PhRMA Lobbyist Memo Not Specific Enough?
semantically inclined
By Andrew deRenzy
Thursday, August 13th, 2009, 14:23UPDATE:Possible motive for this pay to play? Not my Idea but good observation from Jane Hamsher [FDL ewww]
During the campaign, this was Obama’s position:
Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion.
But, let’s do the math. In ten years, $30 billion a year would mean $300 billion in savings. The deal cut by the White House is for $80 billion in savings. So the pharmaceutical industry gets to keep $220 billion for the low low price of $150 million in August to pass health care reform so Rahm Emanual won’t be 13-1.
EDIT: The idea is good, but I the numbers sound off. PhRMA doesnt get any money if Obama brings it overseas. the 80 Billion is PhRMA’s premium to keep the business over here, so its either $0 or take an 80 Billion dollar hit on their normal capital.
A new memo leaked from a inside out lobbyist, apparently there is a such thing as outside lobbyist so why not inside out?
HuffingPost:
It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government’s leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada — and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.
Could this be why the drug companies have been so relevantly quiet about being opposed to healthcare? Don’t need to oppose something if you are the first pig to the trough. If they end up not getting their way they will have enough time to launch an opposition campaign, thanks to the American people, to destroy this. Or maybe they are just afraid of this Administration, or in bed with it?
Just follow the money folks follow the money.
In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: “Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion.”
Representatives from both the White House and PhRMA, shown the outline, adamantly denied that it reflected reality. PhRMA senior vice president Ken Johnson said that the outline “is simply not accurate.” “This memo isn’t accurate and does not reflect the agreement with the drug companies,” said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin…
So there is an agreement with the drug companies according to Reid Cherlin. But 80 Billion isn’t accurate? is it $80,097,340,239? that more accurate for you? What a broad generalization…
PhRMA’s Johnson cast doubts on the provenance of the outline. “The memo, as described, is simply not accurate,” he said in a statement. “Anyone could have written it. Unless it comes from our board of directors, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Clearly, someone is trying to short circuit our efforts to try and make health care reform a reality this year. That’s not going to happen. Too much is at stake for both patients and the U.S. economy. Our new ads supporting health care reform are starting this week, and we are redoubling our efforts to drive awareness of why this issue is so important to America’s future.”
Johnson added that “no outside lobbyists — not a single one — were ever involved in our discussions with the Senate Finance Committee or the White House so someone is blowing smoke.”
Is there a difference between outside and inside lobbyists? All this time I thought there was only one kind of lobbyist, or maybe they are all just inside out freaks. Lobbyists are the flies and maggots you get when you leave raw meat out. Special interest breeds this kind of corruption.
Related Posts
Special Interests Vested on Both Sides of Health Care DebateBritish View On Our Health Care Debate
We Are Not Against Reform
Say on pay? or war on profit?
Filed under health care. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.