"Drug industry backing Obama's health care plan"?

[ProSense]

NYT two days ago: White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

NYT today: Obama Reverses Stand on Drug Industry Deal

But the industry reacted with alarm when, despite its deal the White House, a House version of the health care measure included both new price rebates and government price negotiations. House leaders talked of trying to extract far more.

Now comes this (try another tactic):

Drug industry backing Obama's health care plan

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON – The nation's drugmakers stand ready to spend $150 million to help President Barack Obama overhaul health care this fall, according to numerous officials, a staggering sum that could dwarf attempts to derail his chief domestic priority.

The White House and allies in Congress are well aware of the effort by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a somewhat surprising political alliance, given the industry's recent history of siding with Republicans and the Democrats' disdain for special interests.

The campaign, now in its early stages, includes television advertising under PhRMA's own name and commercials aired in conjunction with the liberal group, Families USA.

Numerous people with knowledge of PhRMA's plans said they had been told it would likely reach $150 million and perhaps $200 million. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to divulge details.

<...>

Now, with the legislation under attack, the industry is providing key support during August as Republicans work to inflict a high-profile defeat on the president.

more

So they're backing the plan they oppose? Someone is trying to confuse the issue.

[Kdillard]

1. Yeah I read that too. I am not sure what to think. The information coming out

is confusing. The bottom line for me is that we pay less for drugs and not the generic kind either in the long run.

[DJ13]

4. I have to think Obama did make a deal with them

Otherwise the easiest way to end this confusion (and, really, ending some confusion would go a long way to easing some doubts right now) would be for Obama to step up and say cost controls will require negotiating drug prices.

But.....he seems incapable of doing that, but why?

The only logical conclusion is that he cant because he has a deal with them.

[ProSense]

7. Talk about being confused

which bill are they supporting?

The bills in Congress have price rebates and government negotiating.

You seem to think Obama is writing the bill.

[DJ13]

10. You seem to think Obama is writing the bill.

I wish he was more involved, dont you?

[ProSense]

12. No, he's doing it the right way

He learned from Clinton's mistake.

[DJ13]

15. He's on a worse trajectory than Clinton

A bad, watered down, insurance mandating Blue Dog Congress written bill will leave us worse off than we were when Clinton failed.

Would we have had Medicare if LBJ had just let Congress write what ever they wanted and didnt fight them to get what he wanted?

[ProSense]

17. Nonsense. n/t

[Kdillard]

16. Yep. I would prefer he not end up like Clinton and his attempt at Health Care reform.

The whole situation has me shaking my head because whatever deal the President may or may not have made with the Drug companies Congress is under no obligation to accept. Checks and Balances and all that.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Since it is news reports of behind the scenes deals about unfinished legislation

Its hard to know how much is true.

But the news article says

Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion

The pharmaceutical question is different then the insurance question to some extent.

But that statement specifically and unequivocally states that pharmaceuticals have some method of setting savings cost. In a free market system, you would think competition would set that. If $80 Billion could be saved, then it should have been saved by competitive free market pressure long ago. It is a direct statement of monopoly price setting. And if true that some amount is able to be picked or set by an industry, that is further proof of a monopoly system.

Tell the freepers it is the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that fight against the free market system.

It is possible that the pharmaceuticals have a monopoly, and the government is negotiating with that monopoly. But the core problem of breaking up monopolies still exist if they are able to set cost savings price.

US Drug Cartels should not have monopolies to be used against the citizens of society for profit.

[DJ13]

5. If $80 Billion could be saved......

Its a misconception that there will be an $80b "savings".

As far as I can tell its not a savings, its actually just a "promise" to not raise costs by the first $80b.

Of course, if they can produce some spreadsheets in a couple of years showing they could expect $120b in price increases over that 10 year period they will "only" increase prices by $40b, and remain within the (illusionary) spirit of their negotiated windfall.

[RandomThoughts]

9. Good point, That is why monopoly price setting fails. n/t

[ProSense]

13. "Its a misconception that there will be an $80b 'savings'." Wrong

The agreement, which was reached between Sen. Baucus, Administration officials, and the nation’s pharmaceutical companies, will ultimately reduce the price of prescription drugs by half for millions of America’s seniors. As part of the upcoming health care reform legislation, drug manufacturers that participate in Medicare Part D will either pay a rebate to Medicare or offer a substantial discount of at least 50 percent on prescription drugs to seniors who fall within the infamous "doughnut hole"— payments between $2700 and $6153.75 not covered by Medicare. The deal will help close this unfair gap in coverage, providing relief for millions of seniors who have been burdened by these out-of-pocket expenses, making it easier for them to get the prescriptions that they need.

link

[DrToast]

3. This is why Obama tried to cut a deal with them and he got shit on for it

He tried to bring them in as an ally in the fight because he knew how hard it would be to get health care reform passed.

[Cha]

8. Yeah, but look who's taking the craps..

the usual suspects who are never without a reason to whine.

[drm604]

6. Harry and Louise

Have you seen the new Harry and Louise ads? They are now supporting health care reform. The ads are being run by the pharmaceutical industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOr17a4ZOIU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fharry-and-louise-return-this-weekend-to.html&feature=player_embedded

If you think about it, it's not too surprising that the pharmaceutical companies would want universal care. They're not supporting it out of the goodness of their hearts, they're supporting it because they actually make money by providing care (at unconscionable prices, but that's another story), so more people with insurance means more customers for them. The insurance companies on the other hand, make money by denying care.

In both cases, it's all about the bottom line.

[ProSense]

11. "In both cases, it's all about the bottom line. "

Yes, and they were trying to gain leverage by pushing the deal story. It didn't work. Besides, Congress does not have to concede anything to them.

[drm604]

14. No, they don't have to concede anything,

but I fear they will.

[jody]

18. Surely your question is answered at "THE SECURITY YOU GET from health insurance reform:"

THE SECURITY YOU GET from health insurance reform:

[NYC_SKP]

19. OK, I'm not too worried. This part of the story from HuffPost made sense to me:

...Earlier in the week, there were reports that Obama had promised to oppose any congressional attempt to exact further money from the massive pharmaceutical industry, which would include allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prices or import cheaper drugs from Canada -- two major priorities for congressional Democrats.

In a Thursday meeting with Senate Democrats, some of those present thought the White House backed off that deal. The administration has now stepped in to clear up its position: Congress can vote to do those things -- just not as part of the health-care overhaul legislation.

The White House said on Friday that drug price negotiations did not specifically come up in talks with Big Pharma. Because such negotiations would take the deal past $80 billion, however, they're off limits, as is reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/white-house-confirms-deal_n_254408.html

I see nothing wrong with getting a reasonable package passed and then letting Congress negotiate better deals later.

I'm OK with getting this done incrementally, as opposed to going for it all at once and NOT getting it done.

[boppers]

20. 3 different news posts.

Tangentially related topics, with blatant glossing over of the powers of different branches of government, comparing them as if they were the same.

Who's trying to confuse the issue, then?

[DURHAM D]

21. Why don't they just change the name from Health Care Plan to

the Insurance Providers and Pharmaceutical Company Protection Act?