NYT: Administration Opposes Democrats’ Plan for Negotiating Medicare Drug Prices

[DeepModem Mom]

Administration Opposes Democrats’ Plan for Negotiating Medicare Drug Prices
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: November 13, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — The Bush administration said on Sunday that it would strenuously oppose one of the Democrats’ top priorities for the new Congress: legislation authorizing the government to negotiate with drug companies to secure lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

In an interview, Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, said he saw no prospect of compromise on the issue.

“In politics,” Mr. Leavitt said, “most specific issues like this are a disguise for a larger difference. Government negotiation of drug prices does not work unless you have a program completely run by the government. Democrats say they want the government to negotiate prices. What they really want is government-run health care.”

Federal price negotiations would unravel the whole structure of the Medicare drug benefit, which relies on competing private plans, Mr. Leavitt said.

Dozens of plans are available in every state. They charge different premiums and co-payments and cover different drugs. The 2003 Medicare law explicitly prohibits the federal government from negotiating drug prices or establishing a list of preferred drugs....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/13medicare.html

[w4rma]

1. Of course they do. And their opposition will only help Democrats in 2007/2008. (nt)

[SeattleGirl]

4. My thought exactly, w4rma.

They will oppose most things that threaten to take money away from themselves and their fat-cat supporters.

[electropop]

38. It's amazing they still have the cajones to say this.

They took a massive "thumpin'" and still they think they rule the world. Idiots.

[savemefromdumbya]

54. until they are frogmarched out of the WH they will continue

[Kagemusha]

2. Behold: an obstructionist, do-nothing, lame duck President

Let's pretend he's an elephant pinata, shall we?

[shanti]

15. sa-weet!

:thumbsup:

[Supersedeas]

45. Do nothing but rubber stamp crony corporate initiatives

[LibDemAlways]

3. As written the Medicare Drug Bill is nothing but

a boondoggle for big pharma. By making it complicated with dozens of competing plans offering different drugs, seniors are either scared away completely or ripped off totally - with expensive premiums that continue even after they fall into the ludicrous "donut hole" with no benefits at all.

The Dems should absolutely dismantle the whole thing and create one simple benefit with negotiated prices, reasonable premiums, small co-pays, and a sliding fee scale based on income. And get rid of that damned "donut" hole. Such bullshit. And when they're done, dare the chimp to veto the new, improved Democratic Medicare drug benefit....at great political peril for the GOP.

[loyalsister]

7. Some states are really struggling with it

This is hugely expensive for some states that have small budgets. A lot of the rep.s and Senators that need to reduce the cost of this thing for their states would be in a tight position.
They might be able to pass something that will override a veto.

[4morewars]

5. Michael O. Leavitt

Typical, greedy, corrupt, fundie nutjob repuke. A real fuckin scumbag.

If he's against it, I'm in favor of it.

Here's a taste of this guys "service" to our country:

"Health Secretary Is Questioned on Use of Family Foundation"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/washington/22leavitt.html?ex=1311220800&en=06c430ccffa1c2d7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O._Leavitt

"In July 2006, National Public Radio reported that nearly $500,000 in charitable contributions from the foundation went to the Southern Utah Foundation, which then gave the money to the Southern Utah University as housing scholarships. About 50 students were placed, rent-free, in apartments owned by the Cedar Development Co., which is owned by the Leavitt family, and the university then paid the donated money to the company as rent. <3> The students filled vacant apartments which the company had not been able to rent out."

And then there's the private jet (that we pay for)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O._Leavitt

"In June of 2006, Leavitt came under criticism for misappropriation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Gulfstream III Emergency Response aircraft to, primarily, promote the newly reformed Medicare plan.

Critics argue that Leavitt irresponsibly has used the aircraft since January of 2006, logging over $700,000 worth of flight time in the 14 seat private jet. Leavitt’s office maintains that the use of the aircraft was necessary and legal since the Senate Appropriations Commitee approved his use of the aircraft, and commercial services could not meet the deadlines required by his engagements. During two recent emergencies that the CDC has required use of the aircraft, they were forced to privately charter a different plane since the CDC’s GIII was in use by Leavitt."

[HaggardsMethDealer]

6. From the article

"Federal price negotiations would unravel the whole structure of the Medicare drug benefit, which relies on competing private plans, Mr. Leavitt said."


> They say that like it's a bad thing.

[area51]

8. "What they really want is government-run health care."

Oh, so the nazi party is admitting they don't want the VA, which is govt.-run healthcare? Lots of vets will find this interesting.

We have govt. run police, military, fire dept., govt.run road-building, but we don't want govt.-run healthcare? Bullshit. If we're not going to have govt. run healthcare b/c the govt. is so evil, according to the nazi party, then we'd better dismantle the military et al. :eyes:

This is a backwards, barbaric country that lets people die because they can't afford to see a dr. or to buy extremely expensive medicine that is in part already paid for by our taxes.

[aquart]

10. American business has ceased to be competitive

because of the healthcare burden. It is time to get healthcare off the back of American business. Insure all Americans with no tie-in to any job......This would be a spur to our economy the likes of which we haven't seen in decades.

[shanti]

16. exactly

more need for md's, nurses, etc., etc.

but it doesn't enrich the corporations, so who gives a rat's ass? :sarcasm: jesus, i can't wait until nancy pelosi arrives!! she has vowed to cut the corporate interests DOWN!

[Occulus]

34. She should tackle the removal of their personhood.

Corporations do not deserve rights under our Constitution. Every last right they currently enjoy- free speech, armed guards, "equal" protection- should be privileges for corporations; they are not humans and do not deserve any rights of any kind.

Unfortunately, this would likely require an Amendment to accomplish. However, it is crystal clear from the behavior of the modern corporation (as a broad class) that such entities do not deserve the rights natural persons have under our Bill of Rights. YES- I am advocating that we strip corporations of their "rights" under the Constitution.

No right to free speech for corporations. (First Amendment)
No armed guards for corporations. (Second Amendment)
No political influence of any kind from corporations. (falls under free speech)
No ownership of property by corporations. (corporate property should NOT equal private property)
No "closed campuses". (see above)
Public audits of any and all books on demand. (Fourth Amendment)
No right to ownership of copyrights or patents. (only natural persons should posses these)
No right to be a party in a lawsuit against any natural persons or groups of persons. (equal protection?)
No use of tax dollars to research and develop for-profit products. (not a clue what that would fall under)

And so forth.

Yes, I am very hardline about this. Each and every corporate charter should begin with, "For the good of the residents of the State of X". Violation of that precept- in any way- should result in the immediate dissolution of the corporate charter. If a corporation directly causes a death or deaths, the CEO and the Board of Directors of the corporation in question should be held directly responsible; no more shields from legal liability to the general public. No more Ken Lays, or Andy Fastows.

NO TAX BREAKS OF ANY KIND. Oh, and forget about "outsourcing"- if they do that, it should instantly result in total loss of any and all corporate holdings within US borders, complete liquidation of any and all assets held by the corporation, to be evenly divvied up amongst any and all employees affected by the corporation's attempt to oursource those jobs, with the CEO and board of directors jointly and severally responsible to the corporation's creditors. Make the penalties so very very devastating that no corporation will ever dare again to ship even one job out of the country.

Corporations do not deserve rights, only privileges. Extreme? Hell yes! But extreme action is desperately needed on this issue. Corporate personhood needs to die a spectacularly violent death. The public deserves no less.

Can you tell I have an intense, brightly burning hatred for the legal treatment of the modern US corporation? :D

[nealmhughes]

46. I am in complete agreement. Corporations have no righs, per se, and

only privledges that exist through our continued suffrage of them. We suffer because of them, so perhaps we should stop suffering them!

[Matriot]

40. I agree in taking a more socialized approach

towards healthcare. People would be in medicine because they actually care about their patients. Instead of going to the doctor when something is wrong (and sometimes too late), people would go in for regular check ups and hopefully find something before it does cost a lot of money. You could be put on an organ transplant list irregardless of your money situation. This system has actually worked in other countries, why not ours?

You ready? Nobody wants to pay the extra percent in taxes that it would take to run such a system. I would though.

[Nevernose]

53. It wouldn't equal higher taxes, necessarily.

At least for most people. Instead of paying premiums for health insurance, the money wuold go to a health tax. Same amount of money paid, just a different recipient. Cutting many tax breaks for Big Pharma would go a long way towards covering the uninsured (not all, since research for important, nonprofitable niche drugs is conducted largely for the tax breaks). Paying for the uninsured would take more money, but what was formerly going to profits, advertising, lawsuits, lawyers, and bloated CEO salaries would go towards that, plus the gain in worker productivity would offset that cost in a few years.

With healthier workers, big business will make more money. That money will be taxed, and with bigger bottom lines, provide an incentive to keep jobs here in the States, plus leave more money in the hands of American workers.

[leftchick]

32. and the VA

has always negotiated prescrition drug prices with the Pharma companies and they regularly get precriptions from Canada!

[JPZenger]

44. VA Pays a Fraction of the Cost of Medicare

Yes, the Veterans Administration pays a fraction of the costs for each drug that is paid by Medicare.

The Dems should pass a bill requiring that the drug prices be negotiated, and that any savings go right into providing health insurance for additional numbers of children of low income families. That carries out the Dem's "pay as you approach" and puts George W. in direction opposition to health care for kids.

In the same way, the Dems should get rid of the inheritance tax cuts and commit the money for lower loan interest rates and increased tax deductions for college tuition. That will put the superrich and George W. in direction opposition with middle income families with kids. It also would carry out the Dem's pay as you go approach.

[antonialee839]

9. Wow, what a surprise.

[Ignacio Upton]

11. Obstructionist!

The Bush administration is obstructing our mandate and our agenda! We can only fix this by electing more Democrats in 2008.

[Rainscents]

12. Obstructionist!

When he veto the bill... more will vote for dems for 2008!

[Tatiana]

13. My opinion: Who cares what the administration thinks? We have a mandate, right?

Dismantle the Medicare drug benefit, rewrite it to include price negotiation for drugs, get the bill passed in the House and Senate and force Bush to veto it. Call me crazy, but I think we might find some Repukes willing to further distance themselves from Idiot Son (in order to protect their seats) and actually get such a bill passed.

[WatchWhatISay]

25. Maybe so, but they've got Joe Lieberman

You think he's going to let the Dems go after Pharma?

[Tatiana]

31. They don't have Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman has Joe Lieberman.

With few exceptions, Joe is an opportunist. In the wake of overwhelming support from the public, he'll go along with the Dems.

[OneBlueSky]

14. that's the pharmaceutical industry talking . . . if you look closely . . .

you can see their hand up Leavitt's ass . . .

[Erika]

17. The elitist W administration is going to be drug kicking and screaming

to better plans for the "consumers". They are still retching at the thought of concern for the consumers. That's not what W is about.

[NMMNG]

18. Of course they oppose it

They don't want the private contractors and Big Pharma to lose out, because then those corporations will stop lining their pockets. :eyes:

[countmyvote4real]

19. That's our *Bush. n/t

[NOLADEM]

20. Please continue to oppose us on this, Chimp...You are simply coronating the next Dem Prez

Carry on.

I am sure NO ONE wants this, eh Chimp?

What a transparent lie. You don't have to have socialized medicine to negotiate bulk rates. My company negotiates bulk rates for materials all the time, and I am sure you would get punched in the fellas if you called my boss a socialist.

Sad that Bush STILL doesn't get that the election was a referendum on him and that the news wasn't good for his agenda. Oh well, I guess we will be the party that will be in charge of both houses and the White House.

[Zorra]

21. What republicans want for people who can't afford health care

and/or medicine is to get sick and die.

No wonder they lost so many seats in the election.

[Vinca]

22. The people have spoken.

If Republicans block what the people want, more of them will be gone in 2008. For the sake of their political futures, they should check their egos (and bank accounts) at the door and do the people's work for a change. There's no reason not to negotiate prices with big pharma. Every other civilized country does.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Let the asswipe veto this over and over again

Perhaps the medicare vote will be 90% Democratic by 2008.

They are so screwed on so many levels due to their actually believing Rove's promise of a permanent Republican majority.

[brentspeak]

24. "What they really want is government-run health care"

That's what the people want, you stooge.

[AZCat]

26. The people? You mean that...

focus group that the Bushes so contemptuously dismiss?

Don't expect a tiger to change his stripes, or a Bush to gain a conscience, just because that same focus group failed to see the brilliance of Dubya/Dick/Karl/Rummy and voted for that terrorist-enabling Democrat(ic) party.

[nickyt]

27. I have a good friend on Medicare (2 back surgeries, arthritis, fibro) - she can

barely walk. She ran into that goddamn "donut hole" just this week. What a great moment it was when I realized that the Dems are going to step in and fix this monstrously cruel "plan"! How wonderful to feel hope that "help is on the way", for her, for pharmacies (they've had their asses kicked by this "plan"), for state governments, and for helpless "bystanders" like myself and thousands of others.

[leesa]

28. Yes, we do want government-run health care. It would be much better than

the unregulated gouging free-for-all we have now.

Even Bill Frist's HCA is going under from all the pork he awarded Big Pharma and the insurance companies. He managed to shoot himself in the foot (although he will pay himself off handsomely if the merger goes through)

[warrens]

29. My god, what a putz

So you run a drug program and just pay the highest possible price? These retards need to be waterboarded for a few weeks. It MIGHT smarten them up.

[dkofos]

30. He's right, we do want government run health care.

The only differance is, now we can get it!!

[mtnester]

33. This one is easy - "so, you would rather our senior citizens and really sick people...

pay MORE for their medicine than they should? What kind if sick bastid are you?"

so so very simple.

[williesgirl]

35. Fuck *, legislate it, let him veto, and DARE repukes to put 08 on the line by letting veto stand

recommended

[Last Stand]

36. Honestly--who's buyin' this BS?

Classic RW hyperbole when the honest explanation just won't do. Throw the Socialism term in there for good measure.

All this is is moving the money from the non-business to Big Business sector. Health insurance costs continue to skyrocket without any controls, and it allows the Feds to devote more money to Big Pharm and less to Human Services. Tried and true example of starving the left. On a more local level, expensive healthcare allows State gov's to reduce or stymie Union wages while devoting the employee's share to Insurers and the Pharm buddies they share a bed with. It's a win-win for the Republicans, and it's why those 2 industries are excedingly profitable and why wages are down nationwide.

[buddysmellgood]

37. Tell that to the VAST MAJORITY, 80 to 90 percent that polls show want this done!

They are going to dig a big ole hole for themselves on this one.

[Straight Shooter]

39. "What they really want is government-run health care."

As usual, they are arguing against the extreme outcome. For once, I wish they would address the issue at hand, instead of blowing it up into something that doesn't even exist.

From my perspective, though, government-run health care might not be such a bad idea. As long as the Democrats are in charge. :)

[Doctor_J]

41. "let the market decide, unless our friends in Pharma might take a hit"

Let's bring it to a vote!

[Q3JR4]

42. Let them

kick up a sting about the whole mess. A loose-loose issue for the Republicans, me thinks.

James.

[David Zephyr]

47. Absolutely.

This will only crystalize the distinctions between the two parties and who they are beholden to. The American people will be watching this closely.

I think a lot of Republicans (remember 1/3 of the Senate is up for grabs in 2008) will side with the Democrats on this.

[smoogatz]

43. You're either with the drug companies, or you're with the terrorists.

Negotiating prices???? Why do you Defeat-o-crats hate America???

[stepnw1f]

48. I'm Sure the Dems Expected This.... George is a Dumb-Ass

Thanks dick head! We'll use it against you and your party of fascists.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

49. Hope the Rs make this their first filibuster! But I'm sure the new

Minority Leaders will have different priorities--like worrying about survival of Republicans up for re-election in 2008, including 21 out of 49 Republicans left in the Senate.

Just think of it--a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate if Republicans continue along this suicidal path!

[sarcasmo]

50. Can't help the poor, imagine this coming from the Republicans.

Kick and Nom

[NorthernSpy]

51. let's CRUSH them on this issue...

Medicare Part D is a disaster, and it's all set to get even jollier as people start falling through the much-dreaded "doughnut hole".

I was talking to my mom, and she says that when she goes to the pharmacy, she's seen people hand their prescription notes over to the pharmacist, only to leave with one of more of them unfilled after being told how much the stuff costs. That's happened several times so far, which indicates that this problem is common (not to mention potentially life-threatening for those poor folks who can't afford their medicine).

We need to throw all that in those fucking market-worshippers' faces. They're vulnerable, and we should give no quarter.

[Arugula Latte]

52. Big Wedge issue.

Let's wedge it into the ass crack of every Republican in the nation.

[iverglas]

55. as a Canadian, I don't understand this statement:

“In politics,” Mr. Leavitt said, “most specific issues like this are a disguise for a larger difference. Government negotiation of drug prices does not work unless you have a program completely run by the government. Democrats say they want the government to negotiate prices. What they really want is government-run health care.”

It just makes no sense. Negotiated/regulated prices have nothing to do with control of the distribution network for a commodity.

In Canada, drug prices are negotiated/regulated. But the government has absolutely nothing to do with the distribution of prescription drugs.

Canadians buy their prescription drugs from pharmacies; there are a couple of big drug store chains, big grocery and discount store chains have pharmacy departments, and I go to the independent guy around the corner who was recently named businessperson of the month in my community, a low-income inner-city neighbourhood with more than its share of drug-related problems.

Provincial governments subsidize drug costs for seniors and low-income people. In Ontario, for instance, prescriptions were formerly free to them, and there is now a $2 co-pay, $100/year maximum. A minority of provinces have universal drug plans that provide some level of subsidy for everyone.

People who work for government or major employers have private supplemental health insurance plans that cover drugs and suchlike. They generally pay out of pocket and claim reimbursement.

The government simply has nothing to do with any of that. (Just as it has nothing to do with where I go for medical care, or the medical decisions my private providers make.)

There is no conceivable reason in the world why a government could not negotiate or regulate drug prices while remaining completely outside the retail distribution network.

FAQs about the Cdn system:
http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x=272#12

A commentary from the journal of the Canadian Medical Association about drug company monopolies:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/175/4/374
(emphases added, references omitted)

What enables the patent-dependent pharmaceutical companies to set the prices they do? Two factors. The first is economic: the companies that make (or at least secure the right to) the discoveries in this marketplace of ideas reap the rewards. The second is legal: governments grant those companies monopolies, in the form of patent protection, for what is called their "intellectual property."

Usually, governments that have granted such important monopoly powers in the marketplace, for example in electricity and telephone services, have regulated prices carefully — and those that did not have often suffered the consequences. Most countries do, in fact, attempt to control pharmaceutical prices. But the United States, which generally does not, has recently used its bilateral and regional free trade negotiations with countries such as Australia, Peru, Guatemala and other Central American countries to weaken their ability to control drug prices.

In late 2003, an article in The New York Times stated: "Having beaten back price controls on prescription drugs in the United States, the American pharmaceutical industry is trying to roll them back overseas, with help from the (Bush) administration and Congress. In talks over a free trade agreement with Australia, American officials are pressing to water down the system under which the Australian government negotiates the prices it pays for prescription drugs, (said) Mark Vaile, the Australian minister for trade." In May 2004 the Australian government acquiesced to those demands. Pressures brought on other countries in bilateral trade negotiations were labelled as tantamount to "blackmail" by the President of the French Republic.

... The problem of high pharmaceutical prices is not without solutions. Many are obvious enough, and some have been implied in this article, including firmer regulation of pricing, the use of independent clearinghouses for balanced information on products, research efforts more widely spread across different types of institutions, and a stop to direct-to-consumer advertising. However, there is a lack of sufficient will to confront the problem directly, in part because of the power of the industry and its influence on political processes. The current situation in the patent-dependent pharmaceutical industry is not just unacceptable, it is shameful. It will remain so until concerned citizens gather the energy to change it.

(The rest of it makes a good read too.)

[DuaneBidoux]

56. Dems should send this bill to Bush over and over forcing him to veto it till 08

That will have an impact!