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

Wed Sep 9 07:56:50 CDT 2009

Whether we call it 'public option,' or 'three-share' or 'universal access,'
there's no way to cover health care for low income folk without public
funding.  We're doing it now - costly, ineffective, and rationed by physical
access - through emergency departments and uninsured inpatient costs written
off in hospitals.  We're also continuing to see a disproportionate number of
bankruptcies linked to health costs - often avoidable.  We can't get to a
basic level of care for everyone from the private sector alone or we'd
already be there.

As far as serving undocumented immigrants:  Will virus and bacteria not
communicate from undocumented persons because of the lack of documents?  Any
public health linked service cannot screen out undocumented folk without
compromising the entire population.  It can't 'chill' their access by
reporting, enforcing, or even asking about their documented status.  That's
why the Border Patrol has marked clinics as 'off limits' to their vehicles
let alone actual entry.

Bill Schlesinger
Project Vida
3607 Rivera Ave
El Paso, TX 79905
(915) 533-7057 x 207
(915) 490-6148 mobile
(915) 533-7158 fax
bschlesinger.pv at tachc.org
www.projectvidaelpaso.org

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of Ellen & David Rebstock
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 11:49 PM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] WH deal with PhRMA, delayed response to Ed

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.h
tml?wpisrc=newsletter
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR200909040
2274.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter> &wpisrc=newsletter 10 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/AR2009090702
070.html?wpisrc=newsletter
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR200909070
2070.html?wpisrc=newsletter&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:

 <http://robertreich.blogspot.com/> 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, 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/20090909/ed83e495/attachment-0001.html>