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

Wed Sep 9 00:49:29 CDT 2009

Dr. Don,
Just to change the subject a bit.  What do you think about these points in
the Washington Post that seem to be written from the Doctors and Hospital
perspective.http .  //
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402274.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter10
Things I hate about Health Care Reform

Also another Post article about "why Liberals should drop the Public Option"
today is also good
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702070.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
I'm pretty liberal and have been and have experienced the high cost of
medicine for the last two years.  I've been for single payer or Public
Option all along but would give up on it if I felt we could just accomplish
Obama's overall objectives of Universal Care, No pre-existing restrictions,
costs go down all the way around by whatever means and get at least some of
the  10 things in the list in the first article  like
1. Real regulation of insurance companies and yet a real competitive
environment.
2. Limits on compensation in suits
3. Subsidies for education of med students especially those going into
family practice.
4. Not cutting payments to doctors
5. Not cutting reimbursements to hospitals so they have to shut down.  But
they need to cut costs too.  The patient records and mechanization in UCal
Hospitals is terrible, stone age. They can't find anything.  You virtually
have to bring your own records with you. Yet every records station is
grossly overstaffed because the records are still in manila folders
Including the CDs for MRIs etc.
6. Doctors incentives for quality.

What I hate most about the discussion that is going on is on both sides say
"I've got mine, the hell with you"

Dave Rebstock

Dave Rebstock

2009/9/8 Don Elliott <dpelliott at aol.com>

>
>
> Ed,
>
> Your question to Susan.
>
>  IV. You have not said anything about the flood of money going to Congress
> and corruption that happens with wink and a nod rather than outright buying
> of votes.  Is there any Conservative outrage about this kind of sneaky
> corruption?
>
> 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 * <http://robertreich.blogspot.com/> **
>  *Sunday, August 09, 2009*
>  *How the White House's Deal With Big Pharma Undermines Democracy * **
> *I'm a strong supporter of universal health insurance, and 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)
>  =0 A
>    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
> both sides 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> OE mailing list
> OE at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090908/7fbe6ec1/attachment.html>