GOP lawmaker seeks documents on Obama healthcare deals

[mcablue]

Source: The Hill

By Molly K. Hooper - 12/16/09

A House Republican congressman is pushing the Obama administration to reveal the specifics of deals it struck with various groups on healthcare reform.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) wants the House to require the White House to hand over documents related to compromises reached earlier this year with the pharmaceutical industry, doctors and other stakeholders.

Burgess was expected to introduce a formal resolution of inquiry on Wednesday night that will likely be voted on early next year. House rules dictate that resolutions of inquiry must get a vote in committee or on the floor.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who headed the House oversight panel last year, supports the effort to collect information from the White House.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72679-gop-lawmaker-seeks-documents-on-obama-deals-with-healthcare-groups

[Cha]

1. Oh, like cheney revealed his energy plan?

Fucking hypocrites.

[mcablue]

3. So you think 1) His request is a good idea and 2) He's a hypocrite?

Or 1) revealing the Obama/Pharma deals is a bad idea and 2) he's a hypocrite.

[notadmblnd]

8. ?

I believe the post was referring to the hypocrisy of the pukes and citing the example of cheney not disclosing what occurred at hi energy meetings. I don't know what you read, but that's what I got out of the statement.

[mcablue]

11. I know that. But I want to know what he thinks about the request to hand in the documents

related to the deals made between Obama and the health industry. Are we better off learning the details of the deals, if documents exist? Or not?

[notadmblnd]

14. does it really matter? It not like congress would do anything about it if there

were some deals made. I feel that it should be a "I'll show you mine if you show me your" kinda thing. There's not one of them that isn't in the health care lobbyists pockets.

[Mithreal]

15. agree, doesn't matter

[mcablue]

16. But don't you want to know if killing drug re-importation was part of the deal?

The article says, "There have been conflicting reports that the deal was contingent on the administration opposing drug re-importation legislation. PhRMA, which has lobbied against re-importation for years, has denied those claims, and the White House has said Obama still backs re-importation."

Don't you want to know for sure if our President plotted to kill the very popular drug reimportation amendment because of the deal? Or maybe there was no deal. But the only way to know would be by seeing the documents (if there are documents at all).

What if other details are disclosed that we haven't heard of?

[jbnow]

17. The White House has said Obama still backs re-importation?

I had not heard that anywhere. Know anything about it?
That would really be wrong if that is what they are saying while he is working against it.

But I also think Senators who knew we had a crunny bill by now should have ignored administration and voted to allow this.

So pharma would work against bill? Boo hoo. Not much time left now.
The deal to cut donut hole drug prices in half sort of helps some people. It only reduces brand name prices, not generic...and paying half is still very expensive for many drugs. Sp the few on SS who get to the donut hole get some help with some drugs
Compared to everyone gets a lot of help on all drugs.

[No Elephants]

27. Please see Reply 25. The "WH" should shut its mouth bc houses are not accountable.

When Sebelius, Gibbs, Rahm and everyone else was saying the public option was expendable, a lot of posters here insisted that nothing counts unless Obama himself said it flat out. Now, apparently, it's sufficient if the "WH" says it. Seems like a double standard. However, houses don't really talk and, even if they did, they have no accountability.

[Mithreal]

19. The word I heard was "publicly" supports reimportation

That is not the same as supports.

[notadmblnd]

31. Didn't the president say on one of the new shows this last week that

he was against it because of the safety issues? I remember thinking at the time, if it was about safety, then they would stop the manufacture and importation of drugs from China.

[boppers]

32. Reimportation is the key. Not import, reimport.

So, assume Eli Lilly sell meds to China for 4 bucks a dose, but sells the same meds, made in the same US factory, to Americans at 32 bucks a dose. We could literally buy the US drugs 8 times cheaper in China (same drugs, same factory) than here.

[notadmblnd]

28. I guess, but the only purpose would be to satisfy my curiosity

It would be very nice if we could count congress to do the right thing. However, greed has consumed all but a noble few and I've lost faith in the entire political process.

[No Elephants]

24. We don't know what Congress would do, but the American people have a right to know and they might do

something about it if they knew.

BTW, we have to stop thinking/acting as though the American people are powerless and they are totally screwn unless someone in Washington D.C. does something. We need to organize AND financially support our own lobbying entity or entities, just like the corporations do.

[No Elephants]

22. In the rivalry between Democrats and Republicans, the good of the American people gets totally lost

Anything goes, as long as "our guys" are doing it, especially if they did it too/first or whatever.


The American people had an interest in knowing what Bushco's secrets deals (if any) were. And, even though the American people never found out about Bushco's secret deals, if any (thanks in part to Obama's decision not to prosecute Bushco), the American people still have an interest in knowing what Obamaco's secret deals (if any) are. One does not negate or lessen the other.

And the American people do not simply have an interest in knowing: They/we have a RIGHT to know.

[TwilightGardener]

2. The process of searching for an impeachable offense begins.

[cliffordu]

4. Yep, precisely.

[grantcart]

18. no they want to make sure they get their cut

[readmoreoften]

5. And yet we never impeached Bush.

Political failure at best. The Republicans are monsters, but they're not delusional and incompetent; how I wish they were.

[TwilightGardener]

7. We took that "off the table" straight out of the gate.

[readmoreoften]

10. Wouldn't want to hurt Republicans' feelings.

:sarcasm:

[TwilightGardener]

13. We wanted to set their minds at ease.

:puke:

[Wizard777]

23. All those war crimes and crimes against humanity weigh heavily on the mind.

[No Elephants]

20. We never impeached Bush bc impeaching Clinton helped him and other Democrats.

It's all about their own re-election, folks.

However, the Clinton impeachment was trumped up and frivolous (over a contrived perjury re: a private matter), while the Bush/Cheney impeachments would have been for multiple violations of domestic and international law and were necessary for the national good.

Prosecution of Bush/Cheney/CIA/Yoo/Bybee, et al. for mutiple violations of domestic and international law is also necessary for the national good. However, that, too, was taken off the table from the jump. Meanwhile, the D of J is supporting Yoo, while Bybee continues to sit as a federal judge--his reward from Gonzo and Dummya for lying about the law in his cya legal memos.

IMO, they are all criminals now and frick 'em all.

[lapfog_1]

9. Nothing impeachable about it, even if there are secret deals.

What law is broken?

But yes, if Rahm was out selling us down the river for either the promise of corporate contributions to Democrats in the upcoming elections OR the promise by those companies to NOT give money to Republicans or their lobbyists... I do want to hear about it. I suspect that's exactly what he did. And, illegal or not, Chicago style politics are not welcome in our nations capital. Not from either party.

We got all pissed off about Rove and the federal prosecutors... and about Abramoff and his slimy lobbying... shouldn't we be pissed off if there was a deal done with Big Pharma or the Insurance Industry?

[TwilightGardener]

12. Just sayin', I don't think Republicans want those documents out of

idle curiosity.

[No Elephants]

21. You cannot say that without knowing what the deals (if any) actually consisted of.

For instance, what if the deals included contributions to campaigns or to the DNC? That would certainly be impeachable.

I don't think that is what happened, but without knowing the specifics, you really can't say that, even if there were secret deals, there is no impeachable offense.

Secret deals would definitely indicate a combination of naivete and hubris, though. I'd sooner make a secret deal with Don Coreleone than with Big Pharma, Big Insurance or Big Health Care. I'd trust the Mafia to keep its word more than I'd trust any of them to do so.

[lapfog_1]

30. Yes, there could have been some illegal activity.

Just like the Cheney energy company meetings.

We need to know what happened and who promised what to whom and for what in return. If anything.

Obama promised us an end to the Bush era crap. This was one of those items. Transparency. He ran on it.

[bluestateguy]

6. The White House: "No"

nt

[No Elephants]

25. I thought it doesn't count unless Obama says it? Or is that only when "the WH" says something we

don't agree with?

[Mudoria]

26. I'd like to know what deals they struck myself..

[No Elephants]

29. If Obama claims "separation of powers" as to his social secretary, do we really think this is going

anywhere?


Most transparent administration ever--and the Emperor's new clothes are magnificent.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

33. I think the public is entitled to know Cheney's energy deals as well as Obama's health deals

It's not an either or. They both appear to have struck secretive deals with for profit, private entities that reflect and effect the financial and/or physical well-being of the citizens.

Obama is carrying on the same policies of secrecy and executive privilege that he specifically swore to alter during his campaign. Remember how there would be "no lobbyists" influencing legislation and how negotiations with the different industries would be on C-Span? He and his administration had to be sued by Crew to release the logs of who went in and out of the White House. It's true that he did announce a deal with Pharma (the 80 billion over 10 years drop in a bucket from them) but they never released the details or revealed whether this deal by the White House was INSTEAD of Medicare negotiation (which would have saved far more) or if it precluded ANY other Pharma deal - which in and of itself is just plain wrong. The House stood up against this and initially said they were not party to the deal and would not be bound by it, yet in the end, I think they were. Was there drug negotiation in their bill?

I do not believe that the President has the right to supercede the role of Congress and regulatory agencies to make his own private side deals that the public is kept in the dark about. I did not believe it for Bush/ Cheney and I do not believe it for Obama. Obama and the Democrats always had the ablity to investigate the goings on of the Bush administration, but collectively decided it would be "too devisive" and we needed to "look forward". They and we will find, as always, that The Republicans have no such qualms.

[LiberalAndProud]

34. I would like to know.

Can we attach Cheney energy deal disclosures? (better late than never) That would be a truly bipartisan resolution. And transparency is a good thing.

[Tempest]

35. My only question is this

Why did it take a Repug to request the information?

Obama better make them available or this will become an albatross around his neck, just as Cheney's refusal to release the energy committee meeting notes became his.

[Doctor_J]

36. He can have them right after Cheney is in prison for the energy extortion

asshole