Do you believe the Administration is on the take as Cenk Uygur claims?

[ProSense]

Video: Obama Pharma Deal


If so, why would you be expecting them to fight?

Why aren't you calling for an investigation?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC_SKP]

103. OMG. That is the most disgusting picture, you can't post that here, FFS.

You're sick. Get help.

[Lorien]

182. Picture? I was the first person responding to this thread and I didn't post a picture

I said "Yes. And I would still like to know who you (the OP) work for. Are you with the DLC or another special interest group? Are you posting on DU professionally?" And my post was deleted. What's disgusting or sick about the question? I think that we all have the right to know if we're dealing with someone who is working for a particular agency or group pushing a pro-corporate agenda.

Now watch this post get deleted.

[ihavenobias]

184. Agreed.

It was publicly announced that I was recently hired by TYT and that Cenk is my boss. There have even been TYT videos I've been in posted in the video section (videos that also include my full name), and many DUers refer to my first name publicly.

I don't expect everyone share their private information, but when it comes to vested interests, yes, that's critical. Maybe there is no "right" for us to know, but it's hard to take someone seriously if they refuse to at least generically acknowledge factors that could (or do) influence the content they post. And hey, I'm sure a fair amount of people take me with a grain of salt with regard to what I say about my show and my boss and I understand (even though I've publicly disagreed with Cenk on issues such as tax rates, Reagan, trade, etc.).

[Bluenorthwest]

190. An excellent question

And one that the OP is too shame filled to respond to.

[NYC_SKP]

197. A DU member posts positive and well resourced commentary about our president...

...and is accused of being a paid insider.

Yes, that paints an ugly picture.

I don't know why it's not ever considered that the consistently negative posters aren't paid teabaggers, which seems far more likely.

:shrug:

[lamp_shade]

2. No!.... fercrissake.

[ProSense]

6. But you don't understand

This is constructive criticism. It's what progressives do. This isn't the same as not supporting the President, it's meant to help the President. We're not sheep. We're not into heroes. Accusing the Administration of being on the take is our civic duty.

[impik]

They're idiots. They don't have one f***** proof

They're as bad as the Teabaggers from the Right. Both determined to take this president down.

[ihavenobias]

47. Here are the sources for the claims in the video.

http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/02/12/the-legac... /

Now you debunk them with equally credible, non-partisan sources. Or just make generic, unsupported insults because the facts contradict your hopes and wishes, it's up to you.

[slipslidingaway]

53. Thanks! n/t

[theFrankFactor]

128. This is the Shit Tommy!

This is what it's about man, knocking the thumbs out of mouths.

Cenk is brave in a nation of ideological cowards and sycophants. I salute him!

Some people won't refute anything of substance BECAUSE THEY CAN'T! They're "feel good" types.

[olegramps]

199. Is difficult for some to admit that they bought a pig in a poke.

While there are many good aspects of the present bills, they fall far short of the essential reforms that are necessary. These include affordable insurance for all citizens, repeal of the pharma anti-trust status and negotiable pricing of drugs by Medicare. I believe that most informed citizens are of the opinion that they have been sold out. If President Obama wanted to make a statement he would tell congress that the bills are unacceptable and that he will veto them in the interest of the protecting the citizens for inadequate and harmful legislation.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

213. Here's the thing....

When it comes to Health Care, there are two accomplices to the Fleecing of America. The insurance companies that make a fortune by denying care and the pharmaceutical industry that makes a fortune by over-charging for medicine that sells for a fraction of the cost in other countries.

As with any other criminal conspiracy, one effective way to bring the parties to justice is to get one accomplice to turn state's evidence or to "roll over" on the other party. In this case, the Obama Administration cut a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to roll over on the insurance companies. Help us get this reform passed, and we'll leave you alone to count your money.

Is it despicable? No more so any other plea bargain any prosecutor has ever made with any other criminal.

Is it worth it? Not sure. If we could get a genuine Public Option, the likes of which would eventually drive the insurance companies out of the health insurance business altogether, it would be be worth it to give the pharmaceutical companies a few years of shameful profits. But a weak reform effort isn't worth it. And since it appears there might be NO reform effort this year, that means the Big Pharma isn't out of the woods yet.

[suzie]

205. It's difficult to tell who is from the Left and who is from the Right around here.

They sound so much the same.

[gulfcoastliberal]

198. Too bad that civic duty doesn't include investigating the possible crimes of the Bush administration

I'm confused why that is.

[Junkdrawer]

3. Yes. n/t

[ProSense]

7. Yes, what? There are

three questions, including:

If so, why would you be expecting them to fight?

Why aren't you calling for an investigation?

[Junkdrawer]

8. 1. Yes 2. I don't 3. Who would do the investigation?

Like the 9/11 Commission? Like IOC saying there was nothing wrong with the luge track?

:rofl:

[ProSense]

9. Summary:

I'm just like complaining.

[asdjrocky]

4. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

Just like they are on the take for the banks and the insurance industry.

[Turbineguy]

5. The perceived landscape to a candidate is different

than reality to an office holder.

The fact is right now, the system has evolved to a for-profit pharmaceuticals research model. It cannot be taken down over night. It has to evolve away or become different. It is an enormous machine and part of the overarching medical establishment that has become a significant economic force. A significant economic force cannot suddenly stop or change directions without terrible dislocations. We just went through a near-collapse of the economy. If anything, the health care industry is one of the stable aspects of what we have today.

This isn't to say that it is a good thing. It is obviously not. It needs a lot of repair. But changes have to take place gradually to allow the larger system to incorporate the change without creating instability. Even people in the health care industry (those who actually know about health care, not the marketing and finance people) know it needs fixing.

[rug]

10. You're right. I call for an investigation of the OP.

[yurbud]

11. as Obama himself has said, corruption has been legalized

if you can take campaign contributions from someone, write legislation to their liking, and later take a top job with their company as an exec, board member or lobbyist, and all of that is legal, it is difficult to accuse any pol of technically illegal corruption, but nearly all are guilty of legal corruption.

[slipslidingaway]

12. How do you explain the disconnect between the October 2008 speech by...

Candidate Obama, his detailed HC plan, including the negotiation of drug prices for Medicare and the deal he made with Pharma???

October 2008 Newport News speech

http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/releases.asp?file=Obama-Speeches.ask&dn=Health%20Care

"Enough is Enough" said candidate Obama, but just months later he ignored what was spelled out in his detailed HC plan and made a deal with the Pharmaceutical lobbyist Bill Tauzin.

:shrug:

"And we are tired of watching as year after year, candidates offer up detailed health care plans with great fanfare and promise, only to see them crushed under the weight of Washington politics and drug and insurance lobbying once the campaign is over..."


http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

"Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices.

The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers.32 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion,33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality..."


White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1

"...In an interview on Wednesday, Representative Raul M. Grijalva, the Arizona Democrat who is co-chairman of the House progressive caucus, called Mr. Tauzin’s comments “disturbing.”

“We have all been focused on the debate in Congress, but perhaps the deal has already been cut,” Mr. Grijalva said. “That would put us in the untenable position of trying to scuttle it.”

He added: “It is a pivotal issue not just about health care. Are industry groups going to be the ones at the table who get the first big piece of the pie and we just fight over the crust?” ..."

[Jakes Progress]

15. They don't explain; they complain

when you point out problems.

[slipslidingaway]

19. Yup, complain, ignore and confuse the issues...

the poster has been ignoring this issue for months.

[ProSense]

22. "the poster has been ignoring this issue for months." No, you've just been repeating this for months

It's as if you believe doing so makes the nonsense you keep repeating valid.

[slipslidingaway]

49. First people denied there was a deal when Tauzin started speaking...

about the details.

When Senator Carper talked about it back in September people tried to ignore the issue, I'm glad that more people are catching on to this deal to sell out the promise of allowing Medicare to negotiate prices.

[laughingliberal]

155. Yep. Tauzin pretty much spilled it when it looked as if the amount might get changed at one point.

Of course, there were those of us when Obama came out with his big announcement that PhRMA had agreed to put $80 billion over 10 years on the table who were calling foul then. $80 billion over 10 years is an insult considering that Medicare part D enriched them by $800 billion that was never paid for. No matter how much the evidence pointed to the fact that Obama cut this deal with PhRMA and put Baucus in charge of protecting it, there were those who refused to believe it. I think the PhRMA deal is old news, now. What I want to know is what he promised Karen Ignagni. I'm pretty sure it was that the public option would not survive but, so far, she has not spilled the beans.

[slipslidingaway]

178. What was promised to Karen Ignagni, thinking the individual mandate and

could very well be no or a weak public option.

Anyone who called foul on the Pharma deal at the time just wanted a pony.

:)

Although it may be old news to many people who have followed along, others who do not pay close attention have no idea. When we hear talk about entitlement spending running up the deficit, we should know who cut the deal on not pushing for Medicare to negotiate prices.

[laughingliberal]

180. It's pretty obvious that was the agreement with her

Mandates with weak or no public option. I suspect no public option was the promise and that Lieberman was called into faithful service to kill the last vestige of it.

The PhRMA deal was pretty obvious when Obama announced the big concession PhRMA made to put $80 billion back on the table over 10 years. I thought, "that's all?" After passing an $800 billion give away to them in Medicare part D, that's all we're going to try to recoup? It's infuriating. We could recoup a whole lot of that money if we just passed an honest bill that gave Medicare the same negotiating power that VA already has. And we would not have so much to fear from the vultures who are going behind closed doors to gut Medicare and Social Security.

I think you nailed it.

[slipslidingaway]

215. I think you nailed it...

"...Mandates with weak or no public option. I suspect no public option was the promise and that Lieberman was called into faithful service to kill the last vestige of it..."


And this is exactly what was in the Obama plan, but people are supposed to forget it, especially because most of the liberal media does not report on this item.

"...We could recoup a whole lot of that money if we just passed an honest bill that gave Medicare the same negotiating power that VA already has..."


You would think if entitlement spending is such a big issue in the future, then having Medicare negotiate drug prices for all those coming boomers would be important.

:shrug:

[Enthusiast]

195. Anyone that called foul

on the pharma deal was a wild eyed liberal (that also wanted a pony).

[slipslidingaway]

216. They sure were and still are :( n/t

[paulk]

100. delete

[theFrankFactor]

137. You refuse to answer with cridible facts and blame the shelf life of the question? Really?

You really consider that an answer? Really?

[ProSense]

24. Also, in case you

missed it.

[slipslidingaway]

51. Saw it and responded, but you continue to ignore the promise...

of allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

[ProSense]

17. What disconnect?

From your post: " Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion,33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality..."

They negotiated a savings of $80 billion.

And, and they're closing the doughnut hole, another $500 billion in savings.

[impik]

26. Oh, enough with the facts. Make up a "devastating" bullshit video

And then we'll talk.

[slipslidingaway]

60. You need to back up your BS video claim with links that refute what is mentioned...

in the article Cenk talks about, then someone might think you are a credible poster.

Until then, it is just BS.

[slipslidingaway]

45. Under the deal cut with Pharma, Medicare will NOT be able to negotiate

drug prices. Mentioned in their HC plan is a study that says savings of up to 35 billion a year are possible, although the HC plan only mentioned the first number cited in the study of 30 billion per year.


"They negotiated a savings of $80 billion."

So we should be thrilled that instead of fighting for their HC plan they made a deal for far less money???


"And, and they're closing the doughnut hole, another $500 billion in savings."

I asked you in the other thread to post links, the post in which you said Cenk was confusing the issues of Medicare D and the Pharma deal.

[laughingliberal]

156. "you said Cenk was confusing the issues of Medicare D and the Pharma deal."

Amazing, isn't it? The PhRMA deal was all about Medicare part D. It was agreed if they would put that chump change of $8 billion a year for 10 years back on the table, there would not be a change to allow Medicare to negotiate prices for drugs. But it falls on deaf ears.

[slipslidingaway]

101. Crickets again...

Under the deal cut with Pharma, Medicare will NOT be able to negotiate
drug prices. Mentioned in their HC plan is a study that says savings of up to 35 billion a year are possible, although the HC plan only mentioned the first number cited in the study of 30 billion per year.


"They negotiated a savings of $80 billion."

So we should be thrilled that instead of fighting for their HC plan they made a deal for far less money???


"And, and they're closing the doughnut hole, another $500 billion in savings."

I asked you in the other thread to post links, the post in which you said Cenk was confusing the issues of Medicare D and the Pharma deal.

[laughingliberal]

188. Not, not closing the donut hole.

The $80 billion over 10 years (oh, woo hoo) is to pay 1/2 the costs of brand name medications for those in the donut hole. They could, likely, save more by just buying generics out of pocket. But this has the added benefit for the drug companies of requiring the use of brand name drugs.

[saracat]

13. Do you belive Cenk Hates Obama? and has nothing better to do than bash the Admin?

for no substantive reason?

[asdjrocky]

16. Shhhh.

You're making sense! :hi:

[ProSense]

18. Frankly, I believe Cenk is reverting to his Republican roots

he really doesn't give a shit if the administration fails. He's all about hyping his show.

[saracat]

25. But anyone hyping politcal personalities to promote themselves is alright as long as it is the one

you promote? Geeze. Whether the Admin fails or not is up to whatever policy they implement, not an internet talk show host.If the prez hadn't coddled Tauzin, it couldn't have been talked about!

[ProSense]

29. You equate hyping "politcal personalities" with accusing someone of being on the take

to hype a show?

Figures.

[saracat]

34. My point was that if cenk was lauding Obama or anyone else you support because it

might promote his show, you wouldn't have a problem with it. I sawe no complaints when Cenk DID promote Obama. All I am saying is none of this equates to "hate".

[ProSense]

36. No, your point is justifying accusing the administration of being on the take n/t

[saracat]

48. You don't say anything to disprove any of Cenk's assertions.

What about Bacchus? what about Messina ? What about Rahm? And lets not forget Zeke.And I guess you don't have a problem with Axelrod and the 2 mill? All of this is just coincidence? And what about that "ending the game" promised by Candidate Obama? Clearly no attempt has been made to do that. I don't expect any of this over night but i think what irks Cenk and certainly irks me is that no "ATTEMPT" has been made to end the game. None of this is "hatred" but a very real level of frustration that we have continued the same game, and it only grows worse.

[ProSense]

57. "What about Bacchus? "

Is he a member of the administration?

[saracat]

62. Is Messina? Is Axelrod? is Rahm? Why don't you address Cenk's claims

with substance? Do you have no problem with the 2 mill of Axelrod? I guess either you can't directly disprove Cenk or you think its all fine!

[ProSense]

64. When Cenk ignores the $500 billion in cuts to Pharma and insurance companies

he's being completely disingenuous.

[saracat]

67. And yet its ok for you to refuse to address anything he says!

I repeat, what is it about Axelrod and the 2 mill you approve of?What isd it about Messina and BNacchus? What is it about continuing to play the game? You just refuse to address the concerns he raised.You are repeating a catch phrase like a robot.

[laughingliberal]

158. I've asked before and I'll ask again.

Please provide a copy of the portion of the Senate bill where you see any cuts to payments to PhRMA beyond the $80 billion over 10 years. Cause I've been through that bill with a fine toothed comb and I've seen nothing.

[laughingliberal]

192. He ignores $500 billion in cuts to PhRMA & insurance companies cause they don't exist

and people who have read the bill know this.

There are $177 billion in cuts to MA subsidies and $80 billion in 'savings' from PhRMA over 10 years. Period. Tauzin spilled the deal when it looked as if the bill would get amended in conference to raise the 'savings' from PhRMA to $100 billion over 10 years. I use the term 'savings' lightly as the drug companies have already, since the bill was written, raised their prices more than enough to recoup those 'savings.'

Again, talking points from someone who has not read the bill and can not point to any language in the bill that supports the spin.

[olegramps]

202. Are you that blindly loyal that you can't at least acknowledge the facts of the matter?

It appears that Obama cut a deal with the drug companies that isn't working out to the citizens" advantage. They said okay if you don't force negotiated prices then we will cut the cost of drugs over a ten year period. Just admit it. He appears to have been taken for a ride and then the pharmaceutical companies increased the prices by nearly 10% last year.

[laughingliberal]

157. They keep saying that about Ariana, too but I've seen her bashing the pubs pretty good, lately

not everyone who objects to something the administration does is becoming a Republican. I'm not sure it is the job of any journalist to care about the success or failure of an administration. Their job is to report the facts. Not too many who stick to that, anymore, but it is the job description.

[impik]

23. As a matter of fact, yes. He hates him. It's been going on

for a year now.

[saracat]

27. Gee, folks said that about Rachel when she didn't agree and Olberman too! Helen Thomas

What about Al Franken?Does he "hate" the president? He said the president didn't display any leadership ability.it is p[possible to criticize Administration policy without "hating" the president. Some folks disagree with the presidents actions some of the time. Others (I am talking about Democrats specifically) don't like many things he does.That doesn't mean the "hate " him. It mostly means they don't like how he is effecting policy.

[ihavenobias]

42. How many examples should I post that directly contradict your claim?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOeL1G0JLVo|Rep. Bachmann's Letter Inciting Violence Against President Obama>





I could do this all day, but I've made my point, and anyone even vaguely familiar with the show already knows how foolish your attack is. I'm also amused by the idea that he's 'reverting to his Republican ways'. I think there are at least 2-3 clips a day (from the 3 hour show, out of which many more clips could be made) that directly and irrefutably contradict this absurd, baseless notion. Here's an obvious, recent example:




PS---Cenk didn't randomly make up facts for his video, everything was compiled by http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/02/12/the-legacy-of-billy-tauzin-the-white-house-phrma-deal|a non-partisan source>. If you have your own non-partisan/unbiased sources that carefully debunk each claim, we'd all love to see them.

[saracat]

50. Bravo! Wonderful response. And true.

[ProSense]

56. Hyping his show, but proves nothing

Cenk Uygur: "Jane Hamsher & Grover Norquist Are Right"

[Cha]

63. Fuck hamsher and grover and fuck cenk

for being so stupid as to ask if the President is on the take:silly:

Can't he make his points without being so hysterical? I've put up with a lot of his negative crap bc he does point out the glaring republicon lies..but, I'm done with cenk.

Over.

[saracat]

72. How mature. A real fact based debate.I guess you don't know anything about Axelrod or Messina either

[Jakes Progress]

113. Well with what they've got to work with

they can't use facts or logic or truth. All they have left is to yell "fuck you". Mature or not, it's all they got.

[ihavenobias]

68. The Bottom Line On This Issue

It's already been established that Cenk criticizes the administration and pressures it from the left. I won't and wouldn't want to argue that, and I'm quite glad he does it. The point is that he defends and praises the administration when the facts dictate it makes sense to do so. I've provided a handful of (countless) examples in a matter of minutes, but you ignore them intentionally.

The Bottom Line: You can't argue any of this based on the facts. You don't like what Cenk is saying (i.e. the facts he's presenting in his particular style, the style is a preference some like and some dislike, fair enough), but you can't address it, so you resort to personal attacks and trying to undermine his credibility by making a poorly thought out, unsupported claim that his criticisms are based on wanting to 'hype the show'. That strategy is incredibly dishonest and unproductive, and if that's all you have to offer, I have nothing more to say. I mean, you could have posted a thoughtful thread that carefully breaks down each of Cenk's (sourced) claims, but you didn't. You purposely posted a thread with zero substance and a provocative title to try and get more support in bashing TYT.

[saracat]

73. And the "support' for this position that arrives is juvenile name calling and lacking in substance.

I repeatedly asked that the issues be addressed and get "crickets" because Cenk actually spoke factually backed up by substance. It wasn't just heated rhetoric.

[tledford]

108. Bingo. eom

[saracat]

71. All that proves is that he doesn't ALWAYS walk in lockstep.

it doesn't prove "hate" or anything else.It certainly doesn't obliberate all the support he gave to Obama.the only "hate" I see if for those who dare to disagree and oddly it gets worse when it it directed at those who supported Obama but now dare to question. Funny how that was always considered a GOP trait.Democrats always used to question and were proud of it.

[laughingliberal]

159. They were right

The deal they said Rahm and the administration were cutting to expand the funds to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae before the end of the year to avoid the need for Congressional approval was announced Christmas Eve.

BTW, did you disagree with Norquist when he said this?:

Grover Norquist, a principal organizer of the conservative movement who is close to the Bush White House and usually supports its policies, says, "If you interpret the Constitution's saying that the president is commander in chief to mean that the president can do anything he wants and can ignore the laws you don't have a constitution: you have a king." He adds, "They're not trying to change the law; they're saying that they're above the law and in the case of the NSA wiretaps they break it." A few members of Congress recognize the implications of what Bush is doing and are willing to speak openly about it. Dianne Feinstein, Democratic senator from California, talks of a "very broad effort" being made "to increase the power of the executive."



http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19092

Killing the messenger is a debate technique that would not fly in high school debate class and it doesn't work, now. The way to avoid getting called out by scumbags is to not do anything to be called out for.

[20score]

107. Good response. And strangely enough, this divide on the left can be attributed

to Obama's leadership. When a leader does the wrong thing, it divides the country/party or group.

Sucks.

[theFrankFactor]

126. Barack the Inaction Man and the Children Who Love Him At All Costs

Blind infatuation not unlike the defenders of the last President we had. This administration STINKS of corporate butt sucking. Progress is made by those who focus on results not rhetoric and tear inducing speeches.

Cenk is right on and I only hope he remains brave enough to push over these tin soldiers of the eternal sunshine of the bull shit.

[freddie mertz]

110. No. That would be silly.

[Jester Messiah]

14. No. Got any more foolish queries? [nt]

[Change Happens]

20. No, I don't.................nt

[butterfly77]

21. No..

I think he just wants his republiCONS back in power..

[ihavenobias]

44. How many examples should I post that directly contradict your claim?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOeL1G0JLVo|Rep. Bachmann's Letter Inciting Violence Against President Obama>





I could do this all day, but I've made my point, and anyone even vaguely familiar with the show already knows how foolish your attack is. I'm also amused by the idea that he's 'reverting to his Republican ways'. I think there are at least 2-3 clips a day (from the 3 hour show, out of which many more clips could be made) that directly and irrefutably contradict this absurd, baseless notion. Here's an obvious, recent example:

[butterfly77]

65. I was waiting for you...

[paulk]

105. if you were waiting

then perhaps you have a reply ready to his argument?

I'd sure like to hear it....

[butterfly77]

106. My No.. was sufficent...

[paulk]

132. maybe in your eyes

I think it damages your credibility when you refuse (or can't) back up what you say

[FrenchieCat]

28. I like Cenk Uygur....

I just don't buy what he is selling.

I expect that to be an acceptable position on my part. :shrug:

[ipaint]

30. Yes.

"Because of Obama’s decision to develop a plan operating through the legislative process, members of Congress also played key roles. Early on, the pharmaceutical companies were told to deal directly with Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus. Baucus would be the vehicle for the deal worked out behind the scenes by the White House and PhRMA.

Central to this effort was PhRMA president, CEO and top lobbyist Billy Tauzin, a longtime Democratic member of Congress who switched party affiliations after Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994. By switching parties Tauzin was able to maintain his influence and even rose to be Chairman of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Tauzin became the poster child of Washington’s mercenary culture. He crafted a bill to provide prescription drug access to Medicare recipients, one that provided major concessions to the pharmaceutical industry. Medicare would not be able to negotiate for lower prescription drug costs and reimportation of drugs from first world countries would not be allowed. A few months after the bill passed, Tauzin announced that he was retiring from Congress and would be taking a job helming PhRMA for a salary of $2 million.

Tauzin’s job change became fodder for a campaign ad that then presidential candidate Barack Obama ran in the spring of 2008 simply titled “Billy.” It featured the candidate, sleeves rolled up, talking to a salon of gasping Americans about the ways of Washington. “The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies. And you know what, the chairman of the committee, who pushed the law through, went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year.” The screen fades to black to inform the viewer that, “Barack Obama is the only candidate who refuses Washington lobbyist money,” while the candidate continues his lecture, “Imagine that. That’s an example of the same old game playing in Washington. You know, I don’t want to learn how to play the game better, I want to put an end to the game playing.”

snip

"On April 15, Jim Messina and Jon Selib, chief of staff to Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, convened a meeting at the headquarters of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) with leaders of organized labor and health care groups, including PhRMA. At the meeting, the groups decided to form two nonprofit entities to promote reform efforts, Healthy Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality Care, that would be almost entirely funded by PhRMA. The two groups spent $24 million on their advertising campaigns; the contract to produce and place ads went to White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod’s former firm, AKPD, which owed Axelrod $2 million."

http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/02/12/the-legacy-of-billy-tauzin-the-white-house-phrma-deal/

Business as usual in Washington. Lie to get elected and then play the game.

[ProSense]

33. Ridiculous. Here is how that ends

In the end, the pharmaceutical industry’s support for health care reform would be left up in the air. After spending $100 million in advertising in support of legislation that Tauzin and key executives hoped would be a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry, the legislative process had flat-lined. In February, the board of PhRMA, split over the deal cut by Tauzin, pushed Tauzin to resign his post.

In an interview with Diane Sawyer, President Obama owed up to failures in the process of passing health care reform, “(T)he health care debate as it unfolded legitimately raised concerns not just among my opponents, but also amongst supporters that we just don’t know what’s going on … And it’s an ugly process and it looks like there are a bunch of back room deals.”

It's simply a rehash of everything that everyone already knew. Cenk made sure to embellish it with his own bogus innuendo.

[ipaint]

35. Actually it ends with no closing of the donut hole in the senate bill.

Just like PHRMA wanted.

[ProSense]

39. Keep repeating that distortion. n/t

[ipaint]

43. Actually that's the truth.

A distortion is something you are wrong about, can't prove but still want to leave the impression you are correct.

Either that or pelosi needs to be told she doesn't have to include closing the donut hole thru reconciliation in order to fix the senate bill which doesn't include it.

[ProSense]

55. Actually,

it's not:

Democrats say the bill will improve the nation's health and economy by making insurance available to 31 million Americans who do not have it and by preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions. It also allows young adults to remain on their parents' insurance policies until age 26, and it addresses the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare that forces seniors who have prescription drug costs of more than $2,700 a year to pay the full amount until the tab reaches $6,154.

more

[CherylK]

59. LOL!!!

"Democrats say"? Why don't we ask McDonald's if the Big Mac tastes better than the Whopper! While we're at it let's ask Republicans if Obama is a good president, or ask them what "they say" the healthcare bill will do to get another useless answer! And your quote is from December 24th!!!

:crazy: :wtf: :dunce:

[ProSense]

61. Don't be obtuse.

The bill closes the doughnut hole.

"And your quote is from December 24th!!!"

Yes, it's an article about the bill passing.

Deal with reality.

[ipaint]

66. Then why does pelosi have to fix the senate bill.

From Feb 9th.

"This morning, during a panel discussion at the Academy Health National Health Policy Conference, a top Pelosi policy aide said that the reconciliation process was “the only way” for Democrats to salvage health reform in the aftermath of the Massachusetts election. “There is only one way to get it done at this stage of the game and that’s a process that the Speaker has outlined,” Wendell Primus, Pelosi’s legislative director said. Congress would have to pass the Senate health care bill alongside a package of fixes using reconciliation.

“The House would have to take up that first because it would involve revenue changes and then the Senate would pass it and then I think hopefully with the passing of that legislation, the House, only then would take up the Senate bill and pass it.”

“The trick in all of this is that the President would have to sign the Senate bill first and then the reconciliation bill would be signed second and the parts of the reconciliation bill that trump the relevant portions of the first signed bill.” “You would really have to use the fact that a later enacted bill takes precedent over a previously enacted bill to achieve the right outcome.” Primus added. He predicted that the reconciliation package of fixes would have to increase the threshold on the Cadillac tax, include more affordability credits, close the donut hole in the Medicare Part D drug benefit, and eliminate the Cornhusker Kickback."

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/09/top-pelosi-aide-says-reconciliation/

Did no one tell her the senate bill is closing it and she is making a huge mistake. Why don't you email her and let her know.

[ihavenobias]

69. +1 n/t

[laughingliberal]

161. The bill does not close the donut hole

The bill cover 1/2 the price of brand name drugs for patients in the donut hole. That is what the $80 billion over 10 years was put on the table for. Most people would probably save more by just buying the generic drug out of pocket. It was a non savings to us in return for protecting the drug companies.

There's the reality.

[laughingliberal]

162. +1000 same old talking points from people who I don't think have read the bill

and, likely, would not understand it if they did.

[laughingliberal]

160. There is nothing in your snippet above that refutes in any way the story

You have some talking points there which are meaningless (31 million with health insurance they may or may not be able to afford to use, big loopholes in that business about not being able to deny preexisting conditions, a loophole to allow rescissions to continue).

"Addressing the donut hole..." That is what the deal with PhRMA agreed to. $80 billion over 10 years to cover 1/2 the cost to the patients in the donut hole. Measly and inadequate when Medicare has the largest buying power in the world and it remains, in the Senate bill, illegal for them to use their buying power to lower the cost of drugs to the program or to patients beyond the 1/2 the cost in the donut hole. And, btw, it only saves those patient 1/2 the cost for brand name drugs. Generics would, in a lot of cases, save more than 1/2 the cost of the brand name drugs so this was a nice gift put in for the drug companies to encourage people to choose the more expensive option.

The talking points are meaningless to me, having studied the bill in detail. If you find something in the bill which supports your claims, feel free to link to it or copy it.

[vegiegals]

37. I do not think all knew. I hope the video gets around.

[theFrankFactor]

139. Source if your interested...

http://shearlingsplowed.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-on-tauzins-ouster-from-sunlight.html

[democracy1st]

31. Yes , "Yes We Can" turned into "No We Can't"

[IndianaGreen]

32. Do you now admit that they indeed made a deal with PhRMA?

Do you now admit that the PhRMA deal was why Democrats in Congress, at request of White House, voted against a bill that would have allowed the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada?

Our entire political system is corrupt to the core!

[laughingliberal]

171. :crickets: nt

[vaberella]

38. Well I have a few problems with it. I don't see why Obama would support the Snowe plan...

for overseas drugs if he agreed to this deal with Pharma, basically it would stick it to Pharma in the worst way because Indian and European drug generics would enter the marke making it cheaper for US citizens to buy drugs at cheaper prices.

It doesn't make any sense why Obama is pushing health care reform and why these same people along with insurance companies are against Obama's health care plan.

[ipaint]

83. No it wouldn't stick it PHRMA.

They lobbied hard for no re-importation. They got what they paid for.

[vaberella]

94. Post # 75, which I'm sure whether you read or not.

I don't know how I need to say that. If there was a deal made the support of that bill would have destroyed said deal which was a public support.

[laughingliberal]

172. post # 165 addresses post # 75. nt

[vaberella]

40. And Cenk utterly lied on the drug reimportation plan. That is utterly false!

At that point I disregarded his statements before and after. Because that statement is utterly and basically false.

[CherylK]

46. Source?

So far it looks like Cenk is the only one that has any substance behind what he's saying. This thread is just stupid bashing, no refutation of any claims backed up by anything!

:wtf:

[saracat]

52. Exactly.

[vaberella]

77. Post# 75. n/t

[CherylK]

85. Except that drug prices already increased 9% and cancelled out the so called savings!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/business/16drugprices.html

"But the drug makers have been proudly citing the agreement they reached with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee chairman to trim $8 billion a year — $80 billion over 10 years — from the nation’s drug bill by giving rebates to older Americans and the government. That provision is likely to be part of the legislation that will reach the Senate floor in coming weeks.

But this year’s price increases would effectively cancel out the savings from at least the first year of the Senate Finance agreement. And some critics say the surge in drug prices could change the dynamics of the entire 10-year deal.

“It makes it much easier for the drug companies to pony up the $80 billion because they’ll be making more money,” said Steven D. Findlay, senior health care analyst with the advocacy group Consumers Union."

[vaberella]

93. Please stop feeding me the same post that has nothing to do with what I posted.

I have no idea what's in the "deal" that was struck with Pharma and neither do you. I'm going by the topic at hand which was whether Obama supported the drug reimportattion/importation bill/amendment submitted by Dorgan, Snowe, et al. I provided the proof that the president supported it and unfortunately I don't have the tape that was c-span where he publicly reiterated his support for the bill.

[laughingliberal]

163. Obama most definitely did not support the reimportation amendment when it came to the Senate floor

Dorgan had the votes for that amendment and it was at the request of the White House that Reid delayed bringing it to the floor when it was originally to have come up. By the time Reid brought it to the floor several key Senators who had been on board had, mysteriously, changed their minds. Dorgan was very pissed off at the White House about it.

[laughingliberal]

174. Post # 165 nt

[asdjrocky]

54. +1000000000000000000

[vaberella]

78. Post# 75. n/t

[asdjrocky]

81. How 'bout this?

Don't tell me where to go, and I won't tell you where to go.

[vaberella]

86. Aye? You supported a post that demanded I produce the source. I did. n/t

[asdjrocky]

88. I've seen your "sources."

[vaberella]

91. Alright..these are articles and quotes directly from the mouths of the people involved.

I don't waste my time too much on unnamed sources, or secret santas...you can do that if you please. I'm going by the words coming out of their mouths and you can put that in quotes as much as you want but it won't change the fact that was what was said.

[olegramps]

203. Wasn't the White House contention that they were protecting the public?

It sounded like a excuse to withdrawn their support with some claim that foreign made drugs could be harmful. That was refuted by the fact that many of the drugs that are presently sold under license by American companies are actually made in several countries.

[laughingliberal]

165. Post # 75 is a link to 2 article which report the President says he still supports reimportation

It lists his objection to Dorgan's amendment when it came up for a vote as being, "safety concerns" which is a bogus red herring that was used to kill the amendment. It was a very slick way for the administration to get the amendment killed, protect their deal with Tauzin, and not leave their fingerprints on it. But Dorgan was furious with the White House and believed, without a doubt, the White House killed it.

[vegiegals]

194. Yes, slimly slick!!

[vaberella]

75. Here you go...I have no problems providing the source since I saw it with my own eyes.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/20/administration-obama-to-push-for-allowing-drug-re-importation/tab/article/

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/71387-obama-supports-re-importation-but-fda-doesnt

Unfortunately I can't find the video since I last saw it on c-span and then msnbc back in December. I wasn't even that much discussed on DU...except by a few of us. I was one of them.

[ipaint]

79. From your link.

"President Barack Obama still supports the re-importation of pharmaceuticals from other countries even though a deal he struck with the drug industry specifically excluded provisions on the controversial measure."


I'm sorry he can't have it both ways, that's juvenile.

[vaberella]

87. As a matter of fact. You and I don't know the details of the deal that was struck.

Most of the information is conjecture at best. We realize a deal was struck but the full elements makes no sense. Secondly, he said publicly, he announced it when it was brought up about the deal and why he would support the amendment---he said he supports any measure that brings down costs. And he finds that this will. We don't know if the measures in the deal struck didn't exclude this. In any event he supported it and went on record as supporting it.

[ipaint]

97. The deal makes perfect sense to me. The white house confirmed it after Tauzin announced it.

And if he supported it in words but omitted it in action, the action is what counts. That is what becomes law.

[vaberella]

What did I say?!

You don't know the details of the deal and neither do I. Secondly, I provided the proof that supports my original statement which you and others deny. Cenk was wrong when he stated that Obama did not support the Dorgan amendment. It was a lie and there was no concerted effort by the admin to stop the Dorgan. And that was the main point of my statement. You bring up all this other stuff that has nothing to do with my post.

I'm not getting into other things about the deal because as I said I don't know what was in it and going on in that avenue. My focus was on one key thing that to me ruined Cenk's credibility a bit and that was the fact that Obama did support the Dorgan amendment and so did his admin.

[ipaint]

102. We all know what the deal was in August.

White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: August 5, 2009

WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1

[vaberella]

111. Your post has NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, relation to my post now or originally. n/t

[olegramps]

204. You just posted that nobody knows the details of the deal....

[ipaint]

104. More on the deal from link above.

"Mr. Tauzin said the administration had approached him to negotiate. “They wanted a big player to come in and set the bar for everybody else,” he said. He said the White House had directed him to negotiate with Senator Max Baucus, the business-friendly Montana Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. “80 billion is the max, no more or less,” he said. “Adding other stuff changes the deal.”

After reaching an agreement with Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tauzin said, he met twice at the White House with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Mr. Messina, his deputy; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the aide overseeing the health care overhaul, to confirm the administration’s support for the terms."



All confirmed by Messina.

[vaberella]

116. Your post still doesn't prove that what Cenk said about Obama not supporting Dorgan is true.

Which I've stated many times and was the point of my post in no.41 (or so). Obama was shown to support Dorgan...end of story.

[laughingliberal]

164. The White House intervened to get Reid to delay the vote on Dorgan's amendment

At that time Dorgan had the 60 votes he needed. By the time the vote was brought to the floor several Senators had changed their minds. The articles you linked to showed the administration using the bogus talking points about wanting to make sure 'safety concerns' were addressed first. These are the same drugs used here all the time. There is not one set of drugs manufactured by a drug company for America and another set for other countries. It was a bogus, red herring thrown out when it was apparent Dorgan's amendment was on track to pass. There, I addressed post #75.

[laughingliberal]

166. See post # 165. nt

[olegramps]

206. Your credibility is slipping fast, I would suggest that you quit the issue.

[saracat]

189. Sen Dorgen himself said the WH had ordered the drug reimportation bill pulled

I guess he is lying too? It WAS his Bill!
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/17/csi-washington-who-killed-drug-imports/


There are several sets of fingerprints in the Senate chamber where (drug importation) legislation died, including some from the White House, says Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND). "They did not support this," and worked with Democratic Senate leaders to kill it in order to move the larger bill forward, he said in an interview. The amendment failed in the Senate Tuesday evening...
Dorgan said he can't get answers from the administration about what's going on, though he called the White House and FDA prior to the vote.

Last week, he said he heard rumors that the FDA was going to send a letter objecting to drug importation on safety grounds, which he has said is a bogus reason. He said he called FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, who said she knew nothing about such a letter.

He said his timeline shows that a letter, signed by Hamburg questioning the safety of drug imports, was sent 24 hours later to a few senators who opposed importation. That piece of paper became a rallying cry for other senators who voted down Dorgan's amendment.

"I think the letter was prompted, probably drafted somewhere else," like "the White House" Dorgan said.

The White House has not responded to repeated calls and emails. The FDA did not immediately comment.

[laughingliberal]

193. Oh, Saracat! There you go refuting perfectly good talking points with facts and logic!

Shameful! :sarcasm:


I am of the mind that this was the last straw for Dorgan who has worked to get help to working and middle class Americans. I think it is the reason he decided to retire-just tired of fighting against the tide.

[CherylK]

84. Except that drug prices already increased 9% and cancelled out the so called savings!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/business/16drugprices.html

"But the drug makers have been proudly citing the agreement they reached with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee chairman to trim $8 billion a year — $80 billion over 10 years — from the nation’s drug bill by giving rebates to older Americans and the government. That provision is likely to be part of the legislation that will reach the Senate floor in coming weeks.

But this year’s price increases would effectively cancel out the savings from at least the first year of the Senate Finance agreement. And some critics say the surge in drug prices could change the dynamics of the entire 10-year deal.

“It makes it much easier for the drug companies to pony up the $80 billion because they’ll be making more money,” said Steven D. Findlay, senior health care analyst with the advocacy group Consumers Union."

[vaberella]

90. I don't know what that has to do with my post.

The poster I was responding too asked me to provide sources where Obama supported the drug reimportation bill/amendment. That was the point of my post and that was what I did. However, the drug reimportant amendment would have been part of the overall health reform bill if it had garnered the votes. Unfortunately it lost the vote and mainly by a democratic push that had originally supported it---ie Menendez comes to mind. However, it's beens said in the articles I posted that Obama and Emmanuel (who pushed for it while in Congress) still supported it in this bill and unfortunately it didnt make it htrough. Not to mention the President publicly stated as much.

What your talking about would be in relation directly to whatever deal was made---which NONE of us know about. Some people are still saying there wasn't a deal. And most who say there was a deal has no facts to support what was in the deal that was made. No one has a clue and if they say they do they're lieing because I havne't seen any concrete knowledge telling me the ins and outs of said deal.

[ipaint]

98. Obama handed Baucus the reins on health care and the PHRMA deal which omitted drug re-importation.

The white house made the deal not congress.

[vaberella]

112. Once again your post is irrevelant to post #'s 40, 46, or 75.

And I have tried to make that clear. You however on another meme which I never even denounced. I have no care about the deal since as I said before---no ONE knows the ins and outs of the deal and not one of your posts outlines the deal. It just says there was a deal made. So I don't know what you're on about.

You act like you know, when it's clear you don't and your posts has shown that over and over again.

[olegramps]

208. Don't keep saying that we don't know the details of the deal.

Haven't you read what the Pharma CEO stated and what was acknowledged by the White House.

[laughingliberal]

167. Post # 165 answers post # 75. nt

[ipaint]

74. No it's not.

Dorgan's amendment, a plan he's proposed before, would allow pharmacies and pharmaceutical wholesalers to import drugs from other countries – like Canada - where they are available more cheaply than in the U.S. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this amendment would save the federal government $19 billion over 10 years. But it could cost drug makers a lot more and passage of the Dorgan amendment would blow up the White House PhRMA deal.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/08/is-the-public-option-dead-plus-amendments-that-might-actually-matter/#ixzz0fY7DermY

It was either drug re-importation or a deal with PHRMA. We all know what we got. What Obama said and what he made a deal with PHRMA for are two opposite things.

[vaberella]

76. Post# 75. Plus Obama was on camera supporting it considering it had Repub support.

From McCain to Snowe (who co-authored the bill).

[ipaint]

80. He made a deal witrh PHRMA that excluded it. nt

[vaberella]

92. You don't know what was in the "deal."

No one here knows what the deal with big pharma entailed. The White House had sent a press release denying it...most said that was false it was done. Others stand by it...but if you ask anyone what it was....'they don't know the deal. No one does.

That being said...I'm going by what was done when the Dorgan bill was on the table to be voted on. It had support of the President and admin, that's the end of it.

This has been said before and I'll repeat. People are entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts.

[ipaint]

99. White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: August 5, 2009

WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html

[vaberella]

115. Go to post no.# 75 since you push to be obtuse.

Mine was dated Dec. 2009 and Obama supports Dorgan which would break any sort of deal presumed to have been made by Obama and Pharma---if it passed. Obama publicly supported it and said as much and his admin supported. That's about 4-5 months after your post. Again my argument is not even about any deal.

I stand by and provided examples of my position on what Cenk said, which I proved to false. Other's here want to go on a tangent about something else and on and on. I never argued any deal since I have heard no outline of the secret deal that was made. All I see is a cost savings of 80 billion over 8 years. if that isall to the Bill then that's it and it means nothing to me because Obama stood by the Dorgan amendment which would have brought more savings if so many Dems and REpubs weren't against it. He wanted it and his admin wanted it to go through. Probably as anoher element to the initial deal.

Further more the cost savings seemed to be for the elderly while bringing up the cost for evryone else. The Dorgan deal would have affected mor so everyone else and that could have worked alongside the PHarma deal if we look at it that way. Which means....nothing to me because my point was made and I had sources to prove that what Cenk said was utterly and blatantly false.

[slipslidingaway]

109. Funny - WH originally denied the deal, we do know that nobody in the ...

administration has talked about Medicare negotiating drug prices and that the Dorgan amendment suddenly lost supporters.

Considering this is legislation that will effect everyone in our nation, a little more honesty and transparency would be welcome.

:shrug:

Democrats in Pay-For-Play Deal With PhRMA?

http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/09/democrats-in-pay-for-play-deal-with-phrma/

"...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.

...The only question is how much the Democrats got in exchange for gutting the government’s ability to control health care costs.

...The only question is how much the Democrats got in exchange for gutting the government’s ability to control health care costs."

[vaberella]

114. Did you like so many other's ignore what was the start of this discussion?

Look to post 40, where I said that Cenk lied or had his facts completely wrong by saying that Obama did not support the Dorgan amendment. Poster at #46 asked me for sources. IN post #75 I posted those sources. Now everyone is arguing a deal he made with Pharma.

I don't give a crap about that since that's not the argument but makes people feel secure in thier angst against the president. Fine. Feel secure. However, you nor I nor anyone who has written about this "deal" has EVER outlined the exact break down of the deal. All they have is conjecture and proof that the insurance companies spent money lobbying on health care---other htan that we had no information on the nuances in the deal. But we do have a President who supported the Dorgan Amendment and publicly said as much. You and man other posters are completely disregarding it to whinge on an issue that is not even part of my original post.

[Cha]

144. Cenk had his facts wrong? Or lied? He's in the media..

he'd better have his facts right..otherwise he's just an attentionwhore.

"President Obama on the take"? That's an AttentionWhore headline if I ever saw one..right up with a few other regressive Attentionwhores.

[CherylK]

146. Attention whore headline? I hope you know that was ProSense's headline, not Cenk's headline!!!

So I guess you think ProSense is an attention whore for oversimplifying cenk's video into one over the top, misleading sentence to draw attention and sympathy for his position?

[Cha]

150. I think cenk can take responsibility for his own attentionwhoredom.

[laughingliberal]

169. Post # 165 explains the disconnect between what Obama said (supporting Dorgan's amendment) and what

he did (killed it using the red herring of 'safety').

[laughingliberal]

168. post # 165 addresses post # 75. nt

[sandyd921]

41. I believe that the whole damn system is corrupt

(Dems as well as GOP) and that if we ever hope to change it we better get out there and put our asses on the line for campaign finance reform (as Cenk said toward the end of the clip).

[asdjrocky]

58. That's the truth sister. nt

[olegramps]

209. You are right on. The whole situation stinks.

Where in hell is the transparency when the White House is holding close door sessions with the pharmaceutical industry ripoff artists.

[Hekate]

70. No I do not. nt

[freddie mertz]

82. I think it was a bad deal. And it didn't match the kind of "transparency" he promised.

I would not object to an inquiry or investigation into how this deal went down.

I would like to know more.

Would you?

[LWolf]

89. Yes. nt

[asdjrocky]

95. Absolutely the administration is on the take.

[depakid]

96. In a system of legalized bribery, it's hard to find any politician who isn't

[Enrique]

117. Cenk makes some good points in that video

he usually does.

Not much to investigate. Nothing illegal here, or especially unusual.

[jefferson_dem]

118. Cenk?

Who the fuck is that? What does my favorite barista at the local Starbucks think?

EDIT: I encourage everyone, especially those who answered "Yes" to the OP, to take a gander at the comments under the video at youtube. "Leftbaggers" and teabaggers unite! What a sorry collection of dregs that would be.

[CherylK]

120. LOL!!! He's interviewed Maddow and been on Olbermann's show and Ratigan's show and so many others.

Apparently they're not too good for Cenk but you are?!

:eyes: :silly: :rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

121. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.

I know who he is, silly, but don't value his perspective on politics.

[CherylK]

123. Let the guest list speak for itself

You do not have to agree with his perspective, but based on all of the respected people he has on his show each and every week, someone sure values it! Wonderful progressives like Naomi Wolf and Katrina Vanden Huevel and Howard Dean, people who apparently do not share your disrespect. To each his own I guess.

:hi:

[jefferson_dem]

124. Indeed.

Any "respect" I had for Cenk went out the window when he jumped onto the FDL/Teabagger "Kill the Bill" bandwagon. Sorry to say this but ... to me ... that just screams "I'm an ignorant fool." Then his snap reaction to Obama's masterful SOTU was an embarassment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0stkAOwrAS4

While you might take cues from others (Rachel, Katrina) regarding who is and who is not a worthy political commentator, I choose to reach my own independent conclusions.

To each his own, for sure.

[CherylK]

127. Ignorants fools are people you disagree with?

That is not a new concept, I have seen it many times in my life. And I am happy to say you are in the minority on this, so have a good evening.



:patriot:

[ProSense]

130. I think "ignorant fools" was anyone who characterized the SOTU as an embarrassment.

I agree.

[depakid]

138. "I don't want to punish the banks" was not only an embarrassment- but one of the more tone deaf

counterproductive, gratuitous phrases I've ever seen in a State of the Union Speech given the circumstances- and that includes Bush's speeches.

Ranks right up there with health insurers aren't "bad people" back on September 8th.

[jefferson_dem]

141. Wait a minute.

Didn't you say Obama's meeting with the House Repugs was a bad idea and also that he lost that debate? :shrug:

Here's context for the "bad people" quote:

THE PRESIDENT: It's not true. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. (Applause.)

Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare. (Applause.)

So let me set the record straight here. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That's how the market works. (Applause.) Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-health-care-speech_n_281265.html

[depakid]

145. It's gratuitous phrasing that didn't need to be put in the speech

Experience and foresight ought to have told the speechwriting/reviewing team how it would have been parsed- and the connotations used down the line.

Going into the election cycle it's become clear (to me at least) that the Whitehouse and the DNC needs to put together something akin to a communications war room (for a lot of reasons) but mainly because these sorts of deals -like the Bloomberg interview keep cropping up.

It's not like America has anything close to a fair and accurate mass media- no one's going to be able to argue "context" effectively for them once the meme's out of the barn.

[ProSense]

142. "that includes Bush's speeches."

Wow, what kind of person holds up Bush's speeches as superior to Obama's?

Ludicrous.

[depakid]

148. Bush's speeches were embarrassing, but tended not to include things counterproductive to his agenda

Moreover, Bush had an advantage that Obama lacks. Call it the tyranny of expectations.

Fair or no- Bush, crass bumbler that he was, couldn't be (and wasn't) held to the same standard as a "master orator" like Obama.

People were much more willing to let stupid (sometimes profoundly stupid) things slide... whereas Obama's words are considered more seriously and measured against the resulting policies.

[ProSense]

151. Your response is completely counter to your previous remark. n/t

[depakid]

154. How do figure?

I'll add another point- in terms of passing his agenda, Bush was very successful- and managed with far less of a majority.

Why do you think that is?

[jefferson_dem]

173. Well, he was pretty damn successful except for two signature policy initiatives...

which went down in flames: immigration reform and SS privatization.

[depakid]

186. Had he privatized social security, he'd be up there with FDR and LBJ in terms of achievements

As it is- he got his signature tax cuts, two wars and damn near every other policy, no mater how egregious (or unpopular) and every nominee, no matter how extreme.

In one sense, it's almost too bad he missed out on social security, because had a significant portion of that been turned over to Wall Street- Republicans probably wouldn't have so easily found their way back into the electorates good graces.

High price to pay, perhaps- but in the longer run, probably worth it, all things considered.

[ProSense]

187. If McCain had won....Also, your memory is flawed.

"As it is- he got his signature tax cuts, two wars and damn near every other policy, no mater how egregious (or unpopular) and every nominee, no matter how extreme."

His tax cuts weren't permanent. He launched the Iraq war illegaly. Every nominee? Spakovsky, Miers

Bush had to install Bolton, Fox and 169 others by recess appointment. That's 32 more than Clinton.

So I guess Clinton was more sucessful than Bush at getting his nominees.

Nominees withdrawn, another: Chavez. Another: Estrada.

And there were more.

[HopeOverFear]

201. "what kind of person holds up Bush's speeches as superior to Obama's?"

I'll take "Freepers" for 100, Alex. (seems as though they've infiltrated this thread.)

[laughingliberal]

170. "I don't want to punish the banks." Unvbelievable! nt

[jefferson_dem]

133. Ha.

That's a rather flimsy straw man there.

Nonetheless, I hope you have a nice evening as well.

[Cha]

122. Yeah, Cenk has been around on all the shows..

that doesn't make him:silly: right on this.

[CherylK]

129. Of course not.

His point was suggesting Cenk's opinion was respected as much as some random teenage coffee maker which is ridiculous, that is all I was trying to say.

[Sky Masterson]

119. Somebody is always on the take.

I think parts of it stink but I don't believe that Obama is corrupted anymore or less than any other politician is.

[SoxFan]

125. ...

[CherylK]

131. Look at me!!!

I have no facts to disupte anything in Cenk's video, so I will make a visual joke and hope that no one notices!

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :thumbsdown:

[MedfordTim]

143. I noticed!! +1, k&r

[jefferson_dem]

134. +1

Nailed it.

Sad to say, the left wing of American politics is filled with far too many of those.

[theFrankFactor]

136. Wow, powerful argument... where am I...?

[theFrankFactor]

135. I call for an investigaton!

and on the other issue...

"If so, why would you be expecting them to fight?"

You mean the administration? I don't. They'll put on another show like all of the other "shows" and gullible dupes will be pacified again... and again... and again! They stink to high heaven of corporate butt sucking and refusing to see it damages real "hope" for "change". We should be coming down on this shit like a ton of bricks!

[WeDidIt]

140. Boy, you sure trapped the usual suspects, ProSense

DAYUM.

All of 'em came out for this one!

:evilgrin:

[CherylK]

147. LOL!

Trapped? He gave a gift to anyone with half a brain...no facts, all fluff.

:evilgrin:

[slipslidingaway]

149. There have only been insults, nothing to refute the Sunlight's Foundation's

article, but if pom poms are what you seek, then climb aboard - DAYUM!


http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/02/12/the-legacy-of-billy-tauzin-the-white-house-phrma-deal/

"In the 2008 campaign, Obama declared his intention to include all stakeholders as he sought to reform the nation’s health care system, but also supported key Democratic health reform policies. Among these were several that targeted the pharmaceutical industry: Allowing re-importation of drugs from first world countries with lower drug prices and providing Medicare with negotiating authority over prescription drug prices in the recently enacted Part D program. These weren’t just promises, Obama had already voted for both of them as a senator in 2007. (Roll Call Vote 132 and Roll Call Vote 150.)...

...On April 15, Jim Messina and Jon Selib, chief of staff to Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, convened a meeting at the headquarters of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) with leaders of organized labor and health care groups, including PhRMA. At the meeting, the groups decided to form two nonprofit entities to promote reform efforts, Healthy Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality Care, that would be almost entirely funded by PhRMA..."


But Let's put our fingers in our ears and pretend not to hear, just cheer for our team - right or wrong!


More about the group - Americans for Stable Quality Care

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6841162&mesg_id=6841557

"...Back story

This everything-but-the-kitchen-sink coalition includes unlikely bedfellows: the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the American Medical Association, Families USA (a consumer-advocacy group), the Federation of American Hospitals, and the Service Employees International Union, representing health-care and other workers. The campaign is bankrolled largely by PhRMA, which opposed health-care reform during the Clinton presidency but has agreed to work with the Obama White House to cut drug costs by $80 billion, presumably in return for provisions favorable to the industry. It doesn't address the hotly debated public-insurance option..."

[Enrique]

175. taunting and devil smilies aside...

any comment on Cenk's video?

[WeDidIt]

176. Sure

Cenk's a fucked up asshole media whore.

so what else is new.

Cenk appears on any show, I turn the channel.

He's as fucked up in the head as Jane Hamster of LiarDogFake.

[Enrique]

177. ok, we know where you stand on Cenk and on certain DUers

what about the Sunlight Foundation's report? What about Billy Tauzin and Pharma?

Any comments on those?

[laughingliberal]

218. .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7477849

[Forkboy]

185. Your post is example A.

:hi:

[laughingliberal]

152. I believe a lot of us have been calling for the administration to come clean on the deal with PhRMA

It was particularly infuriating the administration had already cut the deal and just let the House go on and add their excellent measures for allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices (which could have saved us $300 billion instead of $80 billion over 10 years). They just ignored the bills passed out of all 3 House committees and the Senate HELP committee and appointed Baucus as keeper of their secret deal which is now not a secret. I don't think there's any need for an investigation now. It's pretty much all come out, now.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

179. IF they ARE "on the take"

WTF are THEY getting out of it pray tell???? Only the truly cynical among us could honestly believe that President Obama WANTS HCR to fail or that he wants it to only benefit the insurance/drug companies. :shrug:

[laughingliberal]

183. The reports, early on, dismissed by some were that Rahm's plan was for a very industry friendly bill

that would insure lots of campaign contributions from PhRMA and AHIP. According to Rahm, campaign contributions trump reform. The goal was always a bailout of the health insurance industry which is going to topple if the mandates don't go through. They are losing vast numbers of customers now as people who can no longer afford it drop their coverage or lose their jobs. Businesses are having to drop unaffordable benefits. And 11 million customers per year, on average, will escape their clutches for the next 21 years. If this health care bill does not pass or some other bill in the very near future that mandates us to pay them, I fully expect the deficit commission to come back with a plan to gut Medicare and give the money to the industry. The Senate bill contained the poison seeds to put Medicare on track for privatization. If a bill with a mandate does not pass soon, I believe they will just try to do this in one fell swoop.

I've no idea if the plans Obama campaigned on were really his true desire and he was persuaded to see political 'reality' by others in his administration or if he planned all along to pass a corporate bailout bill for the industry and name it HCR. But I do know that by August, when we were all fighting for all we were worth to get a public option in the final bill, the die was already cast.

[mochajava666]

207. Great points., and I couldn't agree more.

It's the only conclusion that supports the evidence, I'm sorry to say.

[cherokeeprogressive]

181. Every administration is "on the take" to one degree or another.

If it's not outright money, it's "legacy". Sometimes, "legacy" is gained by distributing MONEY.

Could you BE any more stupid?

[Bluenorthwest]

191. He is a politician and they are all on the take

Especially those who shout about religion and hold minorities as unworthy of equal rights.

[timeforpeace]

212. If he was caught with a bag full of money on videotape I'd still vote for him again.

That's what our guys do.

[Enthusiast]

196. I read some of the comments.

It was sooo disappointing to read so much ignorance expressed. They must be the young and/or uninformed. Don't read the comments it will just make you nauseated.

[asdjrocky]

200. Yes. Yes I do.

[burning rain]

210. ProSense, I think you should have a telephone or Skype debate with Cenk.

I would think that he'd be willing, given that he obviously takes DU seriously as a place to promote his show and punditry, and that you're such a prominent defender of the administration here.

Surely ihavenobias could make it happen.

[asdjrocky]

211. I think that's a wonderful idea.

We could finally get to the truth of this make believe controversy.

[timeforpeace]

214. Without a list of talking points from the handler? That's hilarious.

[asdjrocky]

217. The lady doth protest too much...

Just saying, read your Hamlet.

[ProSense]

219. Pathetic.

Cenk is a clown.

[asdjrocky]

220. Please tell me it didn't take you a week to come up with that.

[TheKentuckian]

221. Well more likely than not. Its pretty clear deals were cut with the "stakeholders"

at our expense rather than holding the bloodsuckers accountable.