Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gibbs: PO Not in President's Proposal because there's not enough support in Congress for it...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:10 PM
Original message
Gibbs: PO Not in President's Proposal because there's not enough support in Congress for it...
Edited on Tue Feb-23-10 02:11 PM by Clio the Leo
... and, at the moment, he's right. (Because 23 is not 50.)


Have you called your Senator today?


According to....

http://twitter.com/bazmaniandevil/status/9538009341

http://twitter.com/WestWingReport/status/9537900153

http://twitter.com/tpmmedia/status/9538386138


But also...

Gibbs: 44 wants insurers' anti-trust exemption lifted to make market more transparent & competitive. Translation: it ends legal price-fixing


http://twitter.com/bazmaniandevil/status/9537726063
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DebbieCDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why the hell is Obama so afraid to push Congress?
Doesn't he know about the bully pulpit of the presidency?

Nah...more likely he just doesn't give a shit about the people who elected him...and there are those payoffs to Big Pharma and Big Insurance to be made after all.

Sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Why are WE more afraid to push Congress than we are to gripe about the President?
(is my question)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Why push them into something Obama negotiated away already?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. It doesn't matter what you theorized was done or not done.....
Edited on Tue Feb-23-10 02:22 PM by FrenchieCat
it is senators that vote, not the President.

If we want it, than we should insist that it gets done,
to those who can actually get it done.

That's the way democracy works....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Frenchie, it appears more than a theory, please read/listen to this:
Connecting The Dots Between PhRMA And Congress

-snip

Last year, PhRMA spent $28 million lobbying in favor of a health care overhaul, after negotiating a deal with the White House and members of Congress. Had the health care bill passed, the cost-cutting measures negotiated during several meetings at the White House would have saved the pharmaceutical industry $80 billion.

By negotiating the secret deal, writer Paul Blumenthal explains, "the Obama administration got the biggest lobby in Washington and put them on the side of health care reform." Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry got a guarantee that "Congress would not legislate any cost-cutting measures that would make a dent in industry profits."

Blumenthal, a senior writer at the Sunlight Foundation, determined that Congress and PhRMA met dozens of times to negotiate that deal. He tells Terry Gross that he learned who attended the meetings by examining Federal Election Commission records, public visitor logs to the White House and the publicly available schedule of Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

"The major people are President Obama, Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina," Blumenthal says. "Jim Messina is the former chief of staff and campaign manager to Sen. Max Baucus. You see Jim Messina pop up in meetings between pharmacy CEOs."

-snip

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123889454

Here is the Sunlight Foundation's Paul Blumenthal's article:


The Legacy of Billy Tauzin: The White House-PhRMA Deal
By Paul Blumenthal on 02/12/10 @ 12:51 pm | 27 Comments

Set to carry out this agenda were two Capitol Hill veterans, schooled in the monied Washington culture, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina. Emanuel was a former fundraiser, Clinton administration official, investment banker and member of the Democratic leadership in Congress. Messina was the former campaign manager and chief of staff to the powerful Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus. Both were known for their unparalleled legislative abilities.

Because of Obama’s decision to develop a plan operating through the legislative process, members of Congress also played key roles. Early on, the pharmaceutical companies were told to deal directly with Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus. Baucus would be the vehicle for the deal worked out behind the scenes by the White House and PhRMA.

Central to this effort was PhRMA president, CEO and top lobbyist Billy Tauzin, a longtime Democratic member of Congress who switched party affiliations after Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994. By switching parties Tauzin was able to maintain his influence and even rose to be Chairman of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Tauzin became the poster child of Washington’s mercenary culture. He crafted a bill to provide prescription drug access to Medicare recipients, one that provided major concessions to the pharmaceutical industry. Medicare would not be able to negotiate for lower prescription drug costs and reimportation of drugs from first world countries would not be allowed. A few months after the bill passed, Tauzin announced that he was retiring from Congress and would be taking a job helming PhRMA for a salary of $2 million.


-snip

Democratic lawmakers were furious. Rep. Raul Grijalva, chairman of the Progressive Caucus,asked, “Are industry groups going to be the ones at the table who get the first big piece of the pie and we just fight over the crust?”

-snip

http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/02/12/the-legacy-of-billy-tauzin-the-white-house-phrma-deal/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Maybe you shoud read this

White House Health Proposal May Blow Up PhRMA Deal

This morning the White House released a new health care proposal that may be used as a blueprint for a compromise between House and Senate versions of reform. This new proposal will likely not find a receptive audience at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)–the chief lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry.

Throughout 2009, PhRMA and major pharmaceutical companies crafted a deal with the White House to limit cost cutting by the industry in exchange for the industry’s support, through over $100 million in television advertising, for health care reform. (The entire story behind the crafting of the deal can be read here.) The White House’s new proposal contains deeper cost cuts than previously agreed to and contains regulations on the relationship between brand-name and generic drug companies that the industry opposes.

The deeper cost cuts come from an attempt to further close the “donut hole” in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. The “donut hole” refers to the gap in coverage that occurs within Medicare Part D. For those purchasing prescription drugs through the program coverage cuts off at $2,700 spent and does not pick back up again until $6,154 is spent by the participant. The current language that was struck in the deal between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry maintains that drug companies would cover 50 percent of the cost for brand-name drugs for participants falling in the “donut hole.” This change would be implemented within the year. The White House’s new proposal would eliminate the “donut hole” by 2020 by making participants pay only 25 percent coinsurance with Medicare covering the other 75 percent. The White House also takes a page from the House health reform bill by providing a $250 rebate to Part D participants who fall into the “donut hole.” (The House bill provides for a $500 reduction in costs for participants who fall into the “donut hole.”)

Another piece of the proposal would allow the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate the interactions between brand-name and generic drug companies. At issue is the revelation that brand-name drug companies have been paying off generic drug companies for support on patent extensions for certain drugs. This means that consumers will see serious delays in the release of certain generic drugs and therefore still face the higher costs of brand-name drugs. The FTC is filing suit against the drug companies to end this practice and the White House proposal aims to give the FTC authority to regulate and end this practice. The summary of the proposal states that the White House would, “ anti-competitive and unlawful any agreement in which a generic drug manufacturer receives anything of value from a brand-name drug manufacturer that contains a provision in which the generic drug manufacturer agrees to limit or forego research, development, marketing, manufacturing or sales of the generic drug.” The White House claims that payouts to generic drug companies cost consumers up to $35 billion over the next ten years.

PhRMA and the brand-name drug companies backing it are adamantly opposed to FTC regulation of payouts to generic companies. A previous statement from PhRMA states:

more




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. From what I've read it appears there was a deal but it was undermined by the Chamber of
Commerce, who thought they could do even better:



Several of the lobbyists said Mr. Tauzin was undermined by a rival lobbying powerhouse —Thomas J. Donohue, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, who had fought the health care proposals from the start and complained to the drug makers that Mr. Tauzin had gone along too easily. A spokesman for Mr. Donohue declined to comment on Mr. Donohue’s behalf and later released a statement from Mr. Donohue praising Mr. Tauzin as “a great friend.”

The agreement that Mr. Tauzin struck on health care — capping the drug industry’s costs at $80 billion over 10 years and turning a perennial foe into a Democratic ally — was in some ways a fitting climax to a career of such capers.

“I don’t know anybody else who could have made a deal like that and could have made it stick,” said Wallace Henderson, Mr. Tauzin’s former chief of staff and one of the lobbyists in his hunting club. “He was one of the best political and legislative strategists I have ever seen, and I guess this sums it up: He is the only member of Congress who has ever served in the leadership of both parties.”

-snip
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/health/policy/13pharm.html

even the article you posted states:

"In the end, the pharmaceutical industry’s support for health care reform would be left up in the air. After spending $100 million in advertising in support of legislation that Tauzin and key executives hoped would be a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry, the legislative process had flat-lined. In February, the board of PhRMA, split over the deal cut by Tauzin, pushed Tauzin to resign his post."

So it appears that Rahm & Messina did attempt a deal that was non beneficial to the people but industry said no go.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. Because Congress works for US ... NOT the President ... NOT PHarma. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. Can't wait to hear Gibbs' tone when he said this...
Edited on Tue Feb-23-10 02:23 PM by Clio the Leo
... was it one of resignation or challenge? In other words, was Gibbs just tellin' like it is? Or was he dropping a "Make him do it!" hint?

I was making lunch and missed the briefing .... anyone see it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. So that means he shouldn't push for what's best for the country? Could this be related to the WH
deal w PhRMA that benefitted the corporations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Well according to the link below, I don't know about this you speak of.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. There was a deal between WH & PhRMA but industry backed by the Chamber of Commerce
thought they could do even better, read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=193880&mesg_id=193968

Back door deals that were more beneficial to corporate interest were made by those w/in the WH. Terry Gross had an excellent show on it yesterday.

hear it here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123889454

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
10. Leadership
He needs to look up that word.

When Rahm starts telling everyone in July that it's up for grabs, guess what happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
t0dd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
14. There's not enough support for the Senate insurance giveaway either, but he pushes for that.
Edited on Tue Feb-23-10 03:03 PM by t0dd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
15. why wann't that challenged
the concern for support should be with the citizens - not congress.

Why run away because it might be a tough fight. Americans want it - the administration should be fighting for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
17. If leading Dems can't get 50 for what's clearly in the public's interest then they are all bums
and need to be removed. All of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC