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 principles 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%.
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.
New: Subscribe to Palast's podcasts (iTunes required)
Follow Greg Palast on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Greg_Palast
So? Whenever Republicans (since the days of Bush the Elder) have proposed reducing the growth of a program - 5% increase as opposed to a 10% increase, for example - it has been called a "cut in spending", so this is, at least, consistent.
But see, it already is the law. Bush did it, banned Medicare drug price negotiation.
So if it is not in the bill, all the better! The drug companies won't have to pretend about the 2%, or do it.
"We the People" will of course be healthier ON AVERAGE if all the old, sick, weak, and unproductive "people" simply die off -- let alone consume expensive and only partially effective scientific-y medicine-y stuff.
The trick is to arrange to be a member of The People and not be one of the old, sick, weak, etc "persons."
Moses the Prophet lived to be 120 years old on his 100% organic shepherd's diet and all the walking he did -- why not you and me ?
Do I hear that "S' word sneaking up again? You can't have your cake and eat it too! Either you want the government involved, regulating things, or your screaming TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT! What's it going to be? Who would want to stand in Obama's shoes right now? He's trying to run the country like a businessman, making deals to try and help "Middle-class Man." Oops! Being a business-like president instead of a warmonger president gives the impression that you support "lobbyists", after all, how else does one do business except with businesses?
What do all of you REALLY want? Have you given any thought to those less fortunate than yourselves?
I can't think of a single major thing he has done since he has become president that I have supported.
Jeez it's not like the economy was in a free fall and we were fighting two wars or anything when he was handed the reigns. Get over yourself and your disallusionment and think of all the major things that would be a lot worse if the other side had won.
I am not going to any great lengths to be able to support the president. I just know that I voted for Obama because he's a lot smarter than I am, so there must be some nuance or details that I don't quite understand about what it means to actually BE the POTUS. So I'm willing to wait a little longer than 7 months to find out what he does with this.
After 8 years of Bush, OBama can do NO wrong.
Sarah Palin was the RNC answer to the worlds problems after George Bush? Dan Quale was Einstein to her.
RNC has gone loco with power. Economy on the brink, ran up huge deficits, couldn't get Bin Laden, Lied about WMD's to invade a sovereign nation (true dictator we put there by Reagan/Bush Sr. didn't work out, but I thing they've suffered more deaths than prior to our invasion), torture, wire-tapping, Gitmo...I don't know...there are just too many reasons that haven't rinsed out of my mouth yet to condem Obama for being c*ck blocked by the hateful rhetoric of the Rightwing Extremists. E.vil has a face now...Tom Coburn.
more of a WISHING point...
now.. click your heels three times.....
1 tort reform
2 drug companies
I am in favor of letting drug companies produce worthwile medicines and sell them to willing buyers. I am not in favor of letting their lobbyists scheme the system by getting legislation past that doesn't allow the government any choice but to pay whatever price they ask. Tort reform and drug price reform (in the form of negotiations) with some regulation of insurance companies to prevent some of the most damaging practices and an opening up of competition across state lines would be ideal.
Unfortunately, the most impoortant points there seem to no longer even be an option...
Then you take care of the policy mandates that put things like pre-natal care, maternity care, acupuncture and drug rehab on my policy. All things I don't need or want, all things I still have to pay for.
Then you make Recissions REALLY expensive for insurance companies (while the actual rate of recissions is very, very low, it's still one of those things that I have a hard time liking), and while you then make it illegal to not cover someone for a pre-existing condition, you also allow the companies to charge a higher (though you limit where they can raise it to) premiums.
I mean, I smoke... I fully expect to pay a higher premium than someone who does NOT smoke, you know? At least leave me SOME incentive to stop...
Big PhRMA made a " drug score" on them.
Big PhRMA are nothing more than drug dealers (albiet legal but certainly not ethical nor moral)
Obama and team need to recant fast and hard.
Rehab time!
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa