Democrats Spar Among Themselves Over PhRMA Deal (NYTimes)

[polichick]

The first big fight over the Senate Finance Committee’s health care legislation erupted Tuesday night: a rollicking brawl over a deal that the Obama administration cut with the pharmaceutical industry to achieve $80 billion in savings on drug costs over 10 years, money that would help pay for the legislation.

Top House Democrats have hated the deal from the get-go. Senate Democrats are now bitterly divided. And Senate Republicans are eagerly jumping into the fray to needle the Democrats over their divisions.

Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, has proposed an amendment that would essentially toss out the White House deal with PhRMA, the lobbying association for the drug industry. Mr. Nelson said his alternate plan would extract an additional $86 billion more from the drug industry.

One by one, the more liberal Democrats on the Finance panel, including John Kerry of Massachusetts, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, raced to Mr. Nelson’s side, asking to be added as co-sponsors of his amendment.


http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/democrats-spar-among-themselves-over-phrma-deal/

Hope this isn't a dupe - did a search and didn't find it.

It's really getting interesting now!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. It was a bad deal from the getgo. $80 billion over 10 years is laughable

Particularly since it was supposed to shelter Pharma from ANY FURTHER negotiations as we go down the road. That's the biggest rub and that's why Dems who were not party to the dealmaking are striking back - Good for them!

[polichick]

3. Agreed - I'm glad to see them fighting! nt

[ProSense]

6. The $80 billion deal was a good deal, and a start. Those trying to

portray this as the end all are being ridiculous.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. Only it apparently it wasn't negotiated as "a start"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1
White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: August 5, 2009

WASHINGTON —
skip

Mr. Tauzin said the administration had approached him to negotiate. “They wanted a big player to come in and set the bar for everybody else,” he said. He said the White House had directed him to negotiate with Senator Max Baucus, the business-friendly Montana Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. “80 billion is the max, no more or less,” he said. “Adding other stuff changes the deal.”

After reaching an agreement with Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tauzin said, he met twice at the White House with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Mr. Messina, his deputy; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the aide overseeing the health care overhaul, to confirm the administration’s support for the terms.


In an interview on Wednesday, Representative Raul M. Grijalva, the Arizona Democrat who is co-chairman of the House progressive caucus, called Mr. Tauzin’s comments “disturbing.”

“We have all been focused on the debate in Congress, but perhaps the deal has already been cut,” Mr. Grijalva said. “That would put us in the untenable position of trying to scuttle it.”

*************************************************************************************************************************************

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/us/08lobby.html
Obama Reverses Stand on Drug Industry Deal
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: August 7, 2009

WASHINGTON — Caught between a pivotal industry ally and the protests of Congressional Democrats, the Obama administration on Friday backed away from what drug industry lobbyists had said this week was a firm White House promise to exclude from a proposed health care overhaul the possibility of allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices under Medicare.

*************************************************************************************************************************************

As anyone can see from the dates on those stories, this battle has been brewing for weeks and the White House has been sending out mixed messages. And we haven't even gotten to the bill merging part yet. I'm THRILLED that the Dems on the Finance Committee and those in the House are looking for more.

[polichick]

12. This is creepy stuff...

...and it's very hard to believe that the prez didn't approve of this disgusting deal.

[ProSense]

33. Come on, the Pharma industry?

It's up to Congress. Why the hell would anyone be defending Pharma's version of this?

[grantcart]

45. It may have been necessary to isolate the Health Care Industry and have Pharma

lobbyists push for passage but I doubt that you can really call it a 'good' deal.

[quantass]

64. Why not ~scribble~ $200B ? In the end the No-Negotiating Clause == Higher Prices & More Profits nt

[SpartanDem]

2. I saw it last night and it was pretty heated

Go about 1hr 20min if want to see it.

http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/09/22/HP/A/23420/Senate+Finance+Cmte+Markup+of+Health+Care+Bill.aspx

[polichick]

4. Thanks - I'm watching it right now. nt

[karynnj]

31. Thank you - this is great

I'm watching it now.

[slipslidingaway]

55. Interesting 30 minute discussion, everyone seems to believe ...

there was a deal and one reason for this amendment IMO would be to draw in some seniors.

Although I wish they would return to the campaign plan of negotiating prices.

Thanks for posting.

[polichick]

5. I see the unrecom. have already started for the inconvenient truths. lol

[joeycola]

7. They think they are cool in their rose colored glasses.

[polichick]

8. God forbid this should happen...

[joeycola]

11. LOL

[joeycola]

10. Sometimes Kerry makes an A** out of himself!!!........

....Mr. Kerry tried to defend the Obama White House, suggesting that President Obama was not personally involved. But high-level White House officials, including a deputy chief of staff, participated in the negotiations.

And, as Mr. Grassley noted sarcastically, Mr. Obama has attended several news conferences with health industry groups, including the drug makers, to trumpet their support for his effort to overhaul the health system.

Senator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of Delaware, warned that it would be unethical for Democrats to back away from the agreement with the drug industry, which was reached by top White House officials working closely with the Finance Committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana.

“This is not the way that I would like to be treated,” Mr. Carper said. “Whether you like PhRMA or not, we have a deal.”

Mr. Schumer insisted that senators were not bound by the agreement. “That’s a value judgment,” he said. “This is going to be a constant debate when we come to this bill, and I don’t disagree that this is a difficult balance, but how often do we side with one of the interest groups, and how often do we side with the average citizens?”

The fight over the deal with PhRMA actually stems from the legislative battle over the Medicare prescription drug legislation that Republicans successfully pushed through Congress in 2003. As a result of that legislation, about 6 million elderly Americans who had been receiving drug benefits under Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor, were instead shifted into the new Medicare drug program, resulting in the government paying far high prices for drugs.

Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, and now the powerful chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has long complained about that switch. And the House health care legislation, of which Mr. Waxman is a main author, seeks to reverse the arrangement and to recoup the extra money that the government has been spending by restoring the old Medicaid drug discounts or “rebates” as they are known.

That would save the government at least $86 billion over 10 years, but would potentially cost the drug industry far more.

“You know who pays for that deal,” Mr. Kerry intoned. “The taxpayers. Taxpayers are paying for that. Taxpayers are covering the difference because PhRMA won’t.”

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. "How often do we side with one of the interest groups, how often . . . with the average citizen?"

Good question, Mr. Schumer.

Things have to be pretty GD embarrassing when you have to ask questions like this out loud.

(I think WE ALL know the answer.)

[polichick]

14. I guess Kerry wanted to protect the prez...

But he had to know what was going on.

Glad Kerry spoke up for taxpayers.

[politicasista]

51. So in another thread

Kerry is one of the "heroes" on Day 1, but in this thread, he somehow "loses credibility" on this issue and "makes an a^! out of himself"?

It would be intersting if people claming to be liberal progressives smearing him on this site could count the ways he has done that. But they can't. (Not talking about you of course. :))


Shouldn't that type anger be directed at pols that need it or people like the Repukes? JAO.

[Mimosa]

59. Dems have betrayed us big time on this issue

politicasista I worked my heart out and my fingers to the bone for Obama and the Dems. And I'm feeling might betrayed about now.

June 2008 Obama said he'd work for a single payer system.

Now we're going to get shiite.

[ProSense]

15. How fucking stupid.

But as Democrats sharply criticized the deal with PhRMA as a giveaway to the drug industry, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the panel, interjected derisively. “You know who cut the deal,” he snapped at Mr. Schumer. Later, Mr. Grassley added: “If this is a bad deal, you ought to be embarrassed for your president. It didn’t come from anybody sitting on this side, this deal.”

Mr. Kerry tried to defend the Obama White House, suggesting that President Obama was not personally involved. But high-level White House officials, including a deputy chief of staff, participated in the negotiations.

Only a tool would use this Republican spin to try to claim the President should be embarrassed.

[polichick]

16. The person claiming that IS a Republican. nt

[ProSense]

25. Is the person trying to use this editorializing to justify Grassley's BS a Repub? n/t

[polichick]

27. Actually, it was you who focused on the Grassley portion of the posted piece. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

17. The NYT should check their own reporting since the story I linked to in #9

clearly says that there were 2 meetings with not just a deputy chief of staff but THE Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel.

Personally, I think it was a essentially a give-away if was negotiated as the be-all-end-all concession from Pharma to extend for 10 years at the exclusion of anything else. Most commentaries, opinions I have read share that view. Bad deal.

I have been following this very closely and knew that the time would come when the Dems would either have to accept or reject this lame ass deal negotiated by Baucus with the White House's approval. It is what it is. And yes, it is embarrassing for the Dems to be rejecting a deal that the White House signed onto. Oh well, that's why we have ADVISE AND CONSENT and if Baucus and the White House allowed themselves to be rolled for whatever reason, it's good to know that the backstop is working like it's supposed to.

[polichick]

18. Even choosing Baucus for this was a huge mistake imo...

Just looks like the WH was protecting big pharma from the get-go ~ just like failing to consider Medicare for all protects insurers.

From banking to healthcare to war, this WH seems reluctant to upset the apple cart.

[karynnj]

37. The WH did not choose Baucus - he is the chair of a relevant committee

[polichick]

38. Was it the only committee that could deal with pharma??

Since Baucus is a pharma whore, it seems like a particularly bad idea to use him to cut this deal.

[karynnj]

47. I believe they have juristiction over Medicare - so, yes

[karynnj]

19. Kerry's comments have been very very good - as has his work here

I think that his attempt to defend Obama was out of loyalty and likely without great thought. The fact is Obama signed on to the program - so it doesn't matter whether he personally did the negotiation. Clearly not Kerry at his best, but it certainly does not deserve your comment. I can think of any number of politicians who might deserve that comment.

The fact is that Kerry's loyalty - a virtue that many other politicians seem to lack - did not stop him from being one of the people who attacked the deal.

[joeycola]

22. loyality gets you acting stupid at times. Nough said.

[ProSense]

29. BS! "Mr. Kerry tried to defend the Obama White House..."

Do you know for a fact that Kerry was actually defending Obama in this way? You have no clue what he actually said or the context of his statement. Grassley's made an idiotic comment and the article positions the editorial comment about Kerry as if it was in response to Grassley:

Mr. Kerry tried to defend the Obama White House, suggesting that President Obama was not personally involved. But high-level White House officials, including a deputy chief of staff, participated in the negotiations.

What is that supposed to clarify. Obama wasn't involved, but high-level official were?

This is editorialized BS.

[joeycola]

34. Obama gave his approving nod. Nough said.

[karynnj]

42. Watching the video on the link in this thread

Kerry did very weakly deflect some of Grassley's attack from Obama, then dropped it - and made the strong point that Congress did not have to accept it. He then countered Carper's points, which were that the dual eligibles got additional subsidies. Kerry pointed out that the government paid those subsidies, because Pharma wouldn't. (This was really saying it was an additional give away from Part D.

It is at around 1:50.

The point is, it was a complete nothing - having no bearing at all on any of the substantive points he brought up. Watching this and other hearings, what is clear is that Kerry is a very respected, serious, Senator, whose words are often repeated by others speaking after him.

[politicasista]

54. Nah. Facts never get in the way of a good

Kerry dumping. If this were another favorite Dem liberal, progressive, the line "makes an a** out of himself" would not have been said.

[karynnj]

35. Actually, I just watched the segment - and NO, not "nough said"

from the link on this thread. You might want to watch it - the fact is that Kerry did in less than 10 words - weakly defend Obama - then gave it up. He immediately said that the Congress did not have to accept the deal. From there, he made the connection explicit that the government paid the $86 billion for the dual eligibles to keep their cost where it was before Part D, which INCREASED the cost Pharma got. He then spoke of other ways Pharma is running up the cost by advertising drugs getting people to push for them.

Not stupid at all. He was right on target and completely right. I would have agreed had he defended both Obama and the deal - he didn't. (On the link, this started at 1:50.)

[ProSense]

39. Yet there are people going to great lengths to defend Pharma's version.

Disgusting.

[polichick]

41. Who is "defending Pharma's version?" nt

[joeycola]

40. " weakly defend Obama - " Kerry still did it. Nough said.

[karynnj]

43. Not really a crime and it didn't hurt his ability to get his points across

The fact is YOUR original comment here is far worse than Kerry's few words in defense of Obama.

[joeycola]

44. It hurt Kerry's credibility. Simple as that.

[karynnj]

46. No it didn't.

Kerry's credibility is not in any danger - especially not from a few innocuous words in a Senate hearing.

[karynnj]

48. Likely only with you -

The fact is that there is nothing there that hurts his credibility. This is not a policy change, a lie, or anything unsavory. He is well respected by his peers and internationally. There was nothing in what he said that would change anyone's opinion of him.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Could we save another 220 billion in addition to the 80 billion using VA prices...

http://www.slate.com/id/2224621/

"...Candidate Obama, citing a paper by Roger Hickey, Jeff Cruz, and Dean Baker of the Institute for America's Future, put the savings at $30 billion a year, which over a decade would be roughly twice the $156 billion savings envisioned by the energy and commerce committee. (Hickey, Cruz, and Baker proposed matching not Medicaid drug prices but those negotiated by the more straightforwardly socialist Veterans Administration.) By this reckoning, Tauzin swindled not $76 billion from President Obama but $220 billion. That's nearly half what the House health reform bill expects to raise with its proposed surtax on incomes above $350,000! ..."


BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN TO LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS
AND ENSURE AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL
9 page pdf
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

"...Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug
Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of
prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug
prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers.32 Barack Obama and Joe
Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which
could be as high as $30 billion,33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality..."


Here is the plan cited above, 7 page pdf

http://www.ourfuture.org/files/z_historic/medicare/states/NorthCarolina.pdf

"...Legislation to allow negotiation overwhelmingly passed the House in January and will
soon be debated in the Senate. Groups like the AARP, Families USA, the Alliance for
Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare,
US Action and Campaign for America’s Future have mobilized to help pass this
legislation. However, the pharmaceutical industry – with its annual lobbying budget of
over $100 million – is also mobilizing to protect its excess profits by opposing any
changes to Part D.

In addition to the tremendous savings offered by allowing Medicare to negotiate for
lower prices, there is also an opportunity to save more than $5 billion a year nationally in
administrative costs by allowing seniors to get their benefits directly from Medicare.
Both of these ideas are very popular with the American people, being favored by 85%
and 76% of American adults, respectively. If both enacted, this could save American
seniors and taxpayers more than $35 billion annually..."

[polichick]

21. Wow - so what changed?? nt

[slipslidingaway]

24. If Obama held to the original plan there would have been no commercials...

from the drug companies in favor of reform, also there most likely would not have been any campaign contributions.

:(

[polichick]

28. Those priorities could get the prez a primary challenger. nt

[slipslidingaway]

30. The sad fact is that most people will never know as the media...

does not question.

Also who would find a challenger's campaign.

Media and campaign finance are killing us...literally.

:(

[polichick]

32. Of course, Congress could take care of campaign finance any time they want...

I'm surprised that Obama would go for a deal like this pharma thing ~ especially since his campaign was largely funded by voters.

[slipslidingaway]

49. Yes Congress could, nobody asking about this portion of his HC plan :( n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

23. Great great post. Thanks.

I think you should post this as an OP so people can see how truly inadequate that deal for 80 Billion was.

[slipslidingaway]

26. It just goes to show how quickly we forget what was promised...

and where is the corporate and / or liberal media on this subject.

Thanks, maybe later or if you want to, then post the link here so I can rec it later.

:)

[slipslidingaway]

65. Posted in GD...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6622945&mesg_id=6622945

[ProSense]

36. Congress will get more on top of the $80 billion,

and there is also legislation to save Americans even more.

[slipslidingaway]

50. Why backoff from the 300 billion mentioned in the HC proposal...

and there is no guarantee of the 80 billion as far as I know.

Your link talks about another aspect of the Obama/Biden HC plan, let's not muddy the waters and include it with the 300 billion savings from negotiated Medicare drug prices.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

"...Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug
Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of
prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug
prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers.32 Barack Obama and Joe
Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which
could be as high as $30 billion,33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality..."

[slipslidingaway]

57. Crickets again. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

52. But the DU apologist brigade insisted there was no such deal...

What do they have to say to this story that don't involve ad hominem attacks?

[Prism]

53. I know, right?

There was no deal, it was all right-wing spin, it was the pharmaceutical companies leaking false info to damage the administration, and on and on and on. Those who took issue with the deal were hounded, declared trolls, called PUMAs, etc. etc. etc.

But, oh dear, there was a deal and everyone in Congress seemed to be quite aware of it.

These are desperate times. Hrm. Recommended technique? Learn from the mandate fiasco. Pivot, attack whomever, pretend that 180 is in fact what you believed all along. Seems to work just fine.

[slipslidingaway]

56. Watch the cspan video if you have time...

posted in the thread below.

About 30 minutes...everyone is talking about the deal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8667526&mesg_id=8667537


But this is what was in the Obama/Biden Health Care Plan
Maybe 300 billion over 10 years...


BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN TO LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS
AND ENSURE AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL

page 5
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

"...Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices.

The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug

Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of
prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug
prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers.32 Barack Obama and Joe
Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which
could be as high as $30 billion,33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality..."

[Better Believe It]

58. And how is such a "deal" enforced by the government?

Trust them?

[slipslidingaway]

60. Appears they will be voting on the Nelson amendment soon...

http://www.cspan.org/Watch/C-SPAN3_wm.aspx

[slipslidingaway]

61. Grassley saying that it was Rockefeller who wanted low income seniors...

to use the Medicare price for drugs...back in 2003.

[polichick]

62. Thanks for the heads-up; just turned off Big Ed's show in favor of c-span. nt

[slipslidingaway]

63. You're welcome, Dems voting no Baucus, Carper, Menendez...

although they did say earlier that Baucus told Nelson he would support the amendment when it gets to the floor.