Here's my plan for cutting Medicare spending without reducing quality:

[spooky3]

Negotiate prescription drug prices like other western societies (e.g., France, Germany) do!

We pay far more for the same prescriptions than do people anywhere else, in many cases twice as much or more.

It is only because the Rethugs wanted to keep the pharmaceutical industry's profits among the highest of any industry that the situation is what it is today.

[eleny]

1. +1

[msongs]

2. name a famous political party who surrendered that option to pass recent HCR bills nt

[vaberella]

3. That's what Obama said in his speech today. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

6. He said the same thing in 2008, it was part of his HC plan!!! ...

I posted this to you in your thread about Medicare (crickets) ... you should know what was in his plan and what he said in his speech in Newport News before being elected.

Then he made a deal with "Billy" to run ads in favor of a mandate to purchase HC insurance, Not care!

[vaberella]

13. apologies...I didn't respond to everyone.

He did put in the HCR bill. However, it was one of the measure he had to give up on in order to get HCR to pass through. He gave up a lot of good measures and he did know that. In regards to that, but some give and take was the case.

I already this is stuff he has said before. I was not surprised by anything he said. However, he's standing firm because the risk is definitely greater now. In the last congress none of the measures that would have been put at now would have even been brought up. Meaning the Repubs would talk but nothing would happen. But the repubs now are ONLY pimping a plan that Repubs were mocked for last year. This is where the words are put into action. When there is no apparent threat because you control Congress---then the words aren't really that big of a deal.

AS for the mandate--Hillary Clinton did the same in her plan. He was against the mandate and pushed the PO as an alternative to the mandate. He would have been successful if the Dems in the last congress had his back and helped enact the PO. There is nothing you can do when your caucus turns on you. Seriously, I don't see what you would want him to do in regards to that.

Even before it was written and Obama was just advocating it---Senate Dems were against it. The mandate had to be put in place where the PO would have been more functional. What is this deal with "Billy" I'm lost to that statement.

[slipslidingaway]

14. From your earlier thread and post ...

"Understanding the President's Medicare Proposal.... What does this mean? Obama will propose using Medicare's purchasing power to reduce prescription drug costs for seniors."

I knew exactly what he meant, it sounded familiar to promises made in the past. His HC plan referenced a study of how much could be saved using the veterans plan, connecting the two promises was pretty easy. If you already knew this stuff why ask above question?

The Repubs were not in control of the WH, they did not control who was invited to the WH HC summit, they did not control who was invited to the Congressional hearings, they did not control who was invited to the televised WH townhall meeting, the Obama administration was!

So you say the risk is greater now, who could have imagined the Repubs would try and push their agenda once they took back seats in the House.

:think:

If Obama was serious about a PO then he would have allowed some SP advocates into the discussions in the hopes of compromising for a PO, instead he blocked them at every turn. But he gave time to Karen Ignagni and Ron Williams who were called upon by Obama to speak at the WH and excluded those who could have helped enact a stronger HC bill.

Obama ran a campaign ad ad entitled "Billy" about how the Repubs wrote into the Medicare prescription drug plan that they could not negotiate drug prices ... then he made a deal with Billy once he was elected which went against everything he said. So he says the same thing today and expects people to get excited.

So words are nice, but what is actually done counts more.

Campaign ad ...
Obama: Billy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCRO0g9CfAw

[vaberella]

15. Why is it called Billy?

That's just distracting. In any event. I will answer. Sadly he needed to make sure what was good for the American people. There was a measure proposed by Durbin-Snowe. It did not pass. Actually it was already well known in the grapevine that it would not pass. He made the deal. When the vote did go to pass---he supported the measure, which was a backhand to the pharmaceutical company. <----No one understands why he supports the Durbin-Snowe measure and made the deal. It will eventually come out in the future.

My idea. Durbin-Snowe would fail. Baucus who was writing the Senate bill was in the pockets of Big Pharma. Majority of the Democratic senate are with Big Pharma in some way, shape or form. He did the deal because he knew there was no way any measure would pass. Keep in mind these guys do talk---and if Lincoln was against the PO, I wouldn't be surprised if her and several other people were against this measure.

Now he plans on pushing it through---because this congress is out of their minds. And from what I can see he wants to do it by controlling the national discourse. A discourse he was thrawted by Repubs on every single measure. I'm not a fan for it but it was done.

In any event, you can choose to stand by him on this measure. Or ignore him. As I said in one of the other threads. The American people play a role in the political discourse and I'd rather not waste my time on these things when there's a chance to fix them in the immediate future.

[slipslidingaway]

16. The Legacy of Billy Tauzin: The White House-PhRMA Deal ...

"Billy" was the title of an ad put out by the Obama campaign.

"...Now he plans on pushing it through..."

How will he push this through now?

The time to do it was when everyone was paying attention to the HC debate and the Dems held majorities, but we never heard Obama try and push this through once he was in the WH, it was negotiated away behind closed doors. People need to remember that instead of getting all excited by a speech with some of the same promises from 3 and 4 years ago.

Of course I support this measure, just like I did a few years ago, but there is no reason to believe Obama will be able to push this through now.

Some senators were surprised when they learned of this deal, video and story below.

Carper Publicly Defends Secret PhRMA Deal In Exchange For Support Ads
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/09/23/carper-public-defends-secret-phrma-deal-in-exchange-for-support-ads/


Much more at the link below...

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/02/12/the-legacy-of-billy-tauzin-the-white-house-phrma-deal/

"More than a million spectators gathered before the Capitol on a frosty January afternoon to witness the inauguration of Barack Obama, who promised in his campaign to change Washington’s mercenary culture of lobbyists, special interest influence and backroom deals. But within a few months of being sworn in, the President and his top aides were sitting down with leaders from the pharmaceutical industry to hash out a deal that they thought would make health care reform possible.

Over the following months, pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and executives met with top White House aides dozens of times to hammer out a deal that would secure industry support for the administration's health care reform agenda in exchange for the White House abandoning key elements of the president's promises to reform the pharmaceutical industry. They flooded Congress with campaign contributions, and hired dozens of former Capitol Hill insiders to push their case. How they did it—pieced together from news accounts, disclosure forms including lobbying reports and Federal Election Commission records, White House visitor logs and the schedule Sen. Max Baucus releases voluntarily—is a testament to how ingrained the grip of special interests remains in Washington.

...Tauzin’s job change became fodder for a campaign ad that then presidential candidate Barack Obama ran in the spring of 2008 simply titled “Billy.” It featured the candidate, sleeves rolled up, talking to a salon of gasping Americans about the ways of Washington. “The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies. And you know what, the chairman of the committee, who pushed the law through, went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year.” The screen fades to black to inform the viewer that, “Barack Obama is the only candidate who refuses Washington lobbyist money,” while the candidate continues his lecture, “Imagine that. That's an example of the same old game playing in Washington. You know, I don't want to learn how to play the game better, I want to put an end to the game playing.”

...On March 5, the White House held a meeting with major health care industry leaders to try to bring them to the table and see what could be done to gain their support. In attendance were Billy Tauzin, president, CEO and top lobbyist for PhRMA, Pfizer CEO Jeff Kindler, America's Health Care Plans (AHIP) Chairman Karen Ignani, Tom Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce and Robert Wood Johnson Foundations’ Risa Lavizzo-Mourey. A day before the White House meeting Tauzin appeared on CNBC touting health care reform and promising to work closely with the Obama administration. In the interview he touted it as an “optimistic plan”, acknowledging that the industry did have a few problems but was glad to have a chance to discuss these. Some were caught dumb-founded by this apparent change of heart on behalf of an industry long adverse to health care reforms..."

[Tx4obama]

4. That is in Obama's plan that he set out today.

from the White House

FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

Excerpt:

Cutting unnecessary prescription drug spending: The framework would limit excessive payments for prescription drugs by leveraging Medicare’s purchasing power – similar to what was called for by the bipartisan Fiscal Commission. It would speed up the availability of generic biologics, and prohibit brand-name companies from entering into “pay for delay” agreements with generic companies. And, it would implement Medicaid management of high prescribers and users of prescription drugs.

SNIP

Health care: The President’s framework builds on the Affordable Care Act by including new reforms aimed at further reducing the growth of health care spending – a major driver of long-term deficits. The President opposes any plan that would simply shift costs to seniors and the vulnerable by undermining Medicare and Medicaid. Building on the foundation of the historic deficit reduction achieved through the Affordable Care Act, the framework would save an additional $340 billion by 2021, $480 billion by 2023, and at least an additional $1 trillion in the subsequent decade. These savings complement the new patient safety initiative that could lower Medicare costs by another $50 billion over the next decade by providing better care. The President’s framework includes initiatives that will:
* Bend the long-term cost curve by setting a more ambitious target of holding Medicare cost growth per beneficiary to GDP per capita plus 0.5 percent beginning in 2018, through strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
* Make Medicaid more flexible, efficient and accountable without resorting to block granting the program, ending our partnership with States or reducing health care coverage for seniors in nursing homes, the most economically vulnerable and people with disabilities. Combined Medicaid savings of at least $100 billion over 10 years.
* Reduce Medicare’s excessive spending on prescription drugs and lower drug premiums for beneficiaries without shifting costs to seniors or privatizing Medicare. Combined Medicare savings of at least $200 billion over 10 years.

[spooky3]

7. "Leveraging" is vague.

Here's an excerpt from an interview with T. R. Reid, who wrote "The Healing of America", a great book on our health care system.

"Q: It was interesting to learn in the report that some of Switzerland's drug companies make one-third of their profits in the U.S. market. Are we subsidizing these other nations' prescription drugs, and what would happen if America clamps down on prices?

A: Yes, we subsidize the whole world. Americans pay more for pills than people in any other country. Sometimes, the same tablet made in the same factory costs $1 in the U.S. and 20 cents in Britain. If we could negotiate lower prices in the U.S., the drug companies would then try to raise prices overseas to make up for the lost revenues.

The pharmaceutical industry spends billions on research. Drug companies say they would have to reduce R&D if Americans paid less for their drugs, but the companies spend more on marketing than they do on research. In Switzerland, when the government started negotiating lower prices for drugs, the companies cut their marketing budgets and maintained the level of R&D."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/notebook.html

[slipslidingaway]

8. It was part of his HC plan ...

do people have such a short memory.

:shrug:

He ran a campaign ad called "Billy" look it up on youtube, where he talked about Billy Tauzin the lobbyist negotiating a deal to to Not have Medicare bulk price drugs, then he met with Billy in the WH after the election and agreed not to pursue the issue, some people are fooled so easily!

Here is a start ...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/110

[Whisp]

5. why it would be unamerican socialist old europe not to pay out the nose

so some fat bastards can get fatter and a niece has to suffer from ridiculous medicine costs. It's the american way!

[DURHAM D]

9. I believe the Veterans Administration gets bulk buying discounts.

IOWs - they don't have to look very far for a model. The VA is just down the hall.

[slipslidingaway]

10. Obama had links to a study on pricing for veterans in his 2008 HC plan...

people forget what was promised in 2008 and think this is a new idea.

:shrug:

Fool me once ... get fooled again.

[spooky3]

11. People aren't claiming it as a new idea, as it wasn't in 2008. But it is NOT in the current law.

The point is that people are advocating that it be implemented rather than let the pharmaceuticals triumph again and cuts be made in other places.

People have been talking about doing it since well before Bush's addition of the pres. drug benefit without the funds to pay for it and expressly outlawing the negotiation of prices, to keep his benefactors in the drug industry happy. This time people need to take this issue on and not give in.

[slipslidingaway]

12. Tell me who was in the WH and negotiated a deal with Pharma...

you stated in your OP that was it because the Rethugs want to keep profits. They did not negotiate the deal with Pharma, Obama did. Let's be honest here!

It was part of his HC plan, he gave a great speech about politicians putting forth HC plans and then making deals once elected, it was another great speech.

Sadly he made a deal once he was elected for a HC bill that would mandate everyone buy insurance, Not Health Care.

"...It is only because the Rethugs wanted to keep the pharmaceutical industry's profits among the highest of any industry that the situation is what it is today..."

We have to be honest about who is giving in, it was not the Rethugs this time.