruse even appeared in a magazine advertisement for an investment firm." n12...




The influence of out-of-state donations: "Outside money is one of Howard Dean's specialties. Of the $ 312,290 the governor raised for his 1996 election, 65 percent came from out-of-state contributors: labor unions, Washington lawyer-lobbyists, the health care industry, to name a few of the special interests." n13 For the 1994 election "Dean, for example, received more money from major pharmaceutical manufacturers during the reporting period ($ 11,000) thin he did from people and companies located in Burlington ($ 10,460)." n14 One editorial said, "it's no mystery why out-of-state contributors pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Vermont campaigns. ... They're trying to buy influence. But the cost is public trust." n15

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:TpIKA9f7OhEJ:www.brookingsinstitution.org/dybdocroot/gs/cf/headlines/cases/LandellvSorrell.DOC+%22Howard+Dean%22+Pharmaceutical%27+%22Landell+v+Sorrell%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Or as a pdf:

http://www.brookingsinstitution.org/dybdocroot/gs/cf/headlines/cases/LandellvSorrell.DOC


And more:

The proof, he argues, is that the wealthy are getting the short end of the stick. "Don't tell me that people with money are getting their way," says the Indiana-based litigator. "They are paying the highest tax in history, and the money is going to bureaucrats, people on welfare, in transfer payment from people with money to people without."


ven in nice little Vermont, with a population the size of Washington, D.C., lawmakers receive largesse not only from local businesses and individuals, but from such national corporations and trade organizations as R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, Monsanto, Parke-Davis, Anheuser-Busch, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and the American Insurance Association. In the 1994 race, Dean received more contributions just from pharmaceutical interests than the Republican challenger David Kelley collected in total.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/21/allen-t.html

It is easy to see who bought Howard Dean his five terms as governor.

It is also easy to determine Dean motivation for not wanting to make changes to the existing Health Care system in the United States. And why he made National Health Care suh an important issue so early on.

With over health care running well over a trillion dollars a year in the U.S., and with Deans attitude and past behavior of letting the private sector call the shots, adn his current statements about him not being your guy if you want major changes in the Health Care System in America, and with his ties to the health care and pharmaceutical industries, A Dean presidency will simply be trading Halliburton and Bechtel for Pfizer and Blue Cross.

They will be skimming from the government coffers as well as being allowed to increase the out of pocket expenses from the consumers, given Deans statements about either reducing or freezing the medicare budget.

This is code for cutting benefits and raising out of pocket expenses.



Clinton was making major progress in getting his progressively responsible fiscal policies pushed through, as well as his socially liberal legislation pushed through until Gingrich and the "Contract with America" was started. Gingrich his cabal were the turning point in Washington Politics and to even suggest that anything he was doing was in any way positive was largely responsible for setting up the conditions that led to the Republicans being able to attempt to impeach Clinton, leading to the ability of Bush, Rove and Company to strategically change local politics to the degree that allowed the election to be stolen in Florida.

AS one goes through the public portions of Deans record as governor and then links it to Vermont Case law, one can only shudder at what is indicated is likely to be the embarassing portions of his record as Governor in Vermont that Dean WANTED sealed for 20 years, which given his current age, is stating that he wanted his secrets sealed for the rest of his life.

Even with the ten years, Dean can keep hidden anything he wishes for two presidential terms if elected.

Dena more than anyone else, has had try to explain more about the way his past statements and decisions greatly differ from what crap he is trying to shovel as a presidential candidate. He has had more to explain about his past than all of the other candidates put together.

Something is rotten in the state of Vermont.

And the smell comes from several hundred cubic yards of sealed documents.