Newsweek's Jonathan Alter and Liz Edwards Square Off On Health Care Debate

At a John Edwards event earlier this afternoon in Bedford, NH, we happened upon a very interesting conversation taking place between Elizabeth Edwards and Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter.

First a bit of background: A few weeks ago, Alter wrote a piece in Newsweek commenting on the debate about our nation's health care crisis. Specifically, he discussed the battle taking place between Edwards and Obama on exactly how they would negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies. Edwards, campaigning with a fierce populist tone, believes that drug companies must be excluded from any discussion on health care reform, while Obama says he would invite all of the key stakeholders to the table.

Alter made his case to Elizabeth following her husband's speech. He believes that while Edwards does make a convincing political argument, he must dial-back his tone a bit, especially given that Elizabeth, who is being treated for cancer, wouldn't have the drugs necessary without the research, development and production of medicine from these companies. Take a listen to this podcast of the conversation. (Rough transcript below)

Following the conversation between Elizabeth Edwards and Jonathan Alter, we pulled him aside and asked him to elaborate on their conversation and on the article that he wrote defending Obama. Alter also weighs in on Edwards' recent comments where he says that he will stay in the race until the convention. Here's the video.

RUSH AUDIO TRANSCRIPT (5:04)

JONATHAN ALTER
Let me ask you something about drug companies. Do you feel that your husbands attack on drug companies is perhaps a bit broad considering drug companies are trying to save your life my life a lot of other peoples lives.

ELIZABETH EDWARDS
No there are good companies and bad companies. But the fact that, understand that in this country we pay the highest price for drugs. They negotiate, they lobby so that the prescription drug bill, we would pay suggested retail. You know, I'm a bargain shopper I never pay suggested retail if I can avoid it. And certainly if I was the biggest buyer in the entire world I would expect to get a better deal than that. But they negotiated for that. Why? So they could keep their profits up. And they sell it for less across the border here and they sell it for less all around the world. This country, our consumers are subsidizing the rest of the world. They're making most of their profits right here. If they spread that around in a larger way and other industrialized countries you know if they were willing to take their profit more evenly. But they take it here. And why? Because here they can buy government influence so they don't have to pay for the consequences of that behavior. And that's what John's complaining about. Not that drugs are bad. I mean, the work they do in research is great. Although sometimes the government does, there's an old bill where the government participates in the research funding for some of these drugs they're supposed to get some of the profit. That doesn't actually happen. There are lots of little ways in which I can complain about them but golly for someone who depends on the pharmaceutical industry for her very life I'm certainly not in a position to complain about what they do. I just complain that, there was a time, now the oil industry is the most profitable I think. But for a very long time, the pharmaceutical industry was the most profitable sector in all of American industry.

ALTER
But he says you don't want to sit down and talk to them, doesn't that suggest that they're evil or some kind of boogeyman that everyone should not like?

EDWARDS
No no, it just suggest that in terms of what our policy should be about whether or not we open the borders and allow reimportation. The word reimportation being all you really need to know about this, it will allow the reimportation of drugs or that we negotiate the best possible price, what is their interest in being part of that conversation? We should be able to. Just like the Veterans Administration negotiates the best possible price so why should Medicare be negotiating the best possible price? And why would we be asking the pharmaceutical companies if it's ok with them if we negotiate the best possible price? Then we negotiate the price so we are talking to them then.

ALTER
I'm not asking about the substance here. I think everyone whose looked at it can agree there are serious price gouging and other problems with it. If you're talking about solutions, in the same way that a lot of cases are settled before trial after conversations.

EDWARDS
I see where you're going with this Jonathan.

ALTER
And your husband's settled many cases. Why not bring them in and then on television call them out and say why does a pill cost $150 in the United States and 2 cents in other countries? And then if they're embarrassed on television then you have all the more political persuasion. But if you just say we're not even going to bring you in to call you out then you can't educate the public on these issues.

EDWARDS
Well you don't be disingenuous for the purpose of creating theater about this.

ALTER
Well why not some theater?

EDWARDS
And perhaps there will come a time when that might be advantageous. Think about what happened with what the Democrats like to call hillary care, but the universal health care plan in 1993. The health insurance industry was actually apart of that discussion. They sat at the table with her, did that discussion and then walked out the door and undermined her. They did everything they could to undermine the policy they sat down to draft. So we just need to keep that in mind as we're trying to make a determination about how involved they are in the process. Are they completely excluded from the process, absolutely not. But do we decide what we want by asking them what they'll give us. My example of this is pretty personal to me having grown up in the time that I did. You know, Rosa Parks didn't negotiate about where she was going to sit on the bus. She said I can sit in the 2nd row if I want.

Photo by Joshua Skaroff

Comments

[Mike5000]

John Edwards really needs to get behind single payer. It's the right thing to do, and it would sway millions of voters who support Dennis Kucinich rather than vote for mandatory contributions to insurance CEO golden parachutes. It's time we halved our costs and improved our health-care from 37th in the world.

[atlantajoe]

I wonder how many times Edwards cut his rates in a lawsuit?

[emerywood]

I must agree with Elizabeth on every point. This interview was contrived and unwarranted.
Giving big pharma unlimited pricing power is the equivalent of giving physicians the same to charge an arm and a leg for treating patients.
The argument that without high prices of drugs, the industry would not be able to do good research is also phoney. Again, the same argument could be applied to the medical profession and every other profession. A high priced physician is not necessarily a good physician. We want reasonably priced medications, no more and no less.

[drhammer]

Jonathan would do well to remember that many of our popular pharmaceuticals were developed at the National Institutes of Health, on our dime.

In light of that, gouging us in the name of R&D is fraudulent.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"Why does a pill cost $150 in the United States and 2 cents in other countries?"

"They're making most of their PROFITS right here. If they spread that around in a larger way and other industrialized countries were willing to take their profit more evenly. But they take it here. And why? Because HERE they can BUY government influence so they don't have to pay for the consequences of that behavior."

"For a very long time, the pharmaceutical industry was the most profitable sector in all of American industry. Now the oil industry is the most profitable."

PROFITS before PEOPLE'S LIVES..."PLAYING GOD" with PEOPLE'S LIVES! There ought to be a law against it! They are COMMITTING MURDERS! CRIMINALIZE the "CONSEQUENCES of that behavior"!!!

Edwards 08!!!

Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta

[Bluedanube]

The Media IS THE PROBLEM!!! They frame the dialogue and decide who is acceptable. The sheep, not knowing any better, just go along for the ride. Until the traditional media is exposed for the pathetic job they do and how they manipulate to promote the corporatist agenda nothing will change.

[belltor]

Johnathan Alter writes for Newsweek magazine.
Owners of that publication wouldn't want him to offend all those pharmaceutical companies that advertise in that rag don't yah think.

[SonnyBono]

Alter's parents never married and Elizabeth Edwards is my choice for First Lady - heck, when you look at the Republican slate - she's smarter than the whole bunch.

Why does the media keep referring to Edwards' "populist" stands as if it were a bad thing? Perhaps they should check its origins and real meaning before trying to demonize the word and by association, John Edwards.

It's the same with universal health care - "Why, why, it sounds like, looks like SOCIALISM and then the Communists will want to eat your babies." Wake up, the only ones that are satisfied with the current system are the ones making all the money - the drug companies, HMOs, and their running dogs (Alter?).

[Steamboater]

Elizabeth is right. Just think about what a bottle of aspirin costs today. The cheapest I was able to find at the market is $3.49 when it should cost no more than 79 cents or 99 cents tops. Besides, what Elizabeth says about the drug companies has nothing to do with drug companies doing research and providing meds that are extending her life. Most of us know very well how expensive drugs are here in the U.S. Drug companies have no intention of losing their high mark-up on the drugs they sell. I take 9 different pills a day with some twice a day. Total cost is close to $1,000 a month! Thankfully I have access to them because I'm insured, but what about the people without insurance who are poor or lower middle class and may need even half of what I take? Drug companies will always try and use the guilt factor of 'research' to explain away their greed. Ahhh....if only Elizabeth were the woman running for the presidency.

[mamacita]

Apparently the MEDIA has decided for us that nobody wants Edwards. His campaign was dismissed as doomed to failure after Iowa. The MEDIA has decided that we only want to hear about Obama and Hillary.

[juliewolves]

Johnathan Alter comes across as a pompous egotist, who never had to pay his own medical bills in his life. He talks about huge controlling corporations as if they were single people like the rest of us. They aren't. A corporation is a kingdom. Why does a kingdom have the same rights in a democracy as me, a citizen? This has got to change.

[liberalLA]

The New Hampshire town that votes at midnight just voted and "campaign carl" from Faux News just said Edwards did not get any votes. Actually he got 2 (out of 17).
Edwards won't get a fair shake anywhere in the media.

[evereye3]

I don't understand why neither John or Elizabeth says the obvious about corporations...they are not people, therefore they deserve no seat at the table.

This is supposed to be a government of, by, and for people, not of, by, and for legally structured profit making machines. Corporations have no substance beyond the legal framework that we have created for them, therefore we are perfectly in the right to change those rules whenever we like. Corporations exist for a single reason, to make profits for their shareholders. They will still be able to work toward that purpose, even if we change the rules of the game.

The rules need to be set to benefit people. Corporations can then operate within that framework. The problem we are having is that we let corporations have any say in setting those rules in the first place.

[jeanruss]

Elizabeth is just as smart as her husband-Alter is an ass-his magazine i spart of the problem-The Edwards have only gotten 18% of the media coverage compared to Obama and Clinton-who do you think would be ahead now if Clinton or Obama had that type of exposure? and most of that 18% was negative.

[reactionrynihilist]

Single payer is the only way to go. Hillary's plan is just like the medicare bill that Bush passed, it will end up making more profits for the pharmacueadicals companies as they double dip the public sector and the government.

I love that argument that our health care is sooo great. Well, Europe is making plenty of breakthroughs while we are busy making erections and growing hair on bald heads.

One third of the cost of new drugs is marketing, why would you need to market a drug if it works?