Exclusive: Shady double-agent’s Obamacare sabotage: Top “supporter” quietly funded its opposition
Source: Salon
New documents reveal drug lobby's president posed as law's savior, then pumped cash to ALEC in effort to kill it
ELI CLIFTON
Support for this story was provided by The American Independent.
While proponents of the Affordable Care Act took a victory lap on the April 1 signup deadline, opposition to the state-run marketplaces continues to expand across the country through “Health Care Freedom Acts,” bills that would seek to limit state governments’ cooperation with the Affordable Care Act. But the untold story, until now, is that a key White House ally in passing the Affordable Care Act may have helped lay the groundwork for these very anti-ACA legislations being introduced across the country.
Billy Tauzin, the president of the pharmaceutical lobby, couldn’t help gloating while delivering a keynote speech at his final PhRMA annual meeting before his 2010 retirement. Reflecting on the industry’s decision to support comprehensive healthcare reform, the mega-lobbyist quipped, “This PhRMA team is a Super Bowl championship team of advocacy.”
That comparison might be more accurate if the NFL’s championship team had rigged the Super Bowl.
Publicly, PhRMA had banded together in negotiating its conditional support for the Affordable Care Act, and Tauzin, a former Louisiana congressman-turned-lobbyist, was the man responsible for protecting drug industry profits. In exchange for the industry’s public support of healthcare reform, his organization extracted a series of drug pricing concessions from the White House. But privately, Salon has learned, while the industry was outwardly supporting the Affordable Care Act, it was also quietly funding a nationwide effort to derail its implementation at the state level.
Tax records show that PhRMA initiated a series of payments to the American Legislative Exchange Council with a $379,192 contribution in 2008. Tauzin’s powerful lobby continued its payments to ALEC throughout its negotiations with the White House. Between 2008 and 2011, those contributions exceeded $1.25 million.
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/04/08/obamacares_shady_double_agent_how_phrma_publicly_backed_the_bill_while_quietly_funding_its_opposition/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NBachers
(17,107 posts)
RVN VET
(492 posts)As a Congressman, his committee was charged with oversight of Big Pharma. I believe he was, ahem, "more than fair" in his approach to that oversight responsibility. So when he quit the pretense of serving the people in Congress and went directly to the millions of dollars Big Pharma offered him, I was amazed, thinking that there surely must have been some roadblock to what seemed then -- and I have seen no counter argument to it since -- to be an absolutely clear and open case of corruption.
The people of Louisiana seem to hate Darwin and Climate Science -- but they sure do love them some corrupt, festering sores of politicians.
At any rate, I suggest, in response to your search for appropriate terms of insult, that we instead make his name the insulting term and that, henceforth, the word "Tauzin" become synonymous with "Hemorrhoid."
juajen
(8,515 posts)Yes Billy Tauzin is a douchbag. Many in my adopted state hate his guts. Many here devoutly believe in science and education in general. So, stop that non-inclusive claptrap. We need all the democrats in this state that we can find.
RVN VET
(492 posts)Let me rephrase: there is a very uncomfortably large number of people in Louisiana who think Darwin was a pervert and Climate Science is a fabrication of the extreme leftwing of the Democommunist Party. Enough of them voted for that creep, Tauzin -- and if you're from that State, you know he ain't unique in his lack of give-a-damn about ethics and integrity. Hey, Louisiana isn't the only State with politicians climbing out of amoral cesspools to run for -- and win -- public office. I'm from New Jersey. 'Nuff said.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)as can be witnessed here, there are lots of "Dems" who really secretly want to see him fail and they are helping all they can under the radar.
groundloop
(11,518 posts)It seems that he'd be all for getting more people insured so his industry could reap more profit from the drug price concessions that he wrung out of the ACA negotiations.
Slimy bastard.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)with government subsidies and through their standard bag of dirty tricks (ala, state's "rights" initiatives), they erode the regulations within the ACA that take away the profits (because they have to spend money on, you know... actual health coverage).
It's a moving target and anything is fair game to them. Long term, they end up with more customers, a law that requires participation, and they can go about figuring out ways to cut their costs without actually lowering the premiums we pay. It's what they're good at. The insurance industry didn't get flooded with employees who are of good heart and sound mind just because the ACA got passed. No, same people are there with the same mission - to collect the most and pay out the least.
As stated, it's a guess. I'm going on history and personal experience that leads me to believe that the health insurance industry is being run by the same people who were quite happy denying preexisting conditions, denying doctor-subscribed treatments, and dropping coverage on people just when they needed help the most.
We won't be safe until we get a single payer, non-profit system. So in the meantime while the idiots on the right fight to erode the ACA, we can work the other side of this coin which is if the insurance companies want to stay in business, they better play along with the rules set up by the ACA or they may end up with nothing.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)and destroy all the positive reforms in the bill.
Only solution is state single payer now.
siligut
(12,272 posts)Exactly, but now with government involvement it will be more difficult. This has been the opposition to ACA across the board, there is too much money to be made off of sick people, especially when you can bill the government for it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Depends on who is in charge of the government. If big health insurance and big pharma are in charge, then collecting the most and paying out the least will be much easier.
That's why we need to keep progressives in public offices.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and inviting the insurance companies and BigPharma onto the team. The fact that Obama could never see this has always been a glaring contradiction to his claimed reputation that he is playing "eleven dimensional chess" and is a "shrewd" politician.
A shrewd politician knows who his enemies are. Obama still hasn't figured that out given the fact that his Justice Dept. now wants to invite the GOP in to consult on rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I drug (like crystal meth) to a schedule which includes actual medicinal properties. This is a power totally in his hands, does NOT require congress, and especially the GOP.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)
catrose
(5,065 posts)and I mean that in the best way. I think he's an expert in finding common ground that we can all work towards, expert in making everyone feel valued, making sure everyone contributes and is heard...
...and the only problem is, we have no common ground with Republicans. They don't want a better community. They want to destroy what's left of the one we have.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Seriously, how do you think that would have been perceived by the public?
Thanks for letting us know that you don't know the first thing about political chess. And thanks for not being the President.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)the 70 million people who voted for him in 2008 believed they would have the OPTION to not feed the insurance companies' death panels to get HC. Had he not changed his tune in 2009, those 70 million and their kids would have marched in the streets for a public option. Even Mighty Joe Lieberman would have had trouble resisting that. And with a PO the insurance industry would have died a fast natural death, like other toxic industries.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Unlike you the President is a realist.
Keep waving your fancy magic wand if it makes you feel better, but don't expect magic... because it does nothing.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)2008 - "I will insist on a public option to keep the insurance companies honest. Insurance mandates without a public option will not work"
2009 - "Insurance companies deserve to make a profit. Your friends and families count on those jobs"
Unlike me the president thinks that a plan concocted by the Heritage Foundation and the insurance lobby is a good thing for the American people.
Probably not now, but at the time it did. The casual voters who flocked to the polls in 2008 to completely repudiate the Republicans discovered in 2009 that the Dems, even with huge majorities and the WH, could not or would not stop the Republicanization of the country. If Obama and Pelosi and Reid had taken the 2008 mandate and rammed it down the throats of the far right, the landslide in 2010 would have been reversed. Instead the president did not even invite SP to the negotiations, instead inviting an award-winning insurance lobbyist.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I said no such thing.
But when you invite jackals to a party, why would anyone be surprised that a jackal is feasting on your entrails?
The simplest tactic on health care reform was have been simply to expand Medicare availability to everyone. It was a known quantity, the mechanisms and bureaucracy was already in place and everyone pretty much understood how it worked. Obama had more than enough clout to pull it off in 2009. Instead he invited the jackals.
Instead, we got the monstrosity that is the ACA, which will be sued from now until Doomsday by every red state to shut it down.
I do know one thing about "political chess": Apparently Obama was playing checkers.
Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #34)
Post removed
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Kelvin and I and the others who support actual HC are far more concerned about the American people than are you, who are so anxious to declare ACA an unmitigated success that you ignore the millions who remain without.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)you to. Name calling appears to be your forte.
elleng
(130,865 posts)I won't bother looking at this thread any further.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Crystal meth is schedule 2 rather than schedule 1, because it's not nearly as addictive as pot, and unlike pot it has some valid medical uses. Heroin and cocaine are schedule 2 for the same reason. Only really really dangerous drugs that are super-duper addictive like marijuana, LSD, and MDMA are schedule 1.
Which is about as big an argument as one could ask for about why the drug war is fucking stupid.
frylock
(34,825 posts)really?!
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)One would almost think the ability to let people have fun without risking death was one of the primary objections to some of those schedule 1 drugs.
frylock
(34,825 posts)brain not fully functioning.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and yes, the stupidity is staggering.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Despite this being a popular, though simplistic, uninformed narrative ...
What happens when re-scheduling marijuana places the US in violation of its international treaties? Does the DoJ Head have the power to correct that?
Could that be why he now wants to (must) invite the GOP (Congress) in to consult on rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I drug (like crystal meth) to a schedule which includes actual medicinal properties?
Nothing regarding the law can be addressed in a vacuum.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)international treaties? We are in violation of how many at this point?
Illegal invasion of a sovereign nation is a treaty violation.
Torture is a treaty violation.
Refusing to investigate and prosecute war crimes is a violation.
Refusing to turn over people accused of war crimes to other nations (say Italy, when the CIA illegally kidnapped an Italian national and tortured him) is a treaty violation.
So, we really don't care about treaties.
Also, the only treaty in question, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, has been discarded by a number of countries already and only keeps cannabis as a Schedule IV drug (the equivalent of Schedule I under U.S. law) at the insistence of the U.S..
If Holder simply reschedules the drug, what's the downside? Lot of youth votes in marijuana legalization. Also, a lot of older voters, those with cancer and other diseases are changing their mind about legalization as well.
Rescheduling is the first step to legalization and massive tax revenues few will bitch about paying.
It's a win all the way around.
You can bet that if the power to say, outlaw same sex/inter-racial marriage, was simply a matter of a Republican AG signing a piece of paper, it would by 1967 in three seconds.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)or merely conflating this Administration with the last. This administration has done none of that.
Which they can do because they do not have the same process in addressing treaties as the US. Congress has, and only congress, has the power to alter treaties.
The downside is being in violation of international treaties. And whether you believe it or not, this President is determined to follow the rule of law.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)has ample evidence of war crimes, and has so far refused to open any investigation, never mind prosecutions. It remains to be seen whether this administration will allow a report documenting torture and other war crimes by the CIA to even be declassified.
Beyond that, when I say "we" I mean the U.S. government, no matter who is running it.
No, can't say I do.
A nation of laws does not violate due process and assassinate it citizens without trial.
A nation of laws does not refuse to prosecute massive financial fraud, or cut sweetheart deals with the great and powerful to fine them pennies on the dollar for their fraud.
A nation of laws does not spy on its citizens without warrants.
A nation of laws does not imprison people without charge for over a decade.
A nation of laws does not fight to keep people on "no fly" lists without transparency, meaningful oversight or appeal.
A nation of laws does not continually tolerate misconduct, up to and including murder, by its federal law enforcement agents by allowing them to investigate themselves.
Most importantly, a nation of laws does not actively seek to twist the law until the laws mean what they want them to mean.
And a president determined to follow the rule of law, does not allow all this injustice to happen on his watch.
The "law" in this country is for the poor and minorities. The rich and powerful are above the law. Oh sure, every now and again, there is an exception, but as the old adage goes, "The contest goes not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift: But that's the way to bet."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Failing to investigate or disclose evidence of a past administration's involvement in torture is neither a war crime, nor a violation of any international treaty that I am aware of.
Nevermind ... rant on.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)is a crime.
Are you going to tell me that the president doesn't know that war crimes have been committed?
Whether it violates international treaties is kind of beside the point. You stated "this President is determined to follow the rule of law". This statement is not supported by the evidence.
But fine, let's just stick to one crime this president is guilty of: The assassination of a U.S. citizen without charge or trial.
Doesn't sound very lawful to me. I am also pretty damned sure that if Bush the Lesser had done it, people here would be calling for impeachment.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you're not very good at it.
Crimes have very little relation to International Treaties. And the rule of law, in relation to international treaties, has very little relationship to what you are talking about.
Further, one is only guilty of a crime after, first, a crime has been defined; and then, after one has been convicted thereof.
No court, domestic or international, has defined the assassination of a U.S. citizen, acting in concert with enemy combatants, in regions where the sovereign state is unwilling or unable to capture said US citizen; or where the sovereign is unwilling to allow US Law Enforcement/military into its country to effect capture of said US citizen, as a crime.
I know ... I know ... "the 4th, or 5th, or maybe the 6th Amendment!!!!"
Again ... no court has so ruled, only pundits.
Finally, why are folks on a Democratic-supporting site, so concerned with pressing a "how would we have treated {insert Name of Partisan Opposition Member Here}" narrative?
Again ... I know ... I know ... "Principles over party!!!"
And we wonder why Democrats lose elections.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I know ... I know ... "the 4th, or 5th, or maybe the 6th Amendment!!!!"
Again ... no court has so ruled, only pundits.
So, anything is legal as long as a court either doesn't declare it illegal, or declares it legal.
As I recall, this defense was used, ineffectively, at Nuremberg.
Again, this falls into the category of people twisting the law until it says what they want to hear.
Courts also might rule that it is murder, but the administration keeps hiding behind "national security" and "lack of standing" to prevent the issue from being adjudicated.
Yeah, its the law, so it MUST be fair and just.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Anything is legal as long as a court either doesn't declare it illegal, or declares it legal.
You recall incorrectly.
Yes it is ... You hold a political opinion and twist the laws of this nation to get the result you wish to arrive at.
With respect to the law, "Immoral" doesn't not equal "Unlawful."
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Former Nazi judges, prosecutors and ministers who acted as "willing instruments" were held accountable things they ruled "legal" under the Nazi regime.
16 were tried, 4 acquitted, 1 committed suicide and 1 was considered too sick to try. The sentences ranged from 5 years to life.
If you wish argue law without morality, then by all means go ahead, that what we have anyway.
According to "pundits" and "laymen" such as myself, Ollie North and George Zimmerman are criminals. According to the legal professionals, they are law-abiding citizens.
Based on that criteria, we can give Obama, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Yu, et al. a legal clean bill of health.
These legalistic niceties make for fascinating arguments, but mean little to the dead and their families.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you have a sophomoric/pedestrian understanding of the case. The issue at hand was found in the "background":
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007912
IOW, the Nazis CHANGED previous law to effectuate what they were subsequently tried for.
There you go again, you wish to argue points of law (which was the original point), then failing that, you argue "immoral SHOULD be illegal ... but that's not the law. And you can't have it both ways.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)rename it, then declare it legal, then prevent the courts from hearing any evidence on the issue so they can't rule against you by invoking national security, you are perverting the law the same way the Nazis did. The good news for folks who enjoy that game is there is no government to hold us accountable the way we held the Germans and Japanese accountable.
(And by "you" I mean the government, not the you personally).
No, I can't have it both ways, only one way, the way it is. Where morality and justice are completely filtered out of the law. Where the law is the tool to steal, maim and murder and then the folks who use the law that way go home and sleep the sleep of the righteous.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)the corporations are his pals. With huge Dem congressional majorities in 2009-10, he had to do the bidding of Big Insurance and BigPharma himself.
I wish I could believe that ass-kicking was due to inexperience and naivete. More likely the president is a 3rd Way corporate Dem who got what he and his real constituents wanted.
tridim
(45,358 posts)It's not remotely true.
Great buzzwords tho. 
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)allan01
(1,950 posts)is there anyway that we could legally use the courts to stop ale since it dosent meet the means test for charity.. in california all "charitys " must be on the state das approved liste and be registered.
mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)or any of the monster corporations.. Let me say this, he knows. Maybe LBJ could have passed a public option, but that was a different time and a different man. This man got a decent bill passed against all odds and used the tools he had to use.
I still have faith, Americans will come around. More are realizing that the path to middle class comfort has been blocked by ALEC.
IkeRepublican
(406 posts)I always wished Obama used it, but that would have lent itself completely to the "angry black guy" element the Cons are have been definitely trying to provoke since January 2009.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)we would have gotten ANY form of healthcare (financing) reform without big pharma and the insurance industry's cooperation?
ETA: After re-reading your post, I realize I misunderstood/mis-read your post; but am letting my question stand for those that are crying, "If only ..."
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
"The ACA is a good Republican plan" - Bernie Sanders.
tridim
(45,358 posts)It was zero percent 5 years ago and zero percent today.
But it's a "Republican Plan"?
You're completely full of it.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Same as it would have been if he cured cancer.
While the president initiating and passing Heritage/Gingrinch/Romney Care has helped some people, the fact that he adopted it was a mistake on many fronts. the most grotesque of these was the fact that he thought some of the Repukes would actually like him because of it. As for it being a Republican plan, here is ACA fan Paul Krugman
The original Heritage plan from 1989 had all these features
These days, Heritage strives mightily to deny the obvious; it picks at essentially minor differences between what it used to advocate and the plan Democrats actually passed, and tries to make them seem like a big deal. But this is disinformation. The essential features of the ACA, above all, the mandate are ideas Republicans used to support.
tridim
(45,358 posts)
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)It was developed by the Heritage Foundation, specifically to be a Republican plan. That doesn't change just because the Republicans hate The Black Guy more than they hate their own idea.
If you were talking 1950s Republicans, it would be different. A lot of the people pushing the Heritage plan in the 90s are still in Congress today (hypocritically fighting the ACA, of course).
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)is in "Sicko"! Yet he was still invited to the "big boy table" when it came to divvying up the profits reaped by the new regulations.
2banon
(7,321 posts)I only have a general sense of what he exposed. So one question that comes to mind, is , why didn't Salon pick up the trail back then, when it mattered? It seems like the press/media does all the time. They'll have information something critical to policy matters, and they hold back, publish when it's far too late to take corrective action. Apparently Moore handed them something vital on a silver platter, but they sat on it until all these years later.
Second, more important question is what can the Justice dept do about this? anything I wonder?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Americans are pretty much banned from buying RX meds from other first world countries. Many of these new ACA insurance policies restrict pharmacy choice also.
I think we need a bill passed. Americans should be able to buy medications from any other first world country.
No American should be limited by insurance provider to specific 'in network' pharmacies. Competition for medication sales will bring lower drug prices to America.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)The two oppositional forces will essentially be frauds, funded by the same group of folks. Too bad Big Pharma doesn't make a pill for that.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts).......and turn it into an attack on the President. I choose to stay on topic. During the writing of the Medicare Part D legislation, Tauzin was the leading force in slipping a line into that law that "disallowed" the government from using those millions of subsidized seniors to negotiate lower per unit drug costs. The estimated yearly profit for the pharmaceutical industry is $4 billion as a result of that one stipulation. Quite a gift to them from the Republicans who say that the government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. Tauzin left Congress and was awarded handsomely by the industry he helped with a $2 million a year job.
Think about it. Though Tauzin did not represent Big Pharma's total lobbying effort on Medicare Part D, they pay this schmuck $2 million a year in return for an extra $4 billion a year profit. Quite the return on investment I say.
