|
Was a bogus bill that did little. It was a bill passed in order to get around the fact than he vetoed a real bill designed to stop the pharmaceitical companies from gouging the VSCRIPT program: It took real courage for Dean to take 6,000 dollars in campaign contributions from the phamaceutical companies, and then veto significant legislation three dats later: MARCELLA LANDELL, et al., Plaintiffs, NEIL RANDALL, et al., Plaintiffs, and VERMONT REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM H. SORRELL, et al., Defendants, and VERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, et al., Defendant-Intervenors Docket No. 2:99-cv-146 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT August 10, 2000, Decided August 10, 2000, Filed Reports also described allegations that Governor Dean vetoed a pharmacy bill after collecting $ 6,000 in campaign contributions from drug companies
The influence of out-of-state donations: "Outside money is one of Howard Dean's specialties. Of the $ 312,290 the governor raised for his 1996 election, 65 percent came from out-of-state contributors: labor unions, Washington lawyer-lobbyists, the health care industry, to name a few of the special interests." n13 For the 1994 election "Dean, for example, received more money from major pharmaceutical manufacturers during the reporting period ($ 11,000) thin he did from people and companies located in Burlington ($ 10,460)." n14 One editorial said, "it's no mystery why out-of-state contributors pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Vermont campaigns. ... They're trying to buy influence. But the cost is public trust." Bryan Pfeiffer, Dean Angry About Pharmacy Veto Criticism, News Story, Rutland Herald, June 16, 1994 http://www.brookingsinstitution.org/dybdocroot/gs/cf/headlines/cases/LandellvSorrell.DOCThe full story of Dean's sel out of the state to "Big Pill cna be found at: Challenging Pharmaceutical Industry Political Power in Maine and Vermont Ramón Castellblanch San Francisco State University Abstract A comparison of the Vermont and Maine cases of attempting to control pharmaceutical prices in the year 2000 shows that the Maine legislators were more successful in challenging pharmaceutical industry political power. This comparison shows that challenging the industry was aided by (1) mobilizing public support through grassroots organizations, (2) including independent pharmacists in negotiations over the legislation, and (3) developing state purchasing power leverage.
...At the beginning of the 2000 legislative session, Senator Rivers, Vermont Senate President pro tempore Peter Shumlin (D-Putney), and eight other state senators introduced a new bill related to drug prices, S 300. The bill included provisions to lower drug prices, such as helping people to purchase drugs in Canada; it also provided for direct regulation of drug prices. S 300 started out without strong independent pharmacist opposition. It did so despite special concerns that they had about price caps. Part of the income that pharmacists earn derives from high markups on drugs sold to people without any discount arrangements. Price controls would reduce pharmacists' incomes to the extent that they would not allow them these high markups. Pharmacists were told by price control proponents that their net revenue would not be cut by S 300. Proponents asserted that there would be volume increases in drug store sales resulting from the plan that would offset the losses that pharmacists would take on lost markups. Without vigorous arguments to the contrary, some pharmacists were inclined to accept this logic...
...After it was clear that S 300 was blocked, Governor Dean announced that he would not veto it. His "support" was too late. Had he acted earlier in the legislative session, he could have used legislative items sought by the blue dogs in bargaining with them on the prescription drug price bill. By the time the governor indicated his support, there was little left with which to bargain. His support also came too late for the independent pharmacists. Had his support come earlier, he might have helped persuade independent pharmacy owners that the bill would not reduce their revenues...
http://www.metrostate.edu/cgi-bin/troxy/lproxy.cgi/URL-www.press.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_health_politics_policy_and_law/v028/28.1castellblanch.html
This article, bt Dr Ramon Castellblanch, the United States formost expert and opponent of the abuses of the parmaceutica companies indicates Dean's acting infavor of the pharmaceutical companies and his role in perpetuating the political power they wielded over the government of Vermont during his tenure as Govenor, covering the period from 1994, when Dean vetoed legislations that would have saved the tax payers and citizens of Vermont hundreds of millions of dollars in prescription expenses, to 2002, when after gaining more political subtlty, he simply blocked all attempts of the Vermont Democratic Party to prevent the drug compoanies from massively overcharging for their products. His bill that prevented the drug companies from giving doctors gifts worth more than 25 dollars was the most bogus and offensive legislation possible. It did absolutely nothing to stop the blatant theft committed by "Big Pill"
The same thing irtually applies to all of Vermont's social programs, none of which Dean was responmsible for creating, and all of which at one time or other in his tenure as governor, Dena attmpted to cut or eliminate:
Medicaid cuts will affect thousands of Vermonters
January 23, 2002
By DAVID MACE
Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER — Tens of thousands of Vermonters would see their state health care benefits rolled back or cut off completely under Gov. Howard Dean’s proposed budget, which seeks to wring $16.5 million in savings from Medicaid.
In an effort to curb costs in a rapidly expanding part of the social services budget, Dean is proposing to require many people who got coverage under his expansions of Medicaid programs to pay for a greater share of their health care...
Under the proposed budget, about 3,200 elderly or disabled Vermonters who get half the cost of long-term drugs paid for under a program called VScript Expanded would see their benefits disappear. This would save the state nearly $2.5 million. A single Vermonter with an annual income up to $19,332 is currently eligible.
And even those making less who are covered under the state’s standard VScript program will see their costs rise...
http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/41169.html
Those who know Dean say he’s no classic liberal
By ROSS SNEYD
Dean trimmed spending or held down increases in areas held dear by the liberals. More than once, Dean went to battle over whether individual welfare benefits should rise under automatic cost of living adjustments. Liberals were particularly incensed when he tried that tactic on a program serving the blind, disabled and elderly, which he did several times.
http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may_03/may_19/news/reg_vt0519a.asp
Howard Dean: the Progressive Anti-War Candidate?
Some Vermonters Give Their Views
By DONNA BISTER, MARC ESTRIN
and RON JACOBS
Health Care
Howard Dean gives passionate speeches about universal health care as a moral imperative, not just a policy initiative. Maybe, somewhere deep in his heart, he really believes that people have a right to good health care. But we sure aren't going to get there following the path he took in Vermont: tiny increments -- adding insurance coverage for kids in moderate income families one year, cutting back their benefits and increasing their co-pays and premiums the next. Adding a prescription drug benefit for low-income seniors, then cutting many of the most commonly used new drugs out of the formulary and forcing seniors back onto older medications with more side effects. His national proposal is similar--not really universal: it would extend Medicaid to people under 25, add a little prescription drug coverage to Medicare, tinker with this, adjust that, don't do anything to upset the insurance companies or big Pharmaceuticals. Then, when the bill gets big, he would make the cutbacks in the same incremental fashion. For example, began by defunding eyeglasses for kids here, dentures for seniors there. You know, just a few cuts; after all, everyone has to do his share.
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html
Dean calls for discipline in budget address
January 22, 2002
“The Medicaid budget will present significant challenges,” Dean said. “Every Vermonter deserves to have access to health care, and I will continue to fight for that principle. But we cannot afford to provide all the services that we currently offer.”
Dean said he wanted to eliminate some of the optional benefits Vermont offers through Medicaid so that the program would look more like the health care packages available through private insurance carriers. Vermont currently spends about $440 million on Medicaid, with about 60 cents of each dollar coming from the federal government and 40 cents from Vermont. The federal government mandates many of the benefits, but Vermont also provides some optional benefits.
During Dean’s tenure, Vermont has created some state-funded health care programs for people who are not eligible for Medicaid. Dean called for cuts in those programs as well.
http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/41141
Text of budget speech
January 22, 2002
By The Associated Press
Text of Gov. Howard Dean's 2002 budget address:{/b]
...This budget does not include revenue increases -- such as the cigarette tax -- that the Legislature has previously opposed. Therefore, I regretfully recommend to you that we eliminate the expanded VSCRIPT program in its entirety, which is 100 percent funded through state dollars.
I also ask that we impose a 50 percent co-payment on pharmaceutical benefits through both the Vermont Health Access Plan and the remaining VSCRIPT program. These pharmaceutical programs are among the most expensive and rapidly growing parts of the Human Services budget...
http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/41112
On August 9th of 1993, four days after that fateful budget vote in the House of Representatives and one day before President Clinton signed his economic plan into law, Howard Dean announced a series of mid-year budget cuts that shocked the State of Vermont. State revenues had come in a little below expectations, so he decided that cuts had to be made. He cut health care services for 2,500 low-income disabled adults. He dropped dental coverage for over 12,000 Medicaid recipients. Monthly welfare benefits were cut. And for those nursing home patients who were forced to go the hospital, Medicaid would no longer pay to hold their bed for them back at the nursing home."
"In the end, Howard Dean was forced to back down by state legislators and by Vermont Legal Aid, which sued him for making cuts without the proper authority."
"In 1993, Howard Dean cut special education funding by a million dollars and refused to increase education funding by the $7 million the State Board of Education said was critically necessary."
"In 1994, he increased state spending in nearly every area, but froze funding for Medicaid, education, and special education. Children with special needs and ailing low income citizens didn’t warrant even a meager three percent increase in funding."
"In 1995, Howard Dean tried to cut nearly a million dollars from the Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled Program. The state legislature refused. Shortly afterwards, he made similar cuts without the legislature’s approval, and again he was sued. A judge ordered him to restore the funding."
"In 1996, Howard Dean tried to cut over $26 million from Medicaid, and four times as Governor, he tried to eliminate prescription drug assistance for seniors. The very same program he now proclaims across the country."
"Time after time, when faced with budget shortfalls, Howard Dean’s first and only instinct was to cut. Cut education, cut prescription drug coverage, cut Medicaid funding, cut aid to the elderly, blind, and disabled. Howard Dean wears his bravado as a budget cutter like a badge of honor. But to me, where’s the honor in saying quote ‘we’re willing to go after our own people’s education, health, and welfare.’ There is no place for governance without compassion. You can be proficient without empathy, but human lives deserve something more."
http://www.politicsus.com/presidential%20press%20releases/Gephardt/112303.htm
As noted, whenever Dean found it necessary to balance the budget, Dean never did the ethical thing, the moral thing, in fact the thing that we as Democrats regard as the only correctway to balance a budget. To raise taxes on those who earn the most from the fredoms offered by our system of government. Whenever Dean was faced with a fiscal crisis Dean chose to make cuts to those who were the most vulnerable, the weakest.Those least capable of contributing to his campaign war chest. Those unable to fight for themselves.
Whenver I think of what the best government policy is I go back to the very earliest law giver Hammurabi, who said in his law code:
The first duty of government is to protect the powerless against the powerful.
Howard Deans concepts of fiscal conservatism fly in the face of this very first description of the obligation of the goverors to the governed.
Dean has always been ready to do the opposite. To turn his power against the powerless, in order to protect the powerful"
Lets look at another article about the state of bought government in Vermont:
Much of the defense's testimony, on the other hand, tried to show that while few Vermont lawmakers took actual bribes--the only example was a particularly clueless tobacco lobbyist handing out $40 checks on the state house floor to legislators who had just voted in support of his industry--they succumbed to more subtle but no less destructive corruption. Peter Shumlin, president pro tem of the senate, said that his heavy fundraising on behalf of Democrats in the 1996 election cycle "was one of the most distasteful things that I've had to do in public service." Money bought access. "Access," as Shumlin says, "equals influence." ...
Even in nice little Vermont, with a population the size of Washington, D.C., lawmakers receive largesse not only from local businesses and individuals, but from such national corporations and trade organizations as R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, Monsanto, Parke-Davis, Anheuser-Busch, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and the American Insurance Association. In the 1994 race, Dean received more contributions just from pharmaceutical interests than the Republican challenger David Kelley collected in total....
Shumlin says, "I heard directly from pharmaceuticals that they would be working actively against Democrats in Vermont. The death of the pharmaceutical bill was a great example of effective lobbying by interests absolutely contrary to public interest. There is no question they influenced legislators in two ways. One, through the threat of not having access to generous campaign contributions, and two... ." He pauses and adds, "There is no two."
1994 was the same year Dean vetoed real pharmaceutical legislation.
The later gift legislation was a "ppiece of fluff bill" something that the drug companies allowed Dean to do to get out from under the chages of having been paid off to veto Peter Shumlins legislation which would have controlled the excessive profits of pharmeceutical companies. He gave them a piece of legislation that they approved of, which would not hurt their profits. Sort of like the "Clear Skies Initiative that rtepublicans show off as an indication of their envoronmental credentials. A joke
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
