Now, this is currently being denied, but if it’s true I have some major MAJOR issues with this deal including, but not limited to, the secret nature of it.
Questions up for debate:
First, is it likely real?
If this memo is accurate or mostly accurate, is this a good deal for the American public? I suspect not, but am willing to be educated. Specifically, are the gains from this deal better than the gains from the bargaining and importing options?
And is doing this behind closed doors wise and/or appropriate? It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
The only way I could see this being a good deal is if UHC doesn’t pass without it.
In other words, PhRMA wouldn’t agree to it if it wasn’t a better deal for them than allowing the government to negotiate for prices. So, if passing UHC were a sure thing, then this is a bad deal for tax payers/patients. However, if UHC would not pass without the support of PhRMA, then the net benefit to tax payers/patients could be positive, even if this specific part of the deal is a negative.
I think this is not good if true – the secrecy and double-dealing is a definite negative in my mind. Plus, it’s exactly the kind of deal that would cause stupid terms into any UHC bill, in order to protect the profitibility of the PhRMA members. Also, the restriction on negotiating for prices will be a day 1 restriction, whereas the savings are projected over 10 years – what if they aren’t realized? Savings compared to what? How is that possible to measure?
Hell, weren’t the savings from negotiating drug prices supposed to help fund a chunk of all this?
Maybe there’s a loophole, and it will end with the USA saying, “Thanks, DrugCo, but we’re going to buy our stuff through a distributor known as Canada”.
I have a sneaking suspicion this probably is true and it pisses me off big time.
About the only thing that may be good is if, as noted above, Obama needs PhRMA on his side to pass any UHC at all. They can go get PhRMA down the road once UHC is in place and settled (and probably by another administration who is not beholden to previous administration’s covert deals).
Even trying to put a good spin on it I still despise the covert/sneaky nature of this no matter what. I know administrations can’t do everything publicly but this still feels like something that is underhanded. Congress is fuming about it too and say they will not abide by any agreement which they were not a part…we’ll see I guess.
Sure looking like it. Apparently Obama is a couple balls short this time. Hopefully he’ll eventually realize that he’s in the majority. Oh, and kick Reid’s ass. Lots.
Reich, as a Democrat and UHC supporter, prefers to blame Big Pharma for subverting democracy, but I would take his argument a step further. The Obama administration is engaged in pushing forward a highly ambitious but controversial agenda, from universal healthcare to climate change legislation. In each case, rather than governing from the center, his aims are as far from the center, as immoderate, as he thinks he can get away with - and as a result, he runs into heavy opposition making it a coin flip whether the bills will pass or not.
So far, so good, plenty of presidents do this. BUT, what he now does, instead of trying to convince the American people that his way is the best, is go to all the relevant special interests and start cutting deals. In exchange for their support, he will give them a hand in shaping the bills. If they oppose him, then they get no skin in the game. Now this is lobbying on steroids - mandatory lobbying! It’s a highly hypocritical move for a politician who bloviated during the campaign about opposing special interests in Washington, and a disturbing trend for democracy.
You neglected an all-impotant “if” from what I wrote making it sound like I made a statement of fact. What you quoted wholly misrepresents what I said and is uncool in the extreme in GD.
I think you are misunderstanding my question. I thought the ‘If’ was implied in my question. Given your full quote:
RitterSport implies there is a scenario that exists where Obama might need PhRMA on his side. You seem to agree that such a scenario might exist.
So, same question, but more elaborated. Under what scenarios does Obama need to have Pharma on his side to pass UHC? He is president and his party has a filibuster proof majority in Congress.
Hard to say. It’s politics and everyone is jockeying for position, making deals and so on.
There are the blue-dog Dems at the least which, they themselves admit, are in the pocket of insurance companies. Being a liberal in Congress in no way makes you immune to big money politics. Right or left in some respects they are the same…political weenies looking out for their own ass. Nothing new there.
As such Obama does not have a filibuster proof majority. Frankly I think he is wimping out here and playing footsie far too much when he should be leading. By all means it is not all strong-arm stuff and working out compromises is the business of government but then you simply cannot compromise with everyone. There are limits. When faced with recalcitrant people in his own party where compromise simply goes too far and undoes what Obama is trying to achieve then it is time to go sit on some people and get them into line.
As for Republicans fuck-em. They intend to be nothing but obstructionist, there is no compromise with them.
Whether Obama “needs” PhRMA I have no clue. That is something that can only be assessed in hindsight. Certainly it makes his life simpler if PhRMA is not aligned against him and helping with pro-UHC ads and using its lobbyists to counterbalance lobbyists opposed to healthcare reform. Can Obama do it anyway if he antagonizes PhRMA too and has them line up against him? No idea.
The question I was addressing was how could this possibly be a good deal. On a stand-alone basis, I can’t see it being a good deal. However, IF PhRMA backing is required to pass UHC, then the overall positives of UHC could outweigh the negatives of this deal.
I think the secrecy and back-door dealing is a further negative and is not what I was expecting from this administration. Any UHC deal that involves this agreement will be worse than a deal without it. I hate that this county cannot have a reasonable conversation about this whole subject. We can’t even have a reasonable conversation on the SDMB. This whole process makes me go :(.
Obama’s ambition to fix what is wrong is facing the entrenched corporate power that profits from the status quo. He is learning a lesson about who really has the power in America. He thought having the people behind him and the country desperately needing to change health care was a winning hand. Corporate power wins.
PHARMA has been looting us for decades. Obama can not face down the health care providers and Pharm at the same time.
