Why would Obama make a deal with the drug makers? Why make

[Thickasabrick]

a deal that says no negotiations? I thought the whole point of Universal Care was the large negotiating power.

I didn't believe it when I heard it the other day, but now it is confirmed.

I'm really bummed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/white-house-confirms-deal_n_254408.html

[ingac70]

1. Universal health care is not on the table.

Universal INSURANCE is.

[Autumn]

2. It's health care FINANCE reform n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

8. Exactly. It has nothing to do with healthCARE and everything to do with profits. n/t

[timeforpeace]

13. But we're supporting this anyway. Why is that? Are we unthinking kool-aid drinkers?

[ColbertWatcher]

19. No, the problem with the way healthcare is handled in this country is due ...

... to the financial crap that interferes.

That does need reform. But, real reform not GOP reform.

[mzteris]

3. ya ever stop to think -

Hey - Obama is a really smart man who does want to help America. And maybe he's looking at a bigger picture than I'm aware of. Maybe he has info that I don't. Maybe, just maybe - it was in OUR BEST INTERESTS to do so....

I'm just sayin' :shrug:

[Selatius]

7. The problem with too many "maybes" is you never know if you got a good deal or got screwed afterall.

Ideally, a debate of this magnitude takes place in full view of the public, not behind closed doors, but maybe I'm just preaching to the choir here.

[G_j]

9. that's really the point

if there is more to the picture, then show it!

[Thickasabrick]

11. Agreed - I want to give them every benefit of the doubt but it can't

be good - or we would have been informed.

[Thickasabrick]

10. Ya see, I am too old to just take things on "faith" anymore. Whenever

I did that, I always got screwed. If it is in our best interest, then why not tell us about it?

[Autumn]

16. Maybe he could give us the info that we

don't have. Then we would know if it's in OUR BEST INTERESTS.

[stray cat]

4. A deal is fair if the government pays drug makers for all of their research that doesn't work

[eridani]

12. And when pharma pays government for publicly supported research n/t

[masuki bance]

5. I want to know why it was done in secret. nt

[SpartanDem]

18. The deal wasn't secret it annouced in june

President Obama heralded a “turning point” in health care on Saturday, as Senator Max Baucus and the White House announced that the pharmaceutical industry agreed to spend $80 billion over the next decade on health care reform.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/drug-industry-pledges-80-billion/health-care/

The DDAY blog asked this very question of him conferece call with liberal bloggers about the deals

I think we can negotiate and find a good way to go about this. In theory we could cram down additional savings, but to have the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the drugmakers, the insurance companies, all of them on our team, that does help us move the process forward. Theoretically, there should be enormous savings inside the system. ..
What I think is that we can get a framework where reform begins, one with an insurance exchange, and a robust public option, concrete reductions in cost, prevention, health IT, comparative effectiveness research, and it will be possible to achieve greater savings with a more efficient system down the road

This is was commentary on this answer


I found that to be both a decent and a deeply unsatisfying answer. I understand that you don't want the stakeholders bringing in the Howitzers and seeding massive attacks against any reform, so keeping them on the same side is important. At the same time, with these groups bought off, and indeed knowing that they will get an ultimately good deal from Washington, the transition from the broken system we have to that theoretical one that Obama discussed gets delayed. I agree about getting a framework in place, something to tweak down the road. But we spend so much time in our politics bowing to powerful interests that it's very frustrating to concede that as a political reality.

http://d-day.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-blogger-conference-call-on-health.html

[masuki bance]

22. Were the neotiations open? That's the issue. nt

[mzteris]

6. some further information -

yeah, "consider the source" - but some of the facts, I think, speak for themselves. . .



http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/August/03/npr-Tauzin-interview.aspx?referrer=search

". . .

WERTHEIMER: One of the things that you negotiated with the White House was that there would not be a big fight over importing drugs from Canada at lower costs. And there were other issues that you wanted to be sure that the president was not going to get in your way on.

Mr. TAUZIN: Well, wait. I mean, you made an assumption. Let me hopefully clarify that. We negotiated our contribution, a total $80 billion. I can tell you the president wanted more and we wanted less. And some have said, 'oh, that’s a sweet deal.' Twice the proportionate share of our marketplace against the cost of the bill is not a sweet deal. That’s a heavy burden. It will mean less money spent on research in the next 10 years, and that’s not good. It’s going to be a heavy price. And we’re going to indeed have some real difficulty with some companies.

WERTHEIMER: Do you think that you can keep it at that level? Do you think it’ll go up? The leadership in Congress has suggested that maybe you're not thinking about doing enough.

Mr. TAUZIN: Well, I just explained to you why I think we’re doing more than enough. We’re doing a lot more than some of the other sectors proportionately. Yeah, everybody thinks we’re 50, 70 percent of the health care spending. We’re not. We’re 8 percent. The reason they think it’s higher is because of the high co-pays. If every time you had to pull money out of your pocket to buy a medicine - when your Blue Cross covers your hospital - you think it must be medicine’s driving the cost of health care. It’s not.

If you took all the profits away from all the pharmaceutical companies in America, all of them, every bit, so there’d be no more money for research, no more money for investors, you’d end up with a one-and-a-half percent reduction in health care costs. It’s not the big pocket of money people think it is. . ."


edit: fix link (hopefully)

[jeanpalmer]

21. Looks like no drugs from Canada

"If conservatives fail to kill change, they will try to sabotage it to their political advantage by making its failure a self-fulfilling prophecy. Industry lobbyists are supporting them, but have in mind to make as much money on a sabotaged program as they can, making sure change actually funnels more money to them. The Senate's version of the bill, for example, guarantees pharmaceutical companies 12 years before a drug goes generic, and will disallow people from purchasing drugs from Canada while disallowing the government from negotiating Medicare drug prices."

http://www.examiner.com/x-12581-St-Louis-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m7d22-Health-care-part-1-quality-not-worth-the-price

[slipslidingaway]

14. knr ....

CREW V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (WHITE HOUSE VISITOR LOGS - HEALTH CARE EXECS)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6227387&mesg_id=6227387

[MarjorieG]

15. Not sure about the fine print, making separate legislation later to negotiate. Obama wouldn't sign

onto a deal that doesn't have to prove itself long term. I think the efort was to get something difficult through, first, tinker later.

Not secret, as I remember a press conference about this.

[flyarm]

25. oh please! Alot of these big Pharma in this country if ours are foreign Corps!

they soak us, while sending cheap drugs home to their own countries, while using subsidies from our tax dollars!

Wake the hell up!

[Stuart G]

17. Announcing anything Friday night is questionable..

Saturday is a very low day for reporting news. Very little interest on Sat. Why announce this now?

[slipslidingaway]

20. Obama gives powerful drug lobby a seat at healthcare table

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-pharma4-2009aug04,0,4078424,full.story

"...At the same time, Tauzin said the industry he represents was offering political and financial support for the president's healthcare initiative, a remarkable shift considering that drug companies vigorously opposed a national overhaul the last time it was proposed, when Bill Clinton was president...

The benefits to the White House go beyond budget savings. Tauzin's trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, is helping to underwrite a multimillion-dollar TV advertising campaign touting comprehensive healthcare legislation.

One ad resurrects Harry and Louise, the fictional couple whose caustic kitchen-table comments in ads sponsored by the health insurance industry helped sink Clinton's plan in 1994. This time, with the drug companies paying the bill, Harry and Louise have changed their view...

Tauzin, a Democrat who helped found the conservative Blue Dog coalition in the House before switching to the Republican Party in 1995, was chairman of the House committee that helped shepherd Medicare drug legislation through Congress, including the provision that the government not interfere with price negotiations..."


AHIP also is running commercials in support of health care reform...insurance companies will cover pre-existing conditions if there is a mandate that everyone purchase insurance.

:(

[nightrain]

23. Obama (and Congress) make deals with insurance corporations and drug makers because they

won't confront them on their obscene profits and policies. And they like the contributions from the insurance corporations and drug makers. Fear.

[flyarm]

24. Big Pharma is running commericals pro Obamacare in the Philly -So NJ area..

Yes big Pharma is paying for the commercials..promoting Obama's Reform Plan..what that plan is ..I don't know..but it is a commercial with a man and woman and it is opposite of what the Harry and Louise commercials were.

I keep asking..why is Big Pharma paying for these commercials????

and I Get no answers.

[slipslidingaway]

26. AHIP is also running commercials supporting health care reform...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R36YJl8SagU

"...If everyone is covered..."

A nice way to say mandate.

:(

They talk about the commercials in this Bill Moyers' piece.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07242009/watch.html

Good on you for asking!

[nightrain]

28. consider how many new customers the drug makers will have

if health care insurance is mandated. Consider how drug makers have refused to negotiate on prices, or cheaper re-importation. Is this a good deal for them? Yes? Is this a good deal for Americans? No.

Drug makers have also gotten an extension on the time limit on generics coming to the market.

[flyarm]

27. White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

August 6, 2009
White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

snip:
A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.


snip:

The new attention to the agreement could prove embarrassing to the White House, which has sought to keep lobbyists at a distance, including by refusing to hire them to work in the administration.

The White House commitment to the deal with the drug industry may also irk some of the administration’s Congressional allies who have an eye on drug companies’ profits as they search for ways to pay for the $1 trillion cost of the health legislation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?sq=tauzin&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print





pssssssssssssss........snip:

But failing to publicly confirm Mr. Tauzin’s descriptions of the deal risked alienating a powerful industry ally currently helping to bankroll millions in television commercials in favor of Mr. Obama’s reforms.