In the bass-ackwards world of health care reform, I guess this shouldn't be surprising, but the Senate yesterday refused to put an amendment, which would allow drug importation from Canada, up for a vote because they were afraid it might pass.
That would be this deal, an agreement in July between the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby:
This part is not surprising at all, money talks and you-know-what walks, as usual:
The American oligarchy rolls on.
"Debating an overhaul of the health care system, the Senate found itself tied in knots on Thursday over a bipartisan proposal to allow people to import lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada and certain other countries...Democratic leaders delayed a vote, in part, because they feared that the proposal would be approved, potentially blowing apart a deal negotiated by the White House and the pharmaceutical industry."
That would be this deal, an agreement in July between the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby:
This part is not surprising at all, money talks and you-know-what walks, as usual:"The industry is so powerful in the halls of Congress and in its ability to buy advertising that its support was considered a key to passing a health care overhaul. That is why the White House earlier this year negotiated a controversial deal to limit the financial impact of the health bill on the drug industry in exchange for its support for the legislation...The amendment was strongly opposed by Democrats from states with major drug companies, including Sen. Frank Lautenberg. (D-NJ) who was preparing to offer an alternative that would water Dorgan's amendment down to suit the drug industry.
The importation amendment is one of several measures that the drug industry opposes. In coming weeks, the White House is expected to join with industry to beat back proposals to require industry rebates to Medicare recipients and others that would permit Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices."
The American oligarchy rolls on.
Bubbabobcat, of course I understand your position, but just when I think that we are making progress, then I get slapped -
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_OVERHAUL?SITE=NVREN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Carol, I think the fact that Obama is pissing off people on both sides of the aisle is indicative of his taking the most practical and effective approach at getting things done – play it down the middle as a centrist. I’m not happy about some of his decisions and non actions (dragging his feet on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, appointing Salazar, a rancher as Secretary of the Interior; talk about the fox guarding the henhouse) but overall this early in his administration, I think he’s done pretty well so far.
I thought the Cash for Clunkers program was a smashing success, teabagging propaganda and Fox notwithstanding, we are drawing down in Iraq, I think he took the right approach in Afghanistan, the economy is showing signs of revitalizing, we are on the way towards a new more robust nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, we’re working cooperatively with our international partners (and adversaries) for a change, and the list goes on. Even the bank bailout has had its silver lining with the banks paying their loans back early with interest and Obama redirecting those “new found” funds for jobs creation. Talk about welfare cheats, the banks are paying back their loans early in droves only because of the restrictions Geithner and Obama had placed on executive pay as a condition for their accepting OUR money. All of a sudden these “too big to fail” banks have oodles of cash reserves when the executive bonuses get put on the chopping block.
As for the gutting of the healthcare reform bill from its original incarnation, honestly, it should not have been unexpected. It’s analogous to bargaining at a car dealership. We ask for 50% of what we are willing to pay to start the negotiations and the dealer offers 200% of what he is willing to sell the car for and after a lot of blood sweat and tears, it ends up being somewhere in the middle. In hindsight, it seems the public option was a pie in the sky sacrificial lamb all along to get some kind of reasonable insurance relief. If it passes, don’t you think lowering Medicare eligibility from 65 to 55 years of age is a significant win? I’m definitely not satisfied with what is on the table right now, but I do have hope that is not the end all, be all health care reform for the next 3 years at least.
It’s not quite been a year yet that Obama has formally been in office and we have a long 3 years ahead of us. Wrangling 60 filibuster proof votes out of the Senate with all their 60 provincial interests and constituent loyalties (to get re-elected of course) to pander to is akin to herding cats even if they are all in your own party. And believe you me, I know how much “fun” it is herding cats! ;-)
Bubbabobcat, you know that I love you more than my luggage. You and AlienHunter have some good points, but think about this for a moment. Something smells very bad in Washington - not just Congress, which we know is quite rotten - but something else.
Obama, promised a good many things. We all know, that in a Presidential race, there are many promises - most of which can't be done. However, he has not done 90% of those promises. Take that, and his hiring Rahm, Timmy et al and we, quite frankly, are so screwed.
I am a supporter, and have been, BUT I also can stand up (to my Republican husband) and say, oh shit, I think that I have fucked up!
Can you?
Hey Mr. Bubbabobcat,
thanks...here some interesting ideas. I liked the one about government buying pharmaceutical patents to hold down escalating costs.
http://pharmalicensing.com/public/articles/view/1080562872_406814b87105d
I'm with AlienHunter. Obama is a pragmatic and will compromise for some type of immediate progress on healthcare reform. And we have to avoid the throwing the baby out with the bathwater syndrome with unrealistic expectations after 8 years of getting screwed by Bush and the Republicans. Something is better than nothing and unfortunately, we have to hope we survive to bear witness (and hopefully experience the beneficial results) of additional incremental improvements over the next 3 (maybe 7?) years.
Using a sports analogy, after the Detroit Lions lost all 16 games last season, after finally winning a game this year, it is a bit unrealistic to expect a winning record, much less a perfect win season this year, especially with 16 rabid opponents hell bent on your losing all 16 of your games again this season. And there are a hell of a lot more than 16 opponents (Republican AND Democrat) in Congress.
ok, but I'm not ready to concede betrayal until the deal is done.
I, for one, never expected a utopian solution to Bush, what I really anticipated was a restoration of a more 'balanced' approach as opposed to the hard core, vicious treatment that the middle class and minorities endured under Republicans at least since Reagan.
For example, on the news I saw a criticism by black politicians that Obama is not really reaching out to them. My thought is that he isn't allowed to demonstrate his outreach, the political climate is simply not conducive to 'sensitivity' for any 'special' group.
I have never felt that any politician is in the game to satisfy my needs, rather, any accidental benefit I receive at the behest of government is accepted as a windfall. I still firmly believe that pragmatism demands Obama get what he can get. As long as there exists an element in society that thrives on negativity there will be a struggle for that last piece of bread.
I don't know how much the currents of change are affected by big money but I'm not convinced that Obama is a bought and sold politician, others perhaps, but not him.
Here's one thought:
The import of pharmaceuticals can be viewed as having an overall negative effect on the balance of trade which ultimately harms domestic business and consequently the domestic consumer. I don't know the full details but hasn't it been argued that Bush's implementation of the drug subsidy been considered one of the worst ideas since whatever? Is it possible that a deal to keep the drug industry from 'wasting' billions of dollars in advertising carry an implicit benefit for the consumer?
Importing of drugs may not be the best solution. I just read that the root of the problem may be the regulation process employed in the United States and that the FDA is the bad guy that needs to be attacked. So, as an unabashed Obama supporter I fully expect to see that happen within four years.
Thanks Carol.
My understanding of this deal -- that was struck -- and if by the "boss" you mean Rahm Emanuel -- is that Big Pharma wouldn't spend $80 billion on ads in opposition to health care reform -- if the administration would agree not to (a) import drugs at a lower price -- or (b) try to buy drugs in bulk -- at a lesser price than retail -- to offer through the Medicare Part "d" drug plan.
None of it makes sense -- from the standpoint of the consumer. Either way -- they agree to let Big Pharma charge what they want to for drugs... and either way .... the consumer pays. Doesn't cost the Administration anything to play that game. It's the people who pay the price.
And, given that the Health Insurance Industry has spent millions -- and perhaps billions (who knows?) on ads in opposition to health care reform, --- and that almost 60% of the American people still want "the public option" i.e. "choice and competition" in health insurance --
what was accomplished????
The Democrats have the White House -- the Congress -- and a majority of Americans with them on this --- and they still managed to screw this up. Big Time.
With back room deal making.
Let's face it -- none of this -- as promised --- was on C-Span.
If they would only care.
Hi,
What I'm suggesting is that there might have been some reluctance to do a final vote on an issue that seemed to countermand work done by the Obama...the boss.
I think you are exactly right RhM. Austintatious was also right.
After eight years of shame, and humiliation -- we were ready for anybody who promised to make us "Proud" Americans again.
Somebody who promised not to let the "special interests" continue to run the country. Somebody who promised to close Guantanamo. Somebody who was against torture. There was so much wrong. We were so hungry for anybody --- who promised to turn things around in Washington. And, make it right.
Live and learn.
We were conned.
Won't happen again.
Miemaw, congratulations!
I am with you. I'm ready.
I've got a LOT of bananas for a LOT of tailpipes and MapQuest directions to the Capitol with a stop at Graceland. (I've never been).
At 7 o'clock this morning... this news was on my computer (via my Facebook Page.)
My daughter-in-law was on her way to Woman's Hospital to wish her son (my grandson) a Happy Birthday. Her son was there with his wife... who was going to deliver their first child.
At 4:30 or so this afternoon (also via my Facebook Page) the announcement came that my great grandson was born. I think this is (10). Born on his dad's birthday.
I still want to leave this country a better place for him --- than it is now. For all of them than it is now. They deserve it.
It's not time to get mad. It's time to start to get even.
So, there is still work to be done.
Who?
Has the boss made it back to town, yet?
Miemaw, I really like Matt Taibbi's reporting too. He has been on Rachel Maddow's show and can actually speak as well as he writes. His blog/sounding board is always good too. Today Austintatious' comment and post hits too close to home for my way of thinking...
Sounds like he has nailed it. I'm with him, the President has pulled a bait and switch on those who voted for him. It has to be that or he is not as strong a President as we thought he would be.
Granted, it's been forty years or so since I studied political science in school, so perhaps some things have changed. But I thought we still had three equal branches of government, with checks and balances. Yes, the executive branch can negotiate a deal with Big Pharma, but has limited ability to actually carry it out. Legislation requires action by the - wait for it - legislative branch. Now our legislators - our elected representatives - are afraid of carrying out the will of those who selected them. Makes no damned sense to me. But it might help explain why Democrats are likely to be handed their lunch in 2010, deservedly so.
The more I read about the Pharmaceutical companies the more they scare me. I have high cholesterol but I'm more worried about taking the medication than I am about the cholesterol.
Jesus!
Well, not only did I spell the author's name wrong, I also gave the wrong info on The Huffington Post.
Here's the link:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print
I'm gonna have another cup of tea.
Maybe I can wake up, eventually.
Matt Tiiabi,(?) of Rolling Stone magazine, has written an excellent piece on how we ALL got sold out.
It's also available at http://www.huffpost.com
Unfortunately, he's right.