Could it be that Harry and Louise are happier because, this time, they're in on the deal?

[flpoljunkie]

Closing Paragraphs. Emphasis mine.

Published on Saturday, July 25, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

Obama's Health Care Struggle -- Waterloo or Water Down?

by Bill Moyers & Michael Winship

According to the Associated Press, the drug industry's trade group PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) and the drug company Pfizer "reported spending more money than other health care organizations on lobbying in the second quarter of this year" -- $6.2 million from PhRMA, $5.6 million from Pfizer.

"Including its latest report, PhRMA has now spent $13.1 million lobbying so far this year. Pfizer has reported $11.7 million in lobbying expenses for 2009."

This is part of the reason, as Alicia Mundy and Laura Meckler recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, that "the pharmaceuticals industry, which President Barack Obama promised to 'take on' during his campaign, is winning most of what it wants in the health-care overhaul."

Their story describes "a string of victories" plucked from the Senate Finance Committee by drug company lobbyists, including no cost-cutting steps, no cheaper drugs to be allowed across the border from Canada, and no direct Federal government negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies to lower Medicare drug prices.

And that's not all. The Senate Health Committee is giving the biotech industry monopoly protection against competition from generic drugs for 12 years after they go on the market.

No wonder the cost of reform keeps going up and up and up. Could it be that Harry and Louise are happier because, this time, they're in on the deal?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/25

[rurallib]

1. And the senate finance committee meets in closed session with lobbyists present

they don't even try to hide the corruption.

[MarjorieG]

2. Can we undo this in reconciliation?

[flpoljunkie]

3. They could change the bill in reconciliation, but after watching tape of Moyers PBS show

from this past Friday night, and listening to Trudy Lieberman from the Columbia School of Journalism and Marcia Angell, senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard Medical School, I agree with them--that what we may end up with may well be worse and cost far more--because the public plan will be gamed by the insurance companies to dump the sickest people--and the insurance companies will make out like bandits--it will cost more and the idea of a public plan like single payer will be finished.

They also said PHARMA is getting a great deal--as evidenced by their paying for the Harry and Louise ads, and that $8 billion a year over ten years is chump change for them.

Harvard's Marcia Angell recommended phasing out health insurance companies by phasing in Medicare--first for those 55 and over, then 44 and over, etc. to let the insurance companies move away from health insurance business to insuring other things. Medicare for all is the way to go if we are to control medical costs and insure everyone. (Medicare, of course, could very much benefit from empowering MEDPAC to control costs and ensuring effective care. In fact, it is a necessity.)

She liked the idea (Bernie Sanders' got an amendment to do just that passed in the HELP committee bill in the Senate) to have several states have single payer pilot programs.

I urge everyone to watch this program: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07242009/watch.html

[paulk]

4. I read the transcript last night

and I'm beginning to wonder if Obama's health reform is even worth pursuing.

With single payer left completely off the table, the idea that the current reform is a step in the right direction is beginning to ring hollow for me. Our President and Congress seem to be owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Pharma and Insurance industries - until we get some leadership with the courage to stand up to those concerns, any legislation coming out of DC has to be suspect.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Yes. I strongly suspect Sanders 'single payer' experiment will be stripped out in conference.

I especially like the idea of expanding Medicare gradually, starting with 55 and up, while phasing out private insurance, who could perhaps, like in other countries provide supplemental insurance--just like they do now for Medicare--so they would not be left out of the equation totally.

It will never happen if we do not demand it, and sadly, I do not see that happening. It would be too politically risky for the Democrats, and we know how weak kneed they are--beside being addicted to health care industry money and lobbyists who bundle money for their campaigns.

[inna]

8. thanks for the link, lots of good stuff there!

check this out, does it sound familiar?...

What he has essentially advocated is throwing more money into the current system. He's treating the symptom and he's not treating the underlying cause of our problem. Our problem is that we spend two and a half times as much per person on health care as other advanced countries, the average of other advanced countries. And we don't get our money's worth. So, now he says, okay, this is a terribly inefficient, wasteful system. Let's throw some money into it.

wow, that sounds exactly like the Wall Street/financial industry bailout, doesn't it.

(well, at least that one haven't resulted in a total catastrophe (yet), as some expected. ... just trying to see the glass as half-full here... not much material to work with, but still.)

MARCIA ANGELL: Well, that goes to the cause of the problem. We are the only advanced country in the world that has chosen to leave health care to the tender mercies of a panoply of for-profit businesses, whose purpose is to maximize income and not to provide health. And that's exactly what they do.

BILL MOYERS: The President, as you were saying a moment ago, is saying to everybody who's not covered, we're going to mandate that you exercise that right. We're going to mandate that you buy some form--

MARCIA ANGELL: We're going to deliver the private insurance companies a captive market. That's right. And they love that.

exactly. this is worth repeating:

Delivers to the private insurance industry a captive market.

...By the mandate.

...For whatever price they want to charge. Right. And so, this will increase costs. And let me tell you what he's running into, and he'd like to be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat, but he won't be able to. If you leave this profit-oriented system in place, you can't both control costs and increase coverage. You inevitably, if you try to increase coverage, increase costs. The only answer, the only answer, and he said it at the beginning of his press conference, is a single payer system. In his first sentence, he said, that is the only way to cover everyone.

BILL MOYERS: But he's also said, if we were starting the system from scratch, we could have single payer. But we're not starting this system from scratch.

MARCIA ANGELL: You know, you don't pour more money into a failing system. You convert.

so, it's

...More coverage from the private insurers.

TRUDY LIEBERMAN: At whatever price they want to charge. It will be a bonanza for the health insurance industry. And a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry. And for the doctors, too. Because the doctors are going to get more paying patients, because people will now have this ticket, this insurance card, that they can whip out when they need medical services.

BILL MOYERS: So, does this explain why Harry and Louise, who were around 15 years ago to help defeat Bill Clinton's health plan, Bill and Hillary Clinton's health plan, are back now in support? Seemingly to be in support?

MARCIA ANGELL: You bet it does. You bet it does.

...I don't think that even the best of the proposals that he is considering are going to be effective. And I worry about even the public option, ... because the power of the insurance industry is so great that I believe that they would use their clout in Congress to hobble the public option in some way. And have it become a dumping ground for the sickest patients, and then cream off the profitable ones for themselves. And then what people would decide is that the public option was no good. That the public couldn't do any-- the government couldn't do anything right. And that would be the wrong lesson to dwell on.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07242009/transcript1.html

[flpoljunkie]

9. Terrific excerpts. Thanks for taking the time to post them.

[inna]

11. you're most welcome! :)

:hi:

actually, that transcript/interview was one of the most revealing pieces i've read on this issue to date;

i followed the link in your thread and then i "emergency-blogged" it right in your thread just as i was reading it for the first time, i just felt compelled to highlight some major points and save them for future reference. it's great material, this woman (Dr. Marcia Angell) really should write it all up in an article form, to make it all more concise and effective (because, for obvious reasons, raw interview transcripts are a little hard to follow).

anyway, this is what i LOVE about the DU, this community sort of thing! :) i learn so much from others (things i'd probably never find out on my own, great links i'd never discover otherwise, etc. ... and thanks for letting me use your thread btw! :pals: i actually posted it to my journal instead of starting my own thread (which would've gotten immediately unrecced into oblivion! :evilgrin: :P )



p.s. here's another spontaneous community "brainstorming" post - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8553784&mesg_id=8554047 - what's interesting is that i learned ALL those points in the last couple of days on DU, every single statement there is supported by factual information that i discovered through links posted by other DU'rs in this and other threads.

all i can say, thank god for the internet, where we can at least still find the truth. i simply CANNOT believe the spin and drivel we get from the M$M. :grr:

[invictus]

5. K&R

[Captain Hilts]

7. Absolutely. nt

[andym]

10. But right now they have unlimited monopoly (by the FDA)

So the bill is a small step in the right direction.

Biotech-based drugs were excluded from earlier legislation (1984) allowing FDA to regulate the period before generics are allowed. Therefore, the only limitation is patent rights which are 20 years from filing (that probably works out to about 14-16 years of protection, depending on how long clinical trials take).

The Biotech lobby wanted a minimum of 14 years, they got 12. This was the number Senator Kennedy had previously supported.

The Obama administration wanted this period of exclusion to be 7 years. It was voted down by the committee 5-17.

See here for more info:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_biotech_drugs

Now in the end, the cost savings of 7 vs 12 years would be substantial and THAT should be the argument to get this changed!

[flpoljunkie]

12. PHARMA also kept negotiating for lower drug prices out of Bush's 2003 prescription drug bill.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. When I saw the resurrection of Harry and Louise --

I knew the Industry was getting some pretty serious action in this bill. :puke: