White House confirms: cost of $80B deal with big pharma was no gov't drug price negotiations

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I mentioned doctors but should have said people from all aspects of health care including finance, consumer advocates, actuaries, ethicists, and the kitchen sink if need be. Politicians would then be well advised and then could legislate intelligently. Sure they're good at writing thousand page documents but they are woefully ignorant. We're talking about the same body of people who can't even get airplane contracts done without fights. I don't want B-1 bomber health care.

Then again I got the impression from your previous post that you admired the Saturn V rocket, a creation that was started in this same legislative process.

What's wrong with fighting anyway? I'm glad they're fighting, that means they are doing their jobs.

We'll have to agree to disagree. In both cases the legislature really did one thing, and that's sign the checks. If that's what they are going to do and let health care work then I'd feel better. I don't really believe that's the case. Funding will be used to drive things as the politicians wish. Since they know nothing at all about how it works, it seems that what we're really doing is not having the experts guiding Congress (only Congress can legislate) but Congress exercising control over issues they don't understand.

Special interests, political goals, and war chests aren't compatable (which will come in to play) with good medicine. As an example, medicaid had been in need of serious reform for decades, however there has been no substantial reform. Rather than consider the interests of the public, they cater to the group du jour. It's the same people in charge of a larger program, and my fear is that if we don't get the basics right, we'll be building crooked on an unsound foundation.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So wait, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be happy or angry. The right on here is always telling me how the government squeezing the drug companies will stifle innovation, so the inability of the government to get these lower prices is a good thing, right?

I don't know of you are supposed to be happy or angry either, but I do know that a lot of people signed on to this assuming a great deal, and that controlling pharmaceutical prices was one. Now that this isn't the case, some are saying that it's now not a big deal. So just how are we supposed to know what else lurks?

My contention has always been to find out the need, evaluate the situation and bring ideas to the front before legislating. Now it seems that we're doing something of the sort, which is making arraignments to protect drug manufacturers up front, not quite the "solution" I was hoping for.

Obama is fast shooting whatever credibility he may have had to hell. Every day I trust what's going on less and less.

I realize that there will be those who will find some excuse for this, and pretty much anything else, but I don't have faith.

I Don't understand why Obama is trying to rush this through. What is the big hurry? If you are going to do something so huge, make sure you do it right and don't rush the process. He is acting like some catastrophe will happen if it isn't passed through RIGHT NOW!!!

So ideas about how to reform the health system have been kicked around for about the last 20 years (okay, actually the last 60). A bill to be passed in this term has been under discussion in earnest since at least May or so. So we've had 4 months of discussion, and before a bill is actually passed and signed it will probably be 6 months.

20 years of ideas and 6 months of intensive legislative discussion, exactly how much time would he need to spend in order for you not to consider it a 'rush'?

20 years that have nothing to do with Obama and his plan. It has been discussed in general ways in the past 20 years, others have made their plans and they have failed, but now we are talking about another completely different plan. It is a rush, and it is strange and unwise to rush it through. Look what is happening by trying to rush it through: compromising with pharms tp their benefit and our detriment.

 

[bamacre]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...promises_n_254833.html

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
If he pushed for drug negotiation, he would have big pharma's lobbyists and money working against UHC.

What should be done is: wait until UHC passes, and is implemented, and in place for a few years so it would be difficult to uproot. Then pass a UHC "Phase 2.0" bill that includes drug negotiation. The whole country would back such a plan, as it is in everyone's best interest to use their tax dollars wisely, and it is unwise to pay retail price instead of paying a negotiated price.

this is the only upside i can see in this, ugh i'm disgusted.

 

[SAWYER]

Ouch, I eagerly await to see the spin from the diehards on this

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: glenn1
Linked from HuffPo. To me, it's not a surprise that Obama sold out the interests and stated desires of the progressive wing of his party, but rather how cheaply he was bought. So if the cost control isn't going to come from pharmaceuticals, that is starting to narrow the field of where all the "savings" from government healthcare are going to come from.

story link

Obummer!

Are you happy about this all around? Politically and personally? This is bad news for the consumer but it gives the drug companies incentives to innovate. Of course, this means that America is just subsidizing the medical costs of the rest of the world which is fucked up any way you look at it.

we already are, its not like pharma actually does much basic research. America is a leader of medical research because we still have the best research universities in the world, not because we let pharma's charge outrageous prices.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Well to be honest it would be impossible to take on insurance industry and pharma at the same time. You have to divide and conquer.

Oh please explain that one :laugh:

sorry. I don't understand you?

Why it is "impossible"? Do these two industries have some magical powers that when combined, are unstoppable, like the wonder twins? Baking soda and vinegar? Each has 1/2 of a photo of Obama in a compromising position?

marketing cash

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

I Don't understand why Obama is trying to rush this through. What is the big hurry? If you are going to do something so huge, make sure you do it right and don't rush the process. He is acting like some catastrophe will happen if it isn't passed through RIGHT NOW!!!

So ideas about how to reform the health system have been kicked around for about the last 20 years (okay, actually the last 60). A bill to be passed in this term has been under discussion in earnest since at least May or so. So we've had 4 months of discussion, and before a bill is actually passed and signed it will probably be 6 months.

20 years of ideas and 6 months of intensive legislative discussion, exactly how much time would he need to spend in order for you not to consider it a 'rush'?

20 years that have nothing to do with Obama and his plan. It has been discussed in general ways in the past 20 years, others have made their plans and they have failed, but now we are talking about another completely different plan. It is a rush, and it is strange and unwise to rush it through. Look what is happening by trying to rush it through: compromising with pharms tp their benefit and our detriment.

How 20 years of discussing health care has nothing to do with Obama's health care plan is beyond me, but anyways you didn't answer the question. Exactly how much time must they spend before it is not a 'rush'?

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I understand where you are coming from, but let me give you a better idea of mine.

We have studied Iraq and Saddam for a very long time indeed. When a decision was made to act it was largely based on intel gathered during that time. Well things had changed. We didn't need scattered reports over decades. We needed current information in the context of war.

Likewise there have been studies of this or that but can you cite one dedicated, detailed study by those who actually handle health care for the express purpose of uniting all of healthcare in a government run entity? I mean a BIG comprehensive one to determine what should be legislated? I don't.

A war is a relatively simple thing compared to what needs be done here. If there is anything remotely as complicated as this it was the entire manned space program leading up to a manned landing on the moon.

Imagine replacing Von Braun with Ted Kennedy and he was designing the Saturn V you were going to use. I'd be in a panic. He and the other politicians are playing this as any other bit of legislation, and its going to get butchered in Congress.

The result is that people who have no clue about the health care system will be making it. Accountaints and lawers making rockets.

I don't think your analogy holds water. Imagine if Von Braun was attempting to craft the legislation that created and funded the Saturn V program, it would be a catastrophe. Doctors shouldn't be the ones writing health care legislation because they only see one part of a much, much larger picture. Their input is most certainly extremely valuable, but I'm very comfortable with letting legislators write this.

I also don't think your study requirements are realistic. Of course we don't have some giant study such as that, but we do have hundreds of smaller studies that provide good data. We also have the current, running example of the entire rest of the industrialized world and how they have worked it for the last half century. Furthermore, this plan (unfortunately) comes nowhere close to making the US health care system one big monolithic entity.

Would you want the Tobacco Industry (executives) writing tobacco legislation?

Like it or not, that seems to be what is in store for us.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

I Don't understand why Obama is trying to rush this through. What is the big hurry? If you are going to do something so huge, make sure you do it right and don't rush the process. He is acting like some catastrophe will happen if it isn't passed through RIGHT NOW!!!

So ideas about how to reform the health system have been kicked around for about the last 20 years (okay, actually the last 60). A bill to be passed in this term has been under discussion in earnest since at least May or so. So we've had 4 months of discussion, and before a bill is actually passed and signed it will probably be 6 months.

20 years of ideas and 6 months of intensive legislative discussion, exactly how much time would he need to spend in order for you not to consider it a 'rush'?

20 years that have nothing to do with Obama and his plan. It has been discussed in general ways in the past 20 years, others have made their plans and they have failed, but now we are talking about another completely different plan. It is a rush, and it is strange and unwise to rush it through. Look what is happening by trying to rush it through: compromising with pharms tp their benefit and our detriment.

How 20 years of discussing health care has nothing to do with Obama's health care plan is beyond me, but anyways you didn't answer the question. Exactly how much time must they spend before it is not a 'rush'?

I say take at least a year working it out. Then present the plan for 6 months. Take 6 months and make some changes according to the criticisms, then put the plan in place. So 2 years.

I think people are really not taking this UHC thing too seriously. They think you can just make any old crappy plan and put it in place as long as we get SOME form of UHC out there. Who cares how stupid it is, just put any old piece of crap out there. It is not like the people making the plan have to use it. I probably won't need to use it either, but for those who will need it, they deserve better than this. And they don't need to be paying a ton of money for drugs. Again, if Canada can regulate Pharms successfully, I am sure we can as well.

As far as the "20 years" part, I am not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, but 20 years of talking does not equal putting in place a specific plan created by Obama and friends.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

I Don't understand why Obama is trying to rush this through. What is the big hurry? If you are going to do something so huge, make sure you do it right and don't rush the process. He is acting like some catastrophe will happen if it isn't passed through RIGHT NOW!!!

So ideas about how to reform the health system have been kicked around for about the last 20 years (okay, actually the last 60). A bill to be passed in this term has been under discussion in earnest since at least May or so. So we've had 4 months of discussion, and before a bill is actually passed and signed it will probably be 6 months.

20 years of ideas and 6 months of intensive legislative discussion, exactly how much time would he need to spend in order for you not to consider it a 'rush'?

20 years that have nothing to do with Obama and his plan. It has been discussed in general ways in the past 20 years, others have made their plans and they have failed, but now we are talking about another completely different plan. It is a rush, and it is strange and unwise to rush it through. Look what is happening by trying to rush it through: compromising with pharms tp their benefit and our detriment.

How 20 years of discussing health care has nothing to do with Obama's health care plan is beyond me, but anyways you didn't answer the question. Exactly how much time must they spend before it is not a 'rush'?

I say take at least a year working it out. Then present the plan for 6 months. Take 6 months and make some changes according to the criticisms, then put the plan in place. So 2 years.

I think people are really not taking this UHC thing too seriously. They think you can just make any old crappy plan and put it in place as long as we get SOME form of UHC out there. Who cares how stupid it is, just put any old piece of crap out there. It is not like the people making the plan have to use it. I probably won't need to use it either, but for those who will need it, they deserve better than this. And they don't need to be paying a ton of money for drugs. Again, if Canada can regulate Pharms successfully, I am sure we can as well.

As far as the "20 years" part, I am not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, but 20 years of talking does not equal putting in place a specific plan created by Obama and friends.

You want Congress to take an entire term to create legislation? That means the people in Congress that vote on it probably won't even be the same people that created it. That's insane, and no country would ever be run in that way.

I'm not being obtuse in any way... many of the issues that the plan attempts to address have been studied for decades. You want them to take a year to 'work it out'? People have been working it out for as long as you and I have been alive.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Linked from HuffPo. To me, it's not a surprise that Obama sold out the interests and stated desires of the progressive wing of his party, but rather how cheaply he was bought. So if the cost control isn't going to come from pharmaceuticals, that is starting to narrow the field of where all the "savings" from government healthcare are going to come from.

story link

Isn't that the same deal that Republicans gave drug companies on medicare?
I think it's fine to offer it to them to get the program passed, then take it away later to cut costs.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: glenn1
Linked from HuffPo. To me, it's not a surprise that Obama sold out the interests and stated desires of the progressive wing of his party, but rather how cheaply he was bought. So if the cost control isn't going to come from pharmaceuticals, that is starting to narrow the field of where all the "savings" from government healthcare are going to come from.

story link

Isn't that the same deal that Republicans gave drug companies on medicare?
I think it's fine to offer it to them to get the program passed, then take it away later to cut costs.

Yeah, just like they took it away from Medicare.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: ebaycj


What should be done is: wait until UHC passes, and is implemented,

Hey, I have question. Who is proposing UHC?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: glenn1
Linked from HuffPo. To me, it's not a surprise that Obama sold out the interests and stated desires of the progressive wing of his party, but rather how cheaply he was bought. So if the cost control isn't going to come from pharmaceuticals, that is starting to narrow the field of where all the "savings" from government healthcare are going to come from.

story link

Isn't that the same deal that Republicans gave drug companies on medicare?
I think it's fine to offer it to them to get the program passed, then take it away later to cut costs.

Yeah, just like they took it away from Medicare.

They will eventually. Ultimately, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: glenn1
Linked from HuffPo. To me, it's not a surprise that Obama sold out the interests and stated desires of the progressive wing of his party, but rather how cheaply he was bought. So if the cost control isn't going to come from pharmaceuticals, that is starting to narrow the field of where all the "savings" from government healthcare are going to come from.

story link

Isn't that the same deal that Republicans gave drug companies on medicare?
I think it's fine to offer it to them to get the program passed, then take it away later to cut costs.

Yeah, just like they took it away from Medicare.

They will eventually. Ultimately, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

When the piper is the government it can always play us. It's starting to look like this could be the worse of both worlds.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: ebaycj


What should be done is: wait until UHC passes, and is implemented,

Hey, I have question. Who is proposing UHC?

Stop being technical. You know what the hell I was talking about when I used the abbreviation "UHC". And If you don't, you seem to be the only one in here dumb enough to not figure it out.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: glenn1
Linked from HuffPo. To me, it's not a surprise that Obama sold out the interests and stated desires of the progressive wing of his party, but rather how cheaply he was bought. So if the cost control isn't going to come from pharmaceuticals, that is starting to narrow the field of where all the "savings" from government healthcare are going to come from.

story link

Isn't that the same deal that Republicans gave drug companies on medicare?
I think it's fine to offer it to them to get the program passed, then take it away later to cut costs.

Yeah, just like they took it away from Medicare.

They will eventually. Ultimately, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Yes obviously as this topic is proving :roll:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Topic Title: White House confirms: cost of $80B deal with big pharma was no gov't drug price negotiations (in the current Health care bill)

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

I Don't understand why Obama is trying to rush this through. What is the big hurry? If you are going to do something so huge, make sure you do it right and don't rush the process. He is acting like some catastrophe will happen if it isn't passed through RIGHT NOW!!!

So ideas about how to reform the health system have been kicked around for about the last 20 years (okay, actually the last 60). A bill to be passed in this term has been under discussion in earnest since at least May or so. So we've had 4 months of discussion, and before a bill is actually passed and signed it will probably be 6 months.

20 years of ideas and 6 months of intensive legislative discussion, exactly how much time would he need to spend in order for you not to consider it a 'rush'?

20 years that have nothing to do with Obama and his plan. It has been discussed in general ways in the past 20 years, others have made their plans and they have failed, but now we are talking about another completely different plan. It is a rush, and it is strange and unwise to rush it through. Look what is happening by trying to rush it through: compromising with pharms tp their benefit and our detriment.

How 20 years of discussing health care has nothing to do with Obama's health care plan is beyond me, but anyways you didn't answer the question. Exactly how much time must they spend before it is not a 'rush'?

I say take at least a year working it out. Then present the plan for 6 months. Take 6 months and make some changes according to the criticisms, then put the plan in place. So 2 years.

I think people are really not taking this UHC thing too seriously. They think you can just make any old crappy plan and put it in place as long as we get SOME form of UHC out there. Who cares how stupid it is, just put any old piece of crap out there. It is not like the people making the plan have to use it. I probably won't need to use it either, but for those who will need it, they deserve better than this. And they don't need to be paying a ton of money for drugs. Again, if Canada can regulate Pharms successfully, I am sure we can as well.

As far as the "20 years" part, I am not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, but 20 years of talking does not equal putting in place a specific plan created by Obama and friends.

You want Congress to take an entire term to create legislation? That means the people in Congress that vote on it probably won't even be the same people that created it. That's insane, and no country would ever be run in that way.

I'm not being obtuse in any way... many of the issues that the plan attempts to address have been studied for decades. You want them to take a year to 'work it out'? People have been working it out for as long as you and I have been alive.

OK, how about 1.5 years then? Start in 2010 and you have 1.5 years to get it all done.

I suppose if they cared a bit more or if maybe they were smarter they wouldn't need so much time, but if this is the type of crap they are putting out in so little time... I say give them so more time to make it better. Do you really want a smoking pile of crap for UHC, or do you want a UHC that people can actually benefit from?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip

I Don't understand why Obama is trying to rush this through. What is the big hurry? If you are going to do something so huge, make sure you do it right and don't rush the process. He is acting like some catastrophe will happen if it isn't passed through RIGHT NOW!!!

So ideas about how to reform the health system have been kicked around for about the last 20 years (okay, actually the last 60). A bill to be passed in this term has been under discussion in earnest since at least May or so. So we've had 4 months of discussion, and before a bill is actually passed and signed it will probably be 6 months.

20 years of ideas and 6 months of intensive legislative discussion, exactly how much time would he need to spend in order for you not to consider it a 'rush'?

20 years that have nothing to do with Obama and his plan. It has been discussed in general ways in the past 20 years, others have made their plans and they have failed, but now we are talking about another completely different plan. It is a rush, and it is strange and unwise to rush it through. Look what is happening by trying to rush it through: compromising with pharms tp their benefit and our detriment.

How 20 years of discussing health care has nothing to do with Obama's health care plan is beyond me, but anyways you didn't answer the question. Exactly how much time must they spend before it is not a 'rush'?

I say take at least a year working it out. Then present the plan for 6 months. Take 6 months and make some changes according to the criticisms, then put the plan in place. So 2 years.

I think people are really not taking this UHC thing too seriously. They think you can just make any old crappy plan and put it in place as long as we get SOME form of UHC out there. Who cares how stupid it is, just put any old piece of crap out there. It is not like the people making the plan have to use it. I probably won't need to use it either, but for those who will need it, they deserve better than this. And they don't need to be paying a ton of money for drugs. Again, if Canada can regulate Pharms successfully, I am sure we can as well.

As far as the "20 years" part, I am not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, but 20 years of talking does not equal putting in place a specific plan created by Obama and friends.

You want Congress to take an entire term to create legislation? That means the people in Congress that vote on it probably won't even be the same people that created it. That's insane, and no country would ever be run in that way.

I'm not being obtuse in any way... many of the issues that the plan attempts to address have been studied for decades. You want them to take a year to 'work it out'? People have been working it out for as long as you and I have been alive.

OK, how about 1.5 years then? Start in 2010 and you have 1.5 years to get it all done.

I suppose if they cared a bit more or if maybe they were smarter they wouldn't need so much time, but if this is the type of crap they are putting out in so little time... I say give them so more time to make it better. Do you really want a smoking pile of crap for UHC, or do you want a UHC that people can actually benefit from?

No legislation is crafted at such a glacial pace, and none ever will be. People complain that Congress moves too slowly NOW, imagine how bad it would be if they took years to put through a single bill.

Speaking of all this time, how much of their day should they devote to it during these 1.5 years? Are they allowed to consider other bills, and if so, for how long? During this time, Congress has been devoting nearly 100% of its time and energy to crafting this bill, that's simply not a realistic idea if you're spreading it over years.

 

[chucky2]

How much of their time should they dedicate?

How about we lock them in a room and don't let them out until they've come up with a bill?

You continually make excuses for Congress as if they are accomplishing what is necessary at any pace other than glacially slow.

My other alternative is we lock them all in a room, gas them until dead, and then elect the next batch of Congress who hopefully will take their jobs slightly more seriously than the current batch of F*cktards we have in there.

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

I am concerned about the sweetheart deal for the pharmaceutical industry, their financial and political power, and their support for Obama's plan.

Harry and Louise are liars. They are fictional characters the pharmaceutical industry used to fool the public on the Clinton healthcare plan.

Now that they're supporting the current reform, it's a reason to ask hard questions.

It's pretty terrible for this process to be so vulnerable to corruption.

There's the 'it's better than nothing' issue, but that's not nearly good enough when the plan might put hundreds of billions more tax dollars in the corporatocray than it should.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: glenn1
Linked from HuffPo. To me, it's not a surprise that Obama sold out the interests and stated desires of the progressive wing of his party, but rather how cheaply he was bought. So if the cost control isn't going to come from pharmaceuticals, that is starting to narrow the field of where all the "savings" from government healthcare are going to come from.

story link

Isn't that the same deal that Republicans gave drug companies on medicare?
I think it's fine to offer it to them to get the program passed, then take it away later to cut costs.

Yeah, just like they took it away from Medicare.

They will eventually. Ultimately, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

When the piper is the government it can always play us. It's starting to look like this could be the worse of both worlds.

It's government of the people by the people.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: glenn1
Linked from HuffPo. To me, it's not a surprise that Obama sold out the interests and stated desires of the progressive wing of his party, but rather how cheaply he was bought. So if the cost control isn't going to come from pharmaceuticals, that is starting to narrow the field of where all the "savings" from government healthcare are going to come from.

story link

Isn't that the same deal that Republicans gave drug companies on medicare?
I think it's fine to offer it to them to get the program passed, then take it away later to cut costs.

Yeah, just like they took it away from Medicare.

They will eventually. Ultimately, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

When the piper is the government it can always play us. It's starting to look like this could be the worse of both worlds.

It's government of the people by the people.

...lol... Priceless.