There was failed leadership on the health care issue.

[madfloridian]

Obama failed to exert the power that was needed to control the mealy-mouth utterings of the club that is called the Senate.

Harry Reid cared more about what the GOP thought than about those in his own party.

Nancy Pelosi looked as though she were leading, but it appears she was bested by the Blue Dogs after all.

So good luck on blaming those not in congress, blaming those who did not have the ear of the White House.

You can try it, it may work for a little while.

Rahm's hand is everywhere in this bill, so is the hand of Max Baucus. And Zeke Emanuel's philosophy about phasing out Medicare is showing now. Just like we thought it would.

Dean is done as far as the party leadership is concerned. He has a right to earn money and get paid for speaking and debates. I don't have to like it or approve, but it is none of my business.

The ones calling him a sell-out and wimp wanted only single payer. And they heckled him at book signings and speeches.

Now they are blaming him because the health care bill is not all they wanted.

Try looking higher up at the White House and Congress.

Oh, and never ever be reasonable, and make sure others here are not reasonable either.

[madfloridian]

1. AND I expect this to easily be the most unrecced post here today.

And frankly I don't care.

[joeycola]

28. I gave it a rec.

[DJ13]

2. I agree with you, but the un's out rec my rec

[DrToast]

3. I blame you.

Way to screw things up.

[madfloridian]

5. lol

Hell, why not. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

4. The rank and file Democrats succumbed to failure before any bill was voted on.....

That's the past tense that I read in your OP.

Busy pointing fingers is really premature and actually quite counterproductive.....

Claiming that we are defeated at this time is your failure.

[madfloridian]

8. We need to keep fighting....I agree. But that is a future thing.

I think it may be done for now.

I think we need to blame the right people.

[FrenchieCat]

24. I think that taking up time playing the blame game now.....

before a bill has even been voted on is defeatists and feeds in our actually being defeated....
in otherwords, if everyone was busy doing what you are doing, which is looking for who to blame,
how would that help anyone, anywhere?....considering that we have not really been defeated, except for based on folks like you's say so?
and in fact, unlike the scenario you paint, we are actually closer to a victory
than ever before; perhaps not the one you'd hope for,
but your criteria is not the gold standard,
which is what you are saying as though nothing else could ever do by any means.

It is as though claiming defeat is more important than actually getting something through and then blaming whomever for how it may have fallen short.

Why do it in the order of blaming first....?
What does that achieve other than pessimism, cynicism and defeatism?

[madfloridian]

26. You are correct.

Now tell it to the ones blaming Dean.

[grantcart]

76. Its nice to have a hobby

[madfloridian]

93. Snide remark, beneath your usual posting quality.

[PretzelWarrior]

10. I am still semi certain they will pull victory from the jaws of defeat

and end up with a much stronger version in the final bill on Obama's desk. But even if it is only the versions we are discussing now it is a HELL of a lot better than where we are today. This is a shift of monumental proportions. Obama understands the power of the senate. The senate will easily tell a new outsider "NO"!

but if that new outsider says, Hey....here's the broad outlines of what we want. You're the experts, go to it. All they can do is be leaders and do the right thing or look like a bunch of lying sacks of shit. Then Obama can be the one calling them on it. Instead of them petulantly disregarding what he wants.

This will get done and will be a first step toward even better plans.

[PretzelWarrior]

6. I don't think you guys appreciate what a monumental thing is about to occur

you're sitting on the sidelines. WOuld you rather be where Clinton and company were about this point in his presidency? UTTER FAIL!

[madfloridian]

11. I posted yesterday that I was reserving judgement until I knew all that was in it

But I am speaking up because the blame is being assessed on one person, and it is undeserved.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Dr. Dean isn't being blamed for anything as far as I can see.....

and if he is, then that is wrong.

I just think playing the blame game at this time is wrong,
and feeds into that old mind game of perception...
which is what the enemies of health care reform welcome....
they'd love to have us believe that we are defeated
when we are not.

[madfloridian]

29. Yes he is and yes it is wrong.

[geek tragedy]

7. Your post flunks Civics 101

Obama failed to exert the power that was needed to control the mealy-mouth utterings of the club that is called the Senate.

And if Obama did try something like this, he would be accused of trying to rule like a dictator. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and it is not the Executive's place to control what its members say. And if you think Obama can control Bayh, LIEberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, you're sorely mistaken.

If you think you could have done a better job of controlling the Blue Dogs than Pelosi did, you should run for office since obviously it's pretty easy. Just ask Bill Clinton.

[madfloridian]

9. I have said that all along.

But since today is Blame Dean day, I thought I would mix it up a little.

[geek tragedy]

12. If anyone thought a great piece of legislation

was going to pass on HCR on the first major stab on it, they were sorely mistaken. Whatever is going to swim through the straits is going to be a mess and need constant fixing and adjustment. This is not the campaign where policy white papers get compared and contrasted in binary fashion.

[madfloridian]

15. I agree with that also.

So tell me again why GDP is blaming one man?

[geek tragedy]

19. It isn't. It's blaming a lot of people.

Obama is still getting blamed. So is Reid. So is Pelosi.

Why anyone would blame Howard Dean for anything is beyond me. That's just stupid.

[DJ13]

13. if Obama did try something like this, he would be accused of trying to rule like a dictator

We accept arm twisting when the proposed bill is important, like funding more wars, or doling out more trillions to banks, but its suddenly a perversion like being a dictator when its to help 47 million uninsured?

[geek tragedy]

17. Arm-twisting isn't a long-term strategy.

ConservaDems are notoriously disloyal and will screw over a Democratic president without hesitation. Joe Lieberman--JOE LIEBERMAN--has the power to severely disrupt any piece of legislation he chooses because of the damn filibuster.

[vaberella]

20. Amen! n/t

[DJ13]

21. It may not be a long term strategy

But it IS effective, and its used by administrations (even Obama's) when they consider the legislation too important to let petty politics get in the way.

See Rahm and the reauthorization of funding for Iraq earlier this year for an example.

Oh, and that would include the likes of Lieberman, as he has his weak points that could be exploited if need be.

[geek tragedy]

22. Sure, when the bill hits the floor it's good in short bursts.

It's a tactic, not a strategy. Given that we just finished the committee stage, a long-term approach is needed. He will have to twist arms at some point, but right now trying to impose his will on the self-important gasbags in the Senate would backfire.

[PurityOfEssence]

32. Yes, and that just wouldn't square with his need to be loved by everyone

Pernicious Clintonitis: a craving for approval from even those who hate you, generally coupled with an over-reliance on allies one doesn't appreciate, but usually not serious unless aggravated by a lack of confidence in one's own policies.

Johnson, Truman and Roosevelt didn't have any problem doing things that would have them called out as dictators, lest we forget.

[treestar]

90. Yes, because nothing in this country is done that way

Good or bad, it is supposed to be a bill that Congress votes for and the President signs. And it has to pass judicial review if it comes to that. Doesn't matter whether we like the subject matter or not. Both "good" and "bad" must go through that process.

[firedupdem]

14. I wish he would have just left everyone out of the equation, and

drafted a bill that would have pleased all of us, and just signed it! So easy!

[tnlefty]

16. I rec'd this, but it's still in negative territory and probably will

be for quite some time.

I'm going to find my spot back under the bus now.

[madfloridian]

18. heh heh

Is there any other place? So used to it now.

[Laelth]

23. Obama will deserve all the credit (or all the blame) if "health insurance reform" is passed.

He's pretending to let Congress handle the details, but I don't believe that for a minute. I agree that Rahm Emanuel's hands have been all over this process.

This is Obama's doing, and I have no doubt of that. At this point, I think he deserves more blame than credit, but I will reserve judgment until I see the final legislation.

:dem:

-Laelth

[timeforpeace]

31. No, he will get the credit should it pass but Congress will get the blame if it fails.

[Laelth]

33. You're right.

But I said he'd "deserve" the blame, even if Congress actually gets it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Autumn]

25. i agree

on every point you made. Thank you for your post.

[ctaylors6]

30. I also agree

in large part. I don't understand why Obama or SOMEONE in Congress didn't START with something like medicare for all. It seems like Obama started with "let's see what Congress wants to do." You always start with more than you think you'll get then negotiate from that point. Seems like they started from something very mushy then negotiated to even less from there.

If they'd started with medicare for all, no pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, cost cutting that makes sense, etc., etc., etc., they might have ended up with most of that (jeez, even GOP proposals say no more exclusions for pre-existing conditions) and medicare for 10-20 million people. That's so much easier to build on in the future than the bills out there now. And way more than what we're getting as of now.

[quaker bill]

34. I disagree

I actually do not think there was more to be had politically. The kind of "leadership" some here seem to pine for only works on the "strong daddy" side of the aisle. There is no magical button President Obama could have pushed to bring the blue dogs in line. There is no power in the Presidency to stop "mealy-mouth mutterings". There just isn't.

It was not a matter of negotiating tactics. Everyone knew from day one that single payer never stood a chance, so attempts to use it as "leverage" would have rightly been seen as a joke coming from a position of weakness, not strength.

What we will achieve from this is what there was to be had. The fact that we have come this far is an accomplishment, not a disappointment.

You and I probably agree on 98% of what we would have liked to see pass. We also had to know walking in that we were not going to get it.

[Skittles]

35. it's been an absolute fucking circus

[slipslidingaway]

54. Great summary :) n/t

[jonnyblitz]

36. failed BIG TIME. you are correct. nt

[ProSense]

37. "The ones calling him a sell-out and wimp wanted only single payer"

"And they heckled him at book signings and speeches...Now they are blaming him because the health care bill is not all they wanted."

Hyperbole hit defcon 5 during the debate and now people are having to deal with reality.


Dean likes both bills and is pushing for them to be passed.

[ProleNoMore]

38. Agree With Your Sentiments Completely!

eom

[waiting for hope]

39. Isn't it just such a sad commentary

on how many people expect and will accept so little? There is a little known thing as the Bully Pulpit, if it was that important to this administration to have a decent, thought out and well crafted Health Care bill with all the necessary reforms - including a robust, strong public option, it would have been used by now.

K&R

[flyarm]

40. The ones calling him a sell-out and wimp wanted only single payer

that is just not true..I was willing to accept a Public Option..holding my nose, but I was willing if it was meaningful and if it was a real public option..yes it was a concession, but I was willing to accpet that ..but what I am not willing to accept is the bullshit that has come out of congress or the Senate...that is an utter sell out of the American people..

I do agree Dean has the right to make all the money he wants on the speakers circuit..but what he doesn;t have the right to do, is go on TV and tell the American people they are getting a good bill..while he does not disclose that he is on the take, on the side of those who will fuck every woman in this country that has or gets Breast cancer..he took the The Hippocratic Oath when he became a doctor, an oath swearing to ethically practice medicine.

That oath stays with him forever..and when he did not disclose that he is an adviser to McKenna, Long & Aldridge, a global law firm that is advising the Biotechnology Industry Organization, ...those that make the meds that women need in the recovery of breast cancer, and other debilitating diseases, when he was on Tv promoting this congressional bill..he became a liar..he became a liar by ommission of very important conflicts he has.

That is unacceptable by any standards, but most of all to his Hippocratic Oath!

[madfloridian]

41. He disclosed both McKenna and Biotech long ago.

And even on TV on MSNBC.

Don't you think this is going too far?

[flyarm]

42. did he do it when telling the American people this was a good bill?

I sure as hell didn't hear it and i listened to every word he said!

And if he disclosed it ..I never heard it and i paid damn good attention!

how about those that don't pay as much attention..how many people do you really think know he has this kind of conflict..i sent that info out yesterday to over 100 active dems and none of them knew that info..not one.

And i got so many replies of dems pissed off royally!

[madfloridian]

43. Oh, come on.

He has often disclosed both. Publicly and openly.

[flyarm]

47. sorry but i never heard or saw the disclosure..want to provide a link to any disclosure?

I as a woman have lost all trust in him..Maybe you haven't, that is your prerogative..it is not mine..he has lost credibility with me and now I feel duped as I have supported him and promoted him with others.

But unless he does a mea culpa so everyone knows he has a conflict..he has no credibility to me any longer. And if or when this shitty bill goes through and women find out they were sold out on their meds for Breast Cancer, and men find out they can't get meds for prostate cancer that is affordable ..he won't have any credibility with anyone!

Just because you know he works with these people , and you heard him disclose it..doesn't mean a damn thing, unless it is universally known by ALL AMERICANS! Because he is going on Television in front of "all americans " when he does so.

My mother died of Breast cancer..I have the right to know that he is pushing a bill that includes 12 years of a patent monopoly on meds needed for breast cancer , when he is working with those who now have carte blanche for 12 years to hold the patent on the meds I may need in the future, or my sister may need in the future. You may need them as well...god only knows....I pray no one needs to face that horror...I don't know how any woman can give him a pass on this! I really don't. That is beyond my comprehension! And reprehensible to me.

He has that obligation when he is putting his name on an endorsement of this bill and what is included in this bill! That every single American knows he has a conflict this big and this grave to our health care. It is his hippocratic oath to do so!

[madfloridian]

48. Then if you have lost all faith....all my searching google for you won't matter.

[flyarm]

50. No one should have to google it..how about all the people in this country that

don't have or use computers?

How about those that are not politically astute?

How about all the women working in this country that don't have the time like you or I do to sit on a computer and turn on their tv for 5 minute sound bites..they have the right to know what and who Dean is promoting and what his conflicts are..it is the hippocratic oath he took, that no one made him take , but he took nontheless!

and as I said..I am very politcally connected , and I didn't know anything about this until yesterday! And only because I read about it here on DU..I don't have a close friend or family member that ever looks at web sites like this..other than the dems I work with and none of them knew about it either!

[madfloridian]

51. He gave full disclosure many times. If that is not acceptable...

then what can I say.

[slipslidingaway]

53. He did not disclose his relationship when he wrote the editorial advocating...

for the 12 year period, the disclosure on MSNBC came AFTER the editorial.

When asked about this at a book signing, he said .... "I work for a law firm part-time that got paid"

There is a video somewhere of his reply.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/howard-dean-claims-actual_b_243038.html


People have a right to question when they see a potential conflict of interest, regardless of who the person might be.

[flyarm]

56. Justify it for yourself..I will never justify Dean promoting this bill with this monopoly for the

Biotechs he is protecting and working for at the cost of people's lives!

I don't know anyone that could be that evil! Nor do I want to know anyone who would.

Women with Breast cancer have enough to deal with trying to survive..without being sold out for profit and greed!

I fought against Bill Frist for just this reason..it is not OK when it is done by my party, or those who profess to be in my party!

My values and principles will not and can not be compromised.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/10/29/house-health-care-bill-a-death-sentence-for-my-fellow-breast-cancer-survivors/

All women are my sisters..this is deplorable at best! I would say , criminal!

House Health Care Bill: A Death Sentence For My Fellow Breast Cancer Survivors

By: Jane Hamsher Thursday October 29, 2009 10:30 am


I'm Jane, and I'm a breast cancer survivor


There was much celebration on Capitol Hill today with the announcement of the new House health care bill. For myself, as a three time breast cancer survivor, there was tremendous sadness and disappointment in the Speaker.

Nancy Pelosi made a choice with regard to the lifesaving biologic drugs I took when I was in chemotherapy that will cost many of my fellow breast cancer survivors everything they own, and quite possibly their lives.

Jeanne Sather is another breast cancer survivor. In 2007, she wrote on her blog The Assertive Patient:

I love Herceptin, a drug I have been getting to treat my metastatic breast cancer for more than five years now….The main reason I love Herceptin is that it is a targeted antibody, without the side effects of traditional cancer drugs: hair loss, fatigue, nausea, vomiting—you know the list.

The cost of Jeanne’s miracle “biologic” cancer drugs, Herceptin and Avastin, was $300,000 a year in 2006. By the time she switched to another biologic drug, Tykerb, she was within a few months of hitting her lifetime cap of $1 million:

Even with the help of a special state health insurance plan, the 53-year-old freelance writer is struggling to afford the expensive new drugs that are helping her in her battle.

“I’ve been borrowing against my house to make ends meet, and that can’t go on,” Sather says. “I’m so afraid these drugs will cost me my home.”

Jeanne fought. She and others went to the state capital and lobbied to have the cap raised. “Now I am safe for another few years,” she said.

But she is not alone. Biologic drugs also treat rheumatoid arthritis:

Access was the issue for Theresa Manville, 61, of Bay Village, Ohio, who simply could not afford the rheumatoid arthritis drugs she needed. She was laid off from her job as a senior account manager at a public relations firm in 1992, and though she started her own company, she could not get private insurance because her arthritis was considered a preexisting condition.

“Today,” Manville says, “I’m on Medicare disability because I didn’t have these drugs and my RA progressed. My joints deteriorated. My hands are deformed. I used to be a runner, a softball player and scuba diver. Now I need special orthotics in my shoes just to walk. And I’m going to need replacement surgery in my right knee.

“Think of the pressure on the health care system, just from me,” Manville says. “If I’d had the drugs 10 years ago, I could be independent today. I might not even be on disability.”

Medical student Laura Musselwhite tells the story of a patient who was hospitalized with Crohn’s disease:

This patient required hospitalization for a flare that she attributed to not being able to afford the month’s Humira, a biologic medicine used to treat severe, active Crohn’s disease.

The drug is priced by Abbott Laboratories at a staggering $22,000 a year. This patient would clearly have benefited from the availability of an affordable, generic version.

But thanks to Representatives Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton, there will be no generic versions of these drugs. At least not for 12 years, if the House health care bill announced today passes. And because of an “evergreening” clause that grants drug companies a continued monopoly if they make slight changes to the drug (like creating a once-a-day dose where the original product was three times per day), they will never become generics. Instead of the Waxman-Deal amendment that granted much more reasonable terms to biologic patent holders, Speaker Pelosi chose the Eshoo-Barton amendment. And we could all be paying for that choice for the rest of our lives.

Breast cancer boards are filled with women who have been turned down by their insurance companies for Herceptin because they only cover generic drugs, or because they only pay a portion of the $48,000 a year (or more) that the drug costs.

[madfloridian]

57. Then throw him under the bus.

.

[flyarm]

62. he threw himself there...I don't want anyone under the bus..i want them just to be honest

and i want them to give a shit about "WE THE PEOPLE' YOU KNOW ..THE PEOPLE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING FOR?? ..before they decided that greed and their pocketbooks were more important than other people's lives!

At least they could TRY to have some integrity or stand up for the very values and principles they led us to believe represented the party we worked so hard for, to get them elected.

Their little secret deals and back room deals don't represent what they told us they stood for! EVER!

[madfloridian]

65. You have no tolerance. Okay, blame Dean for the health care fiasco

if it makes you feel better.

He is not in congress, he is shunned by the WH, now he is shunned by progressives.

What a commentary on DU

[flyarm]

67. PLEASE DO NOT TWIST WHAT I HAVE SAID.

I have not blamed Dean for the "health care fiasco!

Stop Pontificating.

He shunned the people he said he was working for.

He got a salary and many of us Progressives paid that salary.

No one made him take money to represent the very people that are lined up to harm us and our health!

He did it..no one made him in the Democratic party. Stop shifting the blame.

It is we.. who will pay the consequences, with our health and lack of affordable medications, that he helped get the deal that will now screw us all, if allowed to stand.

[Jennicut]

44. The biotech industry also makes my insulin that I inject daily

Generic insulin is a controversial concept with my diabetic friends. On the one hand, we want cheaper medicine. On the other hand, we wonder how effective it would be as biologics are made from live cultures and tend to be unstable and hard to replicate. This is not a cut and dried issue. Some of us don't want the generics if they are not made very, very carefully.

[Raineyb]

72. Generics have to pass the same scrutiny that the name brand drugs do

so I'm not sure what the problem would be with generics. In addition, I know for a fact that some generics are made by the same company that used to hold the patent on the branded drug but are packaged with the generic labeling. Many times it's made in the same facility by the same workers who make the branded drug.

The "generics aren't made as well" meme is one put out by the pharmaceutical companies in order to keep their higher priced drugs on the market exclusively longer so they can make more money. They are not to be trusted when they start denigrating the safety of drugs from other sources.

And that goes for the stuff you get in Canada as well.

[eridani]

45. I'm not blaming Dean at all. Just saying that he was right about asking

--for voluntary buy-in to the already existing Medicare, and wrong to support the forced private insurance abortion.

[Zodiak]

46. As much as I like Dean, I am very disappointed in him on this issue

He is clearly on the take from the industry and did not disclose it when he was out promoting this bill. He has unfortunately undermined his credibility.

...and the bill is not a very good one...either version is terribly corporate.

[madfloridian]

49. "on the take" Oh my. Yes, indeed he disclosed it.

Do a search on Dean, McKenna, msnbc...then do a search on biotech, dean, column...or whatever.

It is all over the internet that they were disclosed.

[Zodiak]

68. He did not disclose it when he promoted the bill

MSNBC cannot expect people to do an "internet search" to get information that should have been disclosed before the segment.

I know you like Dean a lot....I do, too, but he fucked this up big-time. It is demoralizing to find out that a well-respected progressive stands to benefit from a bill he is promoting and fails to disclose it when writing/speaking for the bill's promotion. The onus is on him, not the reader/viewer.

It is a matter of principle, not personality, and even Dean admits that he should have disclosed this.

[slipslidingaway]

52. You are correct according to this article, no disclosure in his editorial...

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/07/21/biotech_firms_lobby_hard_for_say_on_healthcare/?page=2

"...The quest for influence is not always obvious.

Howard Dean, the former Democratic Party chairman, wrote an opinion piece this month in The Hill, an influential Capitol Hill newspaper, arguing that fewer than 12 years of monopoly rights for biotech companies’ products “would prematurely rob innovators of their intellectual property and . . . destroy incentives to develop new cures.’’

Within hours Joe Trippi, a Democratic consultant who ran Dean’s 2004 presidential race, hyped Dean’s opinion piece in a blog post that he sent to The Huffington Post, a widely read website. “He’s a doctor and lifelong advocate for health reform - he knows what he’s talking about,’’ Trippi wrote, urging readers to contact their lawmakers.


"Dean failed to note in his editorial that he is an adviser to McKenna, Long & Aldridge, a global law firm that is advising the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the influential trade group. Nor did Trippi mention that his public relations firm handles social media projects in a partnership with the Boston public relations company Brodeur Partners, which also has BIO as a client.

After the Globe inquired about those ties, both Dean and Trippi said they only advocate for causes they genuinely support, but said they should have disclosed those relationships and would do so in the future.

Trippi, who suffers from serious complications of diabetes, noted that he has advocated for biotech for years. But Dean said his editorial was part of McKenna’s rapid-fire response to an unexpected, eleventh-hour Senate health committee proposal (which biotech firms ultimately fought off).

“It was a huge scramble, all hands on deck,’’ Dean said..."



Howard Dean to Join McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP
Date:3/3/2009

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Howard-Dean-to-Join-McKenna-Long-and-Aldridge-LLP-38347-1/


Obama administration had recommended a compromise of 7 years...

http://blog.pharmtech.com/2009/06/26/the-seven-year-itch-in-biologics-patent-exclusivity/

"...As discussed in PharmTech’s blog, the debate on data exclusivity for biologics was intensified with the release of a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report earlier this month that said that the 12–14 years of regulatory exclusivity for biologics was too long to promote innovation particularly since innovator-drug firms would likely retain substantial market share after the entry of a follow-on biologic (FOB), according to an FTC press release.

GPhA agreed. “In citing the recent FTC report on biogenerics, the President rejects attempts by the pharmaceutical and biotech industries to needlessly extend market exclusivity provisions to an unprecedented period of 12 to 14 years simply to maintain their monopolies on biopharmaceutical products,” said GPhA President and CEO Kathleen Jaeger, in prepared statement. “The White House and Office of Management and Budget correctly recognize that this exclusivity model will not achieve what should be our shared goal of balancing pharmaceutical innovation and much needed consumer access.”

However, BIO, which represents innovator biotechnology drug companies, said curtailing exclusivity was ill-advised..."


Senate HELP amendment on "data exclusivity"

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/july/senate_help_amendmen.php


"Sen. Orin Hatch: I don’t know a biotech company that isn’t for this bill, for this 12 year data exclusivity.

.....

Sen. Tom Harkin: Keep in mind what we’re talking about here. We’re not talking about patents. Everybody gets a 20 year patent… What we’re talking about here is data, data exclusivity… How do you get that data? You get it through FDA supervised trials… Where do they do those clinical trials? Academic health centers. Who supports academic health centers? Our taxpayers… When should that data be released so that another company out there, some other entrepreneurs, can look at the data and say… I’ll bet if we changed this and did this, we might come up with a new formulation that might actually help something else. They’re still going to have to go through their clinical trials… At least they’ll be able to look at the data. If you don’t do that that means that the company can sit on that data for 12 years. Then they let the data out. Clinical trials will take another 7 years or more, so you’re going to have at least a whole 20 year run in there… before anyone can ever surface with anything even comparable to what that drug or that biologic is..."

[slipslidingaway]

55. Here is the article Dean wrote for The Hill - there is no disclosure...

also somebody has it wrong. Dean states that biologics should have a similar timeline and then argues for 12 years, the article in Time states that chemical based drugs only have a 5 year period for data exclusivity.

http://thehill.com/special-reports/the-economy-of-healthcare-july-2009/49677-legislation-on-innovative-drugs-is-key-to-health-reform

"...A commonsense and fair approach, similar to the process and timeline currently in place for generic versions of chemical-based medicines, would allow the original developer of the biologic to protect the proprietary data used to develop the medicine for at least 12 years. A shorter exclusivity period would prematurely rob biotech innovators of their intellectual property and destroy incentives to develop new cures..."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1931595-2,00.html

"...Waxman had pushed to shield biologics for no more than five years — the same amount of time that traditional pharmaceuticals get under the Hatch-Waxman law. President Obama proposed seven years as a compromise..."

[slipslidingaway]

58. Twisted words in an attempt to discredit the single payer movement ...

Single payer advocates wanted Dean to stop confusing the issues by saying SP is not off the table when they were trying to get a seat at the Baucus table or promoting the public option as being like Medicare when it is not.

People do not need to be confused about what is being offered as a public option, I listened carefully to what Dean said after that night on the Ed Show and it was disappointing.

Single payer groups accuse Dean of having them arrested in Portland.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=321786&mesg_id=321786

There is nothing in this video or the links that suggests single payer advocates accused Dean of having them arrested, so why change the title of the video to wrongly accuse single payer advocates???


And this thread...

The Single Payer Action group has a new project. Discredit Dean.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6164248&mesg_id=6164248

My reply in the above thread...

Why are people trying to discredit single-payer advocates? ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6164248&mesg_id=6164827


The quotes that Dr. Himmelstein was objecting to are not in the OP, after months of Dean confusing the issues and misrepresenting the two systems, Dr. Himmelstein had enough. Dean has been speaking all over the country and has had many appearances in the media so there are probably many other examples.

Now the organization and doctors who are the biggest threats to the insurance companies are the bad guys because they called Dean out on his misuse of the terms...

[madfloridian]

59. From August 14 Countdown....July 29 Countdown, Oct. 30 Countdown..Disclosure

"OLBERMANN: Returning to our program once again on this issue, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, himself, of course, a physician and former chair of the Democratic Party, now serves as an independent consultant at McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, providing guidance to clients particularly in the areas of health care and alternative energy resources.

Thanks for your time again tonight, Governor.

HOWARD DEAN, FORMER DNC CHAIRMAN: Thanks for having me on."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32449681
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

From Oct. 30 Countdown

"O‘DONNELL: Our guest tonight is the former governor of Vermont, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dr. Howard Dean, currently a consultant to both Democracy for America and McKenna, Long and Aldrich, and less we forget, a contributor for CNBC. Thanks for your time tonight, Governor.

FORMER GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN (D), VERMONT: Thanks for having me on."

O‘DONNELL: Our guest tonight is the former governor of Vermont, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dr. Howard Dean, currently a consultant to both Democracy for America and McKenna, Long and Aldrich, and less we forget, a contributor for CNBC. Thanks for your time tonight, Governor.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33586008/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

July 29, 09

http://insidecablenews.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/press-releases-072709/

" PROGRAMMING NOTE: FORMER DNC CHAIR HOWARD DEAN GUEST HOSTS “COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN” TUES. JULY 28 AND WEDS. JULY 29

NEW YORK – July 27, 2009 – Former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean will guest host on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” this week, Tuesday, July 28 and Wednesday, July 29. Dean is a contributor for CNBC and author of “Howard Dean’s Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform” (www.deanshealthcare.com). The founder of Democracy for America, Dean currently serves as Chairman of the Progressive Bookclub and is an independent consultant to McKenna Long & Aldridge."

[slipslidingaway]

63. Exactly!!! Amendments had already passed - By Howard Dean - 07/08/09

Note the dates of disclosure, the date on the Hill editorial and the dates the amendments were voted on in the House and Senate Committees...they all took place prior to the disclosures you highlight.

Anything before 7/8/09???

:shrug:

Legislation on innovative drugs is key to health reform
By Howard Dean - 07/08/09 07:08 AM ET

http://thehill.com/special-reports/the-economy-of-healthcare-july-2009/49677-legislation-on-innovative-drugs-is-key-to-health-reform

[PBass]

60. I think bottom-line, they decided they need the health care lobby money,

to be able to win upcoming elections and stay in office.

[slipslidingaway]

61. I do agree with you that there was failed leadership...

policy is set from the top.

But single payer advocates have every right not to support a watered down version of the original public option idea proposed by Jacob Hacker. Even more so when they were excluded from the WH summit and saw they would have no input in getting what they considered a good bill. They had been engaged in discussions and knew more about what was going on behind the scenes than most of us here on DU.

As noted below by the end of 2007 the basic structure of how health care reform would proceed was being determined...they were expected to get with the program.

:(

Here is what Dr. McCanne of PNHP said in January 2007...

“Jacob Hacker’s proposal is a very welcome addition at a time that all options should be on the table. It is such a compelling model that it may shove all others off of the table - except single payer - then we can get down to a serious discussion about reform that really works.”

page 10
http://www.ourfuture.org/files/documents/evolution-of-the-healthcare-debate.pdf


In contrast with the above quote here is what was taking place at the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008...

Posted on January 2, 2008
Where are we on reform? Part 2 (Hacker)

Health Reform Lessons from the Past
Jacob Hacker, PhD
National Conference on the Un and Underinsured
December 12, 2007 (Day 3)


"...Comment:
By Don McCanne, MD

The final Quote of the Day for 2007 discussed the disconnect between a new poll indicating strong support (65%) for “a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers,” and a rapidly growing movement within the progressive community to support a model based on allowing you to keep the insurance you have.

...Jacob Hacker has described very accurately the politics of health care reform. He has suggested an approach that, on surface, would appear to lead to affordable coverage for everyone, while passing the crucial test of political feasibility. His political message is very sound - in fact, so sound that the leading Democratic candidates have adopted his suggestions. He has stressed the importance of coalition building well in advance of the installation of a new government one year from now.

So what coalition activities are we seeing within the progressive community? Many respected, influential leaders state that it is time to set aside the policy debate and proceed with a political strategy that will achieve our reform goals. There is one major problem with this approach: most of the difficult policy issues have yet to be addressed. But several of these coalition leaders have told the policy community quite bluntly that the policy debate is over, and all of the activities now must be about unity. We are commanded to unify behind health care reform that promises that you can keep the insurance you have or have the option to buy into a public program.

That’s it. That’s the policy behind which we are to unify. For the sake of unity, we are not to talk about the inability of the private insurance industry to provide us with affordable health plans that are comprehensive enough to meet our health care needs. We are not to talk about a public insurance program that must provide a premium that is competitive with private plans insuring the healthy, when the public plan is weighted down with high-cost patients (adverse selection).

....Those who insist on unity behind political means while suppressing clarity about policy ends will not be successful in coalition building, and clearly that is not Jacob Hacker’s intent. Those of us who insist on clarity about policy ends will be there to be certain that efforts to compromise on means will be an honest, transparent, and fully informed process."

[slipslidingaway]

103. Forgot the link to the January 2008 article - Where are we on reform? Part 2 (Hacker)

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/where_are_we_on_refo.php

[democracy1st]

64. K & R .... Goldman Sachs admin

[madfloridian]

70. Yes, indeed. Plenty of it to go around.

Why center on one person?

[madfloridian]

66. Dean relationship with McKenna was announced in March 2009

It has never been a secret. Never.

McKenna Snags Howard Dean for Government Affairs Practice

"McKenna Long & Aldridge has landed Howard B. Dean III, the former Vermont governor, Democratic presidential candidate and, most recently, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, for its national government affairs practice.

Dean will be based in the firm's Washington, D.C., office as an independent consultant, and will serve as a strategic adviser to its health care and energy clients, said Eric J. Tanenblatt, who heads McKenna's national government affairs practice. "He won't be full time, but he will be spending quite a bit of time in the Washington office," said Tanenblatt, who has held various leadership positions in the Republican Party, including chief of staff to Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue.

Tanenblatt said Dean will not lobby on behalf of the firm's clients. Instead he will provide more "big picture" counseling. "Someone who has served as governor understands how government agencies work and their interaction with the federal government," he said."

How much disclosure is enough disclosure.

Why are the same ones targeting him and letting the higher ups off the hook? Puzzles me. There is a bitterness and hatred carried over from 2004 I believe.

One group has done more than others to discredit him.

Correcting the record

A few months ago one of the founders of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), the main group of doctors advocating Medicare for All in the United States, called Howard Dean a liar for saying that for the average American should think of the public option as a Medicare opt-in.

"He's a liar," Himmelstein says.

"He knows that the public option plan is not single payer and he says it is to try and confuse people," Himmelstein said. "He goes on Democracy Now and other shows and says that people can buy into Medicare when he knows that what is in the plan is not that."

"Medicare doesn't have to compete," Himmelstein said. "That's why it's so efficient."

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15309/pnhp-founder-calls-howard-dean-a-liar

[Zodiak]

69. How much is enough?

Every time he appears/writes in advocacy of a bill he stands to benefit from. Every time.

And I hold all of the higher ups to the same standard, as can be seen in my many postings criticizing Democrats for being on the take in one form or another. Dean gets no free pass from me.

[slipslidingaway]

74. Please stop distorting what Dr. Himmelstein was objecting to when he called Dean out...

about his misrepresentation of the public option.

It is not the single payer system that people were advocating for at the time, Dean knew that, and it is not like Medicare. It must compete with private companies and the government will subsidize the purchase of private insurance...that is not how Medicare began.

Dean has had multiple appearances on TV telling people the public option is like Medicare or like single payer and promoting Obama's plan and the proposed legislation as something it is not, THAT is what Dr. Himmelstein from PNHP has found disturbing.

I've posted this to you several times, yet you continue to ignore what took place and attack the single payer group in various threads.

If Dean wants to get behind Obama's plan and the current legislation that is fine, but be honest about the proposed bills, instead of selling it as something it is not.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/84

Link - Howard Dean on the Ed Show and more...
Posted by slipslidingaway in General Discussion: Presidential
Mon Aug 24th 2009, 12:22 PM

Posted in the thread below back in June, but some people continue to distort the views of PNHP.

Interview on the Ed Show was during the time that SP advocates were trying to get a seat at the Senate round tables - Baucus had excluded them from participating. Ed asked Dean what he thought about SP being off the table, Dean said SP is Not off the table. Dean knows what the physicians were advocating for when they talk about SP, Medicare for All.

Why would he confuse the issue and lead people to believe that the public option is the same as SP or just like SP???

In addition he keeps referring to the public option as being like Medicare, but Medicare does not have to compete for the basic coverage with private insurance plans and started with millions of people in the plan which could then bargain for lower prices....



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/161

Medicare was open to everyone 65 and older, the government did not...
Posted by slipslidingaway in General Discussion
Thu Oct 22nd 2009, 03:51 PM

...give subsidies to people over 65 to purchase private insurance, therefore knocking out the competition.

Medicare had a ready pool of subscribers which allowed them to negotiate prices with providers, the public option has no such ready pool as people can chose to purchase from a private insurance company.

Over 90% of seniors were enrolled in Medicare by the end of the FIRST year.

Obama says that just over 3%, according to the CBO estimate he quoted, would be enrolled in a public option by 2019.

The basic benefits were automatically available to everyone over 65 and financed by an increased payroll tax.

It did not have to be self-financed in contrast with the current public option bills....

[slipslidingaway]

78. And there was no disclosure in the the original editorial by Dean...

if you note it was added later, maybe when the reporter from the Boston Globe inquired about it???

Dean is quoted as saying that his editorial was written as part of McKenna's response to a proposal in the Senate Committee, yet the disclosure that he is an adviser to McKenna was left out of the editorial???

:shrug:


http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/07/21/biotech_firms_lobby_hard_for_say_on_healthcare/?page=2

"...Dean failed to note in his editorial that he is an adviser to McKenna, Long & Aldridge, a global law firm that is advising the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the influential trade group. Nor did Trippi mention that his public relations firm handles social media projects in a partnership with the Boston public relations company Brodeur Partners, which also has BIO as a client.

After the Globe inquired about those ties, both Dean and Trippi said they only advocate for causes they genuinely support, but said they should have disclosed those relationships and would do so in the future.

Trippi, who suffers from serious complications of diabetes, noted that he has advocated for biotech for years. But Dean said his editorial was part of McKenna’s rapid-fire response to an unexpected, eleventh-hour Senate health committee proposal (which biotech firms ultimately fought off).

“It was a huge scramble, all hands on deck,’’ Dean said..."

[madfloridian]

71. Unbelievable. From the Just Recs Top Tens....

"General Discussion: Presidential
There was failed leadership on the health care issue.
56 recs : By madfloridian"

So that is a whole lot of unrecs.

"Just Recs
Recommendations only -- unrecommendations are not counted (24 hours)"

It is controversial, so that makes sense.

[madfloridian]

73. But even more confusing...

it is only on the top ten greatest, not on the regular greatest page. :shrug:

Strange.

[madfloridian]

79. Whoa here. Now on Greatest with 22 recs.

"General Discussion: Presidential
There was failed leadership on the health care issue.
+22 votes : By madfloridian"

This is confusing. The now 58 recs on the greatest top ten page with just recs supposedly...says unrecs not counted.

This has happened to me before, and it was said to be a bug in the system.

Odd.

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. Everyone gets thrown under the bus sooner or later at DU. You threw

the Obama Administration under the bus as soon as Rahm Emanuel was named CoS. You are a Deaniac, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I can't help but remember your fights with supporters of this administration, which is constantly under attack here at DU.

Welcome to the Club. Doesn't feel so good, does it? Especially when you know the person being slimed is one of integrity. Dr. Dean and Pres. Obama are both my heroes, because I'm a realist.

[madfloridian]

77. Totally unfair summary of me. Very presumptuous.

I still have contempt for Rahm. I always will have. I am angry Obama chose him because it shut the grassroots out too much and gave his DLC policies too much control.

But we donated almost a thousand to Obama, and we are proud of it.

Now we are not donating for a while to see which way the wind is blowing.

I think you are being very unfair about my views.

My "fights" with the supporters of Obama? I don't think so. I often questioned his choice of Rahm, and I also question his choice of Arne Duncan. I will continue to do so.

But I still have great hope for Obama.

[Tarheel_Dem]

98. I am, in no way, diminishing your contribution. I just take issue with so called "progressives"...

who seem to think they're owed more than any other bloc of the party, by this administration. You would think they single-handedly elected this president. Progressives are always shouting that the administration has shown favoritism to other blocs of the party.

I think it's the height of selective revisionism to claim that this president ran as anything other than a moderate, contrary to the claims of many here. We've seen, up close & personal, what happens to a party when the extreme base takes over. I guess I'm just saying, within our ranks, eventually every group feels tossed under the bus, and Dr. Dean is no different.

[madfloridian]

100. "Progressives are always shouting that the administration has shown favoritism to other blocs...."

of the party. Actually he has.

If this is the best we can do with a congressional majority and the WH...then we have problems.

We are putting Gingrich's education policies into place right now...for goodness sake. Why?

We have 40 Dems demanding abortion out of the bill entirely, which means private insurance won't pay for it either.

[Tarheel_Dem]

101. I know that's how you feel. I just disagree. Oh well...........(nt)

[Orsino]

80. The president doesn't *have* the power...

..."to control the mealy-mouth utterings of the club that is called the Senate." You can fault him for not doing all he could, maybe, but the ingrained dysfunction of Congress really isn't his fault.

[madfloridian]

81. I agree. I was just spreading blame around.

and not just on one person.

[Orsino]

94. Okay. As I've opined before...

..."the buck stops here" rings true. The president really does have a bully pulpit, and therefore does get the largest personal share of the blame. The five hundred thirty-five members of Congress add up to a lot more, of course, as do the various corporate/media forces involved.

[Impedimentus]

82. Not failed leadership, ...

... bought leadership. Wall Street, the BIG Banks and the insurance industry own government. I suspect we'll be thrown a few bones, and the leadership will spare no end congratulating themselves over what hard work they did and the wonderful job they performed.

Thousands will continue to suffer and die from lack of insurance - but wait, we might get some table scraps in 2013 - so please don't complain.

[joeycola]

88. Once they are bought they fail the public.

[Dr Robert]

83. people like you always declare failure before the day is even done

If it were up to you to accomplish anything, this Country wouldn't have lasted a decade.

You would have declared the Revolutionary War a loss because you got Frostbite at Valley Forge.

[madfloridian]

84. "people like me"?

what am I like?

[Dr Robert]

85. you are a naysayer. you don't know this yet?

[madfloridian]

86. Perhaps we need more of us being naysayers

when our party is turning over our schools to privatization, when they are giving up women's rights.

I could go on.

[Dr Robert]

87. naysayers never accomplish anything, they just criticize efforts aimed at accomplishment

[madfloridian]

91. Nope, not true.

Look where the lack of questioning got the GOP??

[treestar]

89. Now you've added two new issues

It is too soon to declare "failure."

"Failure" is a matter of opinion. If the bill that passes saves someone, that someone won't call it a "failure."

[madfloridian]

92. We all know we could have had a much better bill much sooner.

I am not declaring failure, I am declaring that poor leadership all the way down kept us from getting better.

[peaches2003]

95. Just heard a clip of Hapless Harry

Reid on the radio whining and haltingly saying he couldn't guarantee any health bill vote before the end of the year. Talk about being negative and thereby telling the Repug Thugs there is no urgency and the Dems will just sit back and take their usual long long vacation in Nov, Dec, thru January. What a sorry ass excuse for a Senate Leader! GET RID OF HIM, DEMS!!!

[AlinPA]

96. You nailed it with:"Harry Reid cared more about what the GOP thought than about those in his own".

[Lord Helmet]

97. According to Krugman and Gov Dean, this OP is horseshit.

[Yavin4]

99. So, What Should Obama Have Done? Bitch Slapped Harry Reid on TV?

Obama failed to exert the power that was needed to control the mealy-mouth utterings of the club that is called the Senate.

What power is that exactly?

[jeanpalmer]

102. There was nothing to lead

Health care reform was doomed from the start, by the bad economy and the poor fiscal condition of the government. That's why we're now in a situation where reform = mandated private insurance with subsidies, 45% paid for by stealing from Medicare. Because nothing else works from an economic or fiscal standpoint. And even this plan may not pass, with its mandates, penalties, gimmicky accounting, and uncertain costs. There's a lot of risk, political and otherwise, involved there and I'm not surprised that people aren't getting out front to lead the effort.

[slipslidingaway]

104. Dean endorsed Eshoo Amendment Embraced by GOP in “Alternative” Health Bill

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6920017&mesg_id=6920017

:shrug: