[Oe List ...] WH deal with PhRMA, delayed response to Ed

[Don Elliott]

Ed,



Your question to Susan.








IV. You have not said anything about the flood of money going to Congress
nd corruption that happens with wink and a nod rather than outright buying
f votes.  Is there any Conservative outrage about this kind of sneaky
orruption?


You challenged Susan to say something about the flood of money going to Congress in exchange for favorable treatment.  You seem to imply that that is a problem of conservatism.  I am providing a link to an article by a liberal columnist who is outraged by the deal made between PhRMA and the WH which prevents government from negotiating for lower drug prices on the basis of volume buying.  Medicare Canada has negotiated for and received huge volume discounts.  You can order American made drugs from Canada for a fraction of their cost from US pharmacies, so-called reimportation.  The Medicare drug bill passed by a Democratic congress under GWB was roundly criticised for not allowing negotiated lower drug prices, and now we find the Obama WH has done the same thing.

 

Surprise, the article has been removed from Robert Reich's blog,  I tried posting the entire article, but exceeded my 40kb max.  I will send the full article to anyone who wants it.

 

Here is a brief excerpt:




Robert Reich's Blog 




Sunday, August 09, 2009




How the White House's Deal With Big Pharma Undermines Democracy 




I'm a strong supporter of universal health insurance, a
nd a fan of the Obama administration. But I'm appalled by the deal the White House has made with the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying arm to buy their support.

Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That's basically the same deal that George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it's proven a bonanza for the drug industry. 


Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher health-care costs for the rest of us


In return, Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health.

I don't want to be puritanical about all this. Politics is a rough game in which means and ends often get mixed and melded. Perhaps the White House deal with Big Pharma is a necessary step to get anything resembling universal health insurance. But if that's the case, our democracy is in terrible shape.  We're on a precarious road -- and wherever it leads, it's not toward democracy. 











The Deal, (from the Huffington Post)









 The deal, as outlined in t he memo:

Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion.

1. Agree to increase Medicaid rebate from 15.1 - 23.1% ($34 billion)

2. Agree to get FOBs done (but no agreement on details — express disagreement on data exclusivity which 

both20sides say does not affect the score of  the legislation.) ($9 billion)

3. Sell drugs to patients in the donut hole at 50% discount ($25 billion)
This totals $68 billion

4. Companies will be assessed a tax or fee that will score at $12 billion. There was no agreement as to how or 

on what this tax/fee will be based.

Total: $80 billion

 

In exchange for these items, the White House agreed to:

1. Oppose importation

2. Oppose rebates in Medicare Part D

3. Oppose repeal of non-interference

4. Oppose opening Medicare Part B

 

Where is your outrage over this?  Is this an example of  "everybody's doing it", "secondary integrity", or "the end justifies the means"?


 





Don Elliott

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090908/07c51694/attachment.html>