Mags, could you provide a couple links to those stories you refer to - the ones about the back door deal with Obama and Big Pharma? I spent a few minutes using the search feature at Politico.com, and could find nothing specific talking about back room deals, or not cutting their reimbursement scenarios. Certainly not saying it didn't happen, I'd just like to see the specifics on it, and I don't have time this morning to wade through Politico's archives.
I do want to mention one thing, you talk about Scott's liberal blog, and then point people to Politico. Politico is hardly an unbiased website. Pretty strong agenda being presented there. Again, this doesn't make the stories wrong or factually incorrect, per se, but let's be fair when making references about political information and opinions.
<B> The backroom deal is easy to find. Here is the Politico link to the story - it is rather long story, so I also pasted the relevant portion: </B>
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1...enate_compromise__Moderate_senat.html?showall
PHRMA DEAL HOLDING UP THE WORKS, reports The Hill?s Jeffrey Young: ?A deal between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry is holding up a bipartisan amendment to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from abroad, according to a member of the Senate Democratic leadership. The Senate has been debating the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), since Tuesday but has not held a vote, which is contributing to a stall in the floor action on healthcare reform. Dorgan?s measure, which would permit bulk exports of medicines from countries such as Canada, enjoys broad and bipartisan support and likely has the backing of more than 60 senators, which would guarantee its adoption on the healthcare reform bill.
I REALLY hope that this outsourcing issue passes - cuz if it does, BIG Pharma will put so much pressure on the WH to redo the entire bill - which is a good thing. We do need a healthcare bill - but we certainly do not need a bad bill - and that is exactly what this one is.
<B> Here is another article on this issue from the Huffington Post (I found this link while searching - I honestly don't know much about this organization): </B>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/obama-deal-with-drugmarke_n_253309.html
<B> Here is a great post by a blogger breaking down what Pharma really "gave up" for the deal with the president: </B>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-palast/obama-on-drugs-98-cheney_b_258209.html
All of the above articles talks about the backroom deal. The part of about Big Pharma agreeing to advertising was brought up by Senator McCain during the Senate talks on Monday I think. McCain had a copy of an internal memo from the Pharma lobby, agreeing to spending $15 million on advertising for Dems this fall, if this bill IN ITS CURRENT form actually goes through. Of course, the media has not mentioned that part of the story - no surprise, as the media is basically very liberal in general. And most people know that.
I believe all the Senate talks that are on CSPAN2 are recorded and transcripted. There probably is a way to see copies of McCain's remarks. Somehow, some folks think I am spewing made up information (not saying you Chad). It is not the case - I just follow this issue much more closely than others - and I tend to know more of what is going on because of that.
I try to provide sources when possible (unless it is my own opinion, of course). But much of this info is very easy to find - with a little Google search.
I won't always do the research for folks - if some want their head in the sand and refuse to believe the corruption that the Dems are leading, just to promote themselves politically, then so be it.
<B> There have been 3 clear "buy-a-vote " so far by Obama and the Dems:</B>
1. Big Pharma - basically protecting their profits, so they will advertise and support the Dems along with giving their support to the bill,
2. Paying Mary Landreau of LA $300 Million as a helper toward Medicare, to secure her vote to even allow the current bill to be debated on the Senate floor (without her vote, the bill would have died - which is should have).
3. FL - Senator Nelson - to get his vote, the Senate has agreed to cut Medicare Advantage program in EVERY state BUT FL. If they didn't make this guarantee, he would also not have voted to move the bill to the house floor, just like Mary Landreau.
These are the "buy a vote" deals that are widely known - there is likely more backroom deals that have been had. I suspect that AARP got one too. AARP makes money selling Medicare policies. But they can't sell Medicare Advantage policies - only private insurers can. So, the pitch to them from "O" was - we'll cut the heck out of Medicare Advantage only and leave Medicare alone from a benefits perspective. This will help you (AARP), as you will not have to compete against MA - and you'll be able to sell more policies that you offer. All you have to do is back our proposal.
I realize this is how politics always works - but it sickens me.
I firmly believe, whether it is healthcare or wars or stimulus or whatever, whether the House/Senate is Democratic Controlled or Republican Controlled - that any bill that has such as large effect on the US economy at the healthcare bill does (16% of our ecomony - thinks 16% of people who make their salaries via healthcare) - should be subject to needing a majority vote in BOTH parties.
That is balanced govenment - which is what this country needs and deserves. Otherwise you end up with bad government and bad bills - just like you see now.
) and boy has a basketball game this evening.
