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

Wed Sep 9 10:23:15 CDT 2009

Liberals, including most Democrats and a majority of Independents support
government of, by and for the people.  Conservatives, including most
Republicans and a minority of Independents oppose government as a problem
and support business as the solution.  The major struggle between Liberals
and Conservatives since Reagan's presidency has been about this issue.  

I am surprised that various members of our community have so little
understanding of what Liberals and Conservatives believe and the history of
their struggles from our American revolution to our civil war to extending
freedoms and opportunities to women, African Americans, GLBT and immigrants.
In each case, Conservatives have argued for restricting freedoms and
opportunities to groups unlike themselves.  Most Conservatives have rural
and small town backgrounds which contain few minorities and poor and gay
people are in the closet or have left for more accepting urban areas.  So
they have little understanding of or tolerance for such people.

Socialists trust government and distrust business.  Conservatives distrust
government and trust business.  Liberals realize that both government and
business can provide both benefits and abuses, so we attempt to establish
regulations that allow the benefits while preventing the abuses.  Dave
Thomas

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of Geri Tolman
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 4:00 AM
To: 'Order Ecumenical Community'
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] WH deal with PhRMA, delayed response to Ed

underscoring the point that our "gov't of, by & for the people" no longer
exists - gov't now exists "of, by & for big business".  this isn't a Dem vs.
Rep issue, nor is it a conservative vs. liberal issue.

Geri 

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of Don Elliott
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:17 PM
To: oe at wedgeblade.net
Subject: [Oe List ...] WH deal with PhRMA, delayed response to Ed

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090909/4643fcc6/attachment.html>