About that $80 Billion pledge by the Pharma lobby...

[rollingrock]

to cut prescription drug costs...that number amounts to a whopping 2% in savings for the consumer...over 10 years.

Spending on prescription drugs in the US is projected by the government to be $3.6 trillion over the next 10 years. 80 billion is 2.2% of 3.6 trillion. That gives you less than 1/4 of 1% in savings per year. Oh boy. Stop the presses! And this is what Obama is bragging about in all his healthcare speeches?


--------------------------------------
August 12, 2009

Eighty billion dollars of WHAT?

I searched all over the newspapers and TV transcripts and no one asked the President what is probably the most important question of what passes for debate on the issue of health care reform: $80 billion of WHAT?

On June 22, President Obama said he'd reached agreement with big drug companies to cut the price of medicine by $80 billion. He extended his gratitude to Big Pharma for the deal that would, "reduce the punishing inflation in health care costs."

Hey, in my neighborhood, people think $80 billion is a lot of money. But is it?

I checked out the government's health stats (at HHS.gov), put fresh batteries in my calculator and totted up US spending on prescription drugs projected by the government for the next ten years. It added up to $3.6 trillion.

In other words, Obama's big deal with Big Pharma saves $80 billion out of a total $3.6 trillion. That's 2%.

Hey thanks, Barack! You really stuck it to the big boys. You saved America from these drug lords robbing us blind. Two percent. Cool!

**************************
ALERT

Now it's Let's Make a Deal with hospital lobbyists.

First, the President was caught with his principals down, cutting a scuzzy back-room deal with pharmaceutical lobbyist Billy Tauzin to limit drug price savings to just 2% over 10 years (see attached, "Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?"), the New York Times today reports that another deal was sealed by lobbyist Chip Kahn of the American Hospital Association.

Here are the numbers they don't want you to see: Hospitals will be allowed to hike their prices and revenues by six trillion dollars ($5,853 billion) over the next ten years, only $155 billion less than they had projected before the Obama "reform."

In all, the Obama back-room deal will "reduce" our $26 trillion total hospital bill over the next decade by one-half of one percent.

Once again, the lobbyists got the gold mine, the public got the shaft.

Say it ain't so, Mr. President.

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

For perspective: Imagine you are in a Wal-Mart and there's a sign over a flat screen TV, "BIG SAVINGS!" So, you break every promise you made never to buy from that union-busting big box - and snatch up the $500 television. And when you're caught by your spouse, you say, "But, honey, look at the deal I got! It was TWO-PERCENT OFF! I saved us $10!"

But 2% is better than nothing, I suppose. Or is it?

The Big Pharma kingpins did not actually agree to cut their prices. Their promise with Obama is something a little oilier: they apparently promised that, over ten years, they will reduce the amount at which they would otherwise raise drug prices. Got that? In other words, the Obama deal locks in a doubling of drug costs, projected to rise over the period of "savings" from a quarter trillion dollars a year to half a trillion dollars a year. Minus that 2%.

We'll still get the shaft from Big Pharma, but Obama will have circumcised the increase.

And what did Obama give up in return for $80 billion? Chief drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin crowed that Obama agreed to dump his campaign pledge to bargain down prices for Medicare purchases. Furthermore, Obama's promise that we could buy cheap drugs from Canada simply went pffft!

What did that cost us? The New England Journal of Medicine notes that 13 European nations successfully regulate the price of drugs, reducing the average cost of name-brand prescription medicines by 35% to 55%. Obama gave that up for his 2%.

The Veterans Administration is able to push down the price it pays for patent medicine by 40% through bargaining power. George Bush stopped Medicare from bargaining for similar discounts, an insane ban that Obama said he'd overturn. But, once within Tauzin's hypnotic gaze, Obama agreed to lock in Bush's crazy and costly no-bargaining ban for the next decade.

What else went down in Obama's drug deal? To find out, I called C-SPAN to get a copy of the videotape of the meeting with the drug companies. I was surprised to find they didn't have such a tape despite the President's campaign promise, right there on CNN in January 2008, "These negotiations will be on C-SPAN."

This puzzled me. When Dick Cheney was caught having secret meetings with oil companies to discuss Bush's Energy Bill, we denounced the hugger-muggers as a case of foxes in the henhouse.

Cheney's secret meetings with lobbyists and industry big-shots were creepy and nasty and evil.

But the Obama crew's secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were, the President assures us, in the public interest.

We know Cheney's secret confabs were shady and corrupt because Cheney scowled out the side of his mouth.

Obama grins in your face.

See the difference?

The difference is 2%.


-------------------
Greg Palast studied healthcare economics at the Center for Hospital Administration Studies at the University of Chicago. Greg Palast's investigative reports can be seen on BBC Television's Newsnight and, in print, at www.GregPalast.com.

www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-discusses-death-p_b_258193.html

[Kdillard]

1. Hmm I thought the deal if there was any was to close the donut

hole for the medications of the Edlerly participating in Part D. The one where the Bush administration did not allow for the negotiations with the drug companies. I thought that it was supposed to provide saving to the Senior and would cut their payments for drugs in half. Unless I am thinking about something different. Also who says Congress has to abide by any deal the drug company made with teh Administration??

[Cant trust em]

2. That's the key. Congress isn't bound by any deal.

They are free to initiate any change in legislation. I seriously doubt that Obama would veto a bill if it came across his desk.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Just for fun. Fully one third of those using Part D are disabled

and below retirement age. Many more are near that age. Both groups would find the word 'elderly' to be a poor choice of verbiage. Joe Biden is shall we say, over the nominal retirement age of 65. Would you really call him 'elderly'? How about Sec. Clinton? Barbara Boxer?
And not all people who use part D get to that doughnut hole, so it sure could not cut everybody's costs at all, much less in half.

[rollingrock]

5. The deal that I heard

the pharma lobby pledges to provide us with 2% savings over 10 years,
in return the WH agrees not to pursue drug price negotiations or drug importation.

Obviously, with no competition from Canada and no price negotiation, the drug companies stand to gain far more than the measly 2% they are giving up. Things may change depending on what Congress does of course, but just the fact the WH is going around making these secret deals (according to the LA Times) without input from Congress does not give me a whole lot of confidence in them. What we do know is that the WH extracted this eighty billion pledge from the PhRMA lobby on their own, with no input from Congress. And now Obama is going around bragging about it as if it was something big groundbreaking, when reality is that 2.2% over 10 years doesn't mean squat. Hell, that probably won't even keep up with the inflation rate over 10 years.

[ejpoeta]

4. i can't help but wonder if the pharma and others are putting this stuff out there to make it sound

like obama is smaking backroom deals with them when he never did any such thing. if they can make us think that obama and the dems are going to screw us, then we will fight the reform like the crazies are doing. sound tinfoily??? maybe.... but somehow it seems to make sense to me.

[Phx_Dem]

6. Here's the "secret" deal Huff Post is raging about.

Not so secret after all. Instead of working so hard to convince us they found a memo!, without actually showing it, those brilliant Huff Post bloggers could have searched the Internet and saved themselves some time.


OBAMA ANNOUNCES DRUG COMPANIES DEAL
Pharmaceutical industry pledges $80 billion to help reduce cost of drugs

updated 4:43 p.m. MT, Mon., June 22, 2009

WASHINGTON - Hailed by President Barack Obama, a multi-billion-dollar promise by drug companies to narrow a Medicare drug coverage gap for seniors is valid only if Congress succeeds in passing a comprehensive health care bill encountering strong opposition from Republicans, an industry spokesman said Monday.

The commitment was "made in the context of comprehensive health care reform being enacted," said Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. "We recognize that there has to be a shared commitment if this is going to happen and this is our part of it."

The industry sealed a weekend deal with the White House and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee, to spend $80 billion over the next decade defraying the cost of drugs for seniors and paying a portion of the cost of Obama's legislation. The president, in an appearance Monday at the White House, said the agreement was "a significant breakthrough on the road to health care reform, one that will make a difference in the lives of many older Americans."

<SNIP>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31485134/ns/politics-white_house/

I voted for transparency!!! Whhaaaaaaa :cry: Oh wait . . .

[rollingrock]

7. The deal was made without knowledge or input from Congress

and Congress and the public was informed about it only AFTER it was made.

hence, it was done in secret.

[Phx_Dem]

8. So what?!! Everyone has been screaming for Obama to take

charge of "his" health care form and lay it for Congress. Well, he just did.

[rollingrock]

9. Laying out a plan before Congress

and making clandestine deals with the PhRMA lobby are two different things.

[Phx_Dem]

10. I completely disagree. If Obama can layout his own health care plan,

he can negotiate it as well. Since when does Congress ever add anything to a negotiation? All they do it cause problems, and they have the option of disregarding any negotiations that they weren't involved in if they want. So what the fuck are they bitching about? Obama didn't give us a plan!! :cry: Okay, he made a plan, but didn't include us. :cry:

Obama was elected President of the United States by a large majority and he doesn't need Congress's fucking permission to negotiate ANYTHING. They can make their decisions as to whether they want to honor that agreement, and see how well that works out for them.

And I think we all know why Obama didn't include Congress. Because they can't agree on anything and they fuck everything up. It's like including your drunk uncle in a sensitive family discussion. Again, they have the option of negating the agreement.

[rollingrock]

13. Congress makes the laws

not the WH. the deal doesn't mean a thing anyway until it is formally passed into law by the House and the Senate.
Unless Obama is trying to change the Constition, thats how government is supposed to work the last time I checked.

But regardless of how it was conducted, its a bad deal in and of itself. It's a deal that benefits no one but the drug companies, whether it was made in secret or not. The problem is, Obama didn't get the drug companies to make any significant concessions on behalf of those who voted for him. We, the public, got nothing out of it.

[Phx_Dem]

14. Yes they do. And that's why they can disregard the agreement if

they want, but the Presient has the right to negotiate with whoemever he wants without notifying Congress.

Wanna bet they don't drop the Pharma agreement? They're just pissed because the President one-up'd them.

[ProSense]

12. No it wasn't

"The agreement by pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the health reform effort comes on the heels of the landmark pledge many health industry leaders made to me last month, when they offered to do their part to reduce health spending $2 trillion over the next decade. We are at a turning point in America's journey toward health care reform. Key sectors of the health care industry acknowledge what American families and businesses already know - that the status quo is no longer sustainable. The agreement reached today to lower prescription drug costs for seniors will be an important part of the legislation I expect to sign into law in October. I want to commend House chairmen Henry Waxman, George Miller and Charles Rangel for addressing this issue in the health reform legislation they unveiled this week. This is a tangible example of the type of reform that will lower costs while assuring quality health care for every American".

link

People have gone so far off track with this that they're now confusing Congress' insistence that its not bound to a secret deal with the actual deal.

[Phx_Dem]

15. Good find ProSense, but the President isn't obligated

to notify Congress about his negotiations. They pissed off? Well too bad. Now they know how if feels when their opinions are cast aside.

[Kdillard]

11. So wow the deal is only valid if there is comprehensive healthcare reform

and not only that it specifically deals with a problem loophole that many seniors face with their drugs. It has nothing to do with anything else Congress will propose or can do regarding Healthcare reform. Everyone has known about this for a while since it was announced and yet Huffington post is acting like they found something special. Whatever it is ridiculous with friends like these who needs enemies.

[jeanpalmer]

16. If there was an agreement

why not put it out there and tell us what it is. WTH kind of government is that to do it in secret, contrary to what he told us he would do, and then not release the details. Was he honest when he told us things were going to be done out in the open?

Regarding the $80 billion, if true, I guess that's for seniors only. The rest of us are on our own.

Even on the $80 billion, what's to stop the drug companies from raising prices 10% and then lowering them 2%? You know they're going to raise prices, they've said so publicly. Or they'll shift the 2% from the elderly to the rest of us. What's to stop them?