White House declines to disclose visits by health industry executives

[kpete]

Source: Los Angeles Times

White House declines to disclose visits by health industry executives
Citing an argument used by the Bush administration, the Secret Service rejects a request from a watchdog group to list those who have visited the White House to discuss the healthcare overhaul.

By Peter Nicholas
July 22, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.

The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the "presidential communications privilege."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said it would file suit against the Obama administration as early as today. The group already has sued the administration over its failure to release details about visits from coal industry executives.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-talks22-2009jul22,0,7434392.story

[derby378]

1. Again?

Seriously, President Obama? We have to deal with this shit again?

:mad:

[ixion]

2. I'm getting sick of reading lines like: "Citing an argument used by the Bush administration"

The "Bush administration" was a gang of mafioso thugs, and their arguments should be used for toilet paper, and nothing more.

I'm really sick and tired of hearing of an administration that I voted for continually justify arguments used by thugs.

Restore our republic and end the fascist madness now.

[The Stranger]

3. Wouldn't he have to meet with them whether he agrees with them or not?

Given the public option he is fighting for so assiduously, what difference does it make who he met with or why. He isn't advocating their position.

This is unnecessarily dividing us. Why is this being made an issue?

[ixion]

4. what difference does it make?

well, perhaps if we could ever get a hold of Cheney's Energy Task Force notes, we might be able to correlate something, you know, like the massive increase in energy prices.

Sorry, but secret meetings with industry executives (who are the problem) does not bode well for anything resembling "reform."

[WriteDown]

6. Are you nuts?

My childhood best friend is the CFO of a major healthcare corp. He is literally ecstatic that this bill might pass. Going to be a huge payoff to his company and obviously a huge payday for him.

[ixion]

10. hence it is not reform...

and no, I'm not nuts. But thanks for the snarky comment.

[WriteDown]

31. Darn it....

That comment was not meant for you. Sorry.

[ixion]

33. lol... no worries

thanks for clarifying. :hi:

[pattmarty]

20. That's a really nice statement, NOW PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!

[WriteDown]

30. By how...

Giving you his name and address? Given that he is my oldest friend, that probably wouldn't be safe. I will tell you his corporation is based in a state that ends in a vowel.

[Robb]

45. Europe?

Sorry, this will be my last Palin snark. :D

[No Elephants]

56. Quitting?

(NO promise that that will be MY last Palin snark.)

[No Elephants]

47. I don't typically side with Write Down, but I do know that the

ATT break up of years ago--the one the American public perceived as punitive to ATT--was a great deal for ATT. And I know because a family member worked for two years on the ATT break up as inhouse counsel for ATT in New Jersey.

And I know that the privatization of Social Security was going to involve a fat payment for Wall Street.

In other words, it's how our gubbamint operates when it wants something.

Also, every time I read a news story about how hospitals met with the administration and agreed to give up $X billion dollars and hospitals met with the administration and agreed to give up $Y billion dollars, I look in the story for what they got in return for this alleged "give up." And I never see it in the story. Do I think they "gave" all these concessions out of the goodness of their hearts? No, I don't. I think they were promised things and we are not being told what.

Does this post prove anything? No. I am just just saying that Write Down's post, true or not, does not strike me as unrealistic.

[Hannah Bell]

100. agree. point of historical relevance, first "anti-trust" use of sherman

anti-trust act = against labor unions.

things not what they seem.

[ProudDad]

74. I love it when I can agree with someone!

Thanks for posting this.

Most of the House bill and damn near ALL of the Senate bills will just shovel more money at the health-industrial-complex and big Pharma...

And not do a damn thing about health care...

[The Stranger]

13. What he is advocating is reform and it is in danger of being scuttled by the Rightist Media,

the massive propaganda campaign to convince Americans that health reform is a government conspiracy to institute socialism.

Understand what we are dealing with here. Who he met with is minutiae compared to what is at stake, and he is fighting for good reforms.

Wake up.

[ixion]

14. "he is fighting for good reforms"

and you're telling ME to wake up?

:rofl:

[The Stranger]

16. Oh, so it's going to be like that.

A cute little empty post and a laughing smiley.

Come on.

I'll bet there isn't jack fucking shit that changes because those of us on the Left are stuck responding to posts with laughing smilies.

[ixion]

19. oh, things will change

insurance company profits will sky rocket.

Emoticons are not to blame for our predicament. Corrupt politicians, however, are to blame.

That is my opinion. You may not agree, and you are most certainly entitled to your own.

[zanne]

94. I think The Stranger is right.

I'm sure you've noticed that the right-wing owned media has been doing a good job trashing healthcare reform. And cable news is laughable. Their "experts" are 90% Republicans and their political pundits are also wacko right-wingers. Obama has huge insurance companies and pharmaceutical giants against him, with plenty of money to place propaganda ads on TV in prime time. Excuse me if I don't share your criticism of The Stranger. He/She is right.

[ixion]

95. here's the thing, though: I don't watch broadcast media

this is my own opinion, free of Kool-Aid®

You're totally entitled to believe whatever you'd like, as am I. :)

[zanne]

97. Most Americans do watch broadcast media.

Unfortunately, the American public continues to be quite gullible, especially when scare tactics are used. But I agree with you about opinions.:)

[clear eye]

102. You make a good case for Prez mtg w/ industry execs. Why not transparency?

If it is fine to meet w/ them, why the refusal to reveal who he spoke with? You can be sure if he met with PNHP or the California Nurses Assn., he would acknowledge it when asked.

[No Elephants]

40. "Wake up" says the poster who defends secrecy in government and does not

want anything negative about Obama posted at DU.

I usually enjoy irony. Not this time, though.

[The Stranger]

41. Oh please.

I can't even believe I'm posting a response.

They're going to kill health care reform, and likely cripple this Administration, and you still just don't seem to get it.

[No Elephants]

48. Backatcha. "Oh, please." BTW, I notice that posters who accuse others of not

getting it are most often those who are not getting it themselves.

You are not posting anything that hard to ingest or digest, so I am not sure why you don't realize that we are getting it AND we don't agree. And we are telling you why we disgaree, taking the discussion a step beyond where you are trying to keep it stuck. Try understanding why we understand what you are saying--which is not complicated--yet still disagree with you.

And again this thread is about the pros and cons of disclosure.

[ProudDad]

72. Only "socialism" can reform the "for profit sick care system"

Just as socialist roads, socialist libraries, socialist fire departments are the best way to supply those services...

"Socialist" (community financed) Health Care is the only real reform...

HR676 - Universal Health Care for All

Read it, it's short, too the point and complete!

[Zhade]

80. How do you breathe through all that sand?

NT!

[WriteDown]

32. See post #6.

Originally meant as a reply.

[WriteDown]

5. Deleted, wrong spot

[fjc]

7. Because we have to

"Restore our republic and end the fascist madness now." What a bunch of crapola.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. If covering up facts is a good thing, then I'm a monkey's uncle. Daylight my friend, is our friend.

In fact I would posit that Obama is advocating the position of the health insurance companies, the drug companies, and the hospitals and the equipment manufacturers.

Why do you believe he isn't? They have all been meeting together, holding news conferences together.

Look at their stocks. The stocks of all those companies are doing well. That's because a trillion dollars + of US tax payer money subsidizing them over the next ten years will make them a whole lot of money.

If they and their investors were worried, wouldn't there be some indication of that worry?

Think about it.

[The Stranger]

15. What I'm seeing is a massive media blitz by the Rightists to scuttle any reform at all.

The polls are beginning to slide unfavorably under the onslaught of the GOP and their supporters. Of COURSE certain stocks will benefit, but I'm looking BIG PICTURE here. We need a PUBLIC OPTION to compete with the real enemy -- the insurance companies.

BIG PICTURE, folks. We need health care reform to pass, and it is in trouble right now.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. The Repos are fighting it, of course. But the insurance companies aren't. That's because

the public option in the law that passed out of 3 house committees a short time back says a public option will be up and running by 2013 and by 2020 (fourteen years from now) will have 10 million people enrolled.

The health insurance companies could care less. That's nothing, that's a drop in the bucket and everybody else will have to purchase insurance from the private companies and the government will be subsidizing those purchases from the private insurance companies. They love it.

Read the law if you don't believe me.

[The Stranger]

42. Thanks for the response.

I'll look at the bill. I will say that that surprises me. I figured that the money behind the GOP's shrieking from all airwaves and the rooftops had to be insurance money.

Is it the doctors' money instead?

[John Q. Citizen]

59. I haven't followed the money except to the Dems, who are getting a ton of health insurance

and healthcare industrial complex money. They run congress and the committees after all.

My guess is that any adverts up attacking Obama or reform are from Repo political sources, not from corporations. By that i mean deep pocket right wing sources.

There are a couple of good things in the house bill by the way, it's not only an insurance/drug/hospital/equipment manufacturers givaway.

There is guaranteed issue and community rating, which are both very good things. Community rating means everyone pays the same cost for the same coverage regardless of other factors and guaranteed issue means nobody can be turned down. The insurers will still figure out creative ways to cherry pick. They will require people to come to their offices to sign up and then put most of their offices on second stories (so the sick and infirm can't get there to sign up) they will come up with ways to deny payment, etc. That is there job after all.

But my biggest criticism of the bill is that it's bound to fail over time because there is little in there to control costs. It's a lot like Romney Care in Massachusetts. As long as the government has a pile of money to keep putting into it, then great, a lot more people are covered, but as soon as the money is gone, benefits will be cut. Public private hybrids have failed everywhere they have been tried, because they don't contain costs.

I'm a supporter of a single payer system because it's been done successfully many places. It controls costs and it provides hassle free universal coverage. of course it would cut the insurers out of the gravy train and it would also allow for real negotiation in terms of drug costs, equipment costs and doctor and hospital reimbursements.

Please look at the bill even if you do believe me :)

[fascisthunter]

46. ironic... the governemnt will subsidize

so in essence, tax payers will pay a higher price just so the industry never loses a profit.

[John Q. Citizen]

78. It's lame, imo.

[clear eye]

103. Most working taxpayers will be paying double--

once for the part or total amount of premiums for their own private plan that their employer doesn't cover, and a second time (probably in cuts to other government programs like EPA enforcement, etc. rather than in taxes) to subsidize the costs, including for excessive administration, of the meager private and public plans that uninsured and retired (yes, Medicare is supposed to be folded into the public plan) can afford with the subsidies. The Prez says he expects that to be paid for with a tax increase on the "rich" (however he defines that), but conveniently that isn't part of the bill.

The Bush tax cuts are supposed to expire next year, but nothing says the increase has to go for the subsidies and not the war. Everytime anyone in Congress mentions increasing taxes on the ultra-wealthy, the media is wall-to-wall "It's wrong to increase taxes during a recession!", and the proposal goes nowhere. Two things are for certain--cost/benefit calculations and premium rates will be used to make sure that the regulated plans give the insurance cos. a guaranteed profit, and that the plans in the exchange, including the public option (which will replace Medicare) will begin denying so many treatments and procedures that it will cause heartache, rage, and death, and convince the public that government can't be trusted with administering a single-payer plan. Congresswoman Lowey (I'm in her district), believe it or not, sent me an email saying that the plan will be paid by "reducing excess tests and procedures". Since what will be banned is left until the plan is running to be decided by agency administrators who will be pressured to cut costs, we have no idea or recourse as to what that will be. The new degraded Medicare will no longer be used by all income levels since anyone who can possibly afford to buy a plan outside the exchange will want coverage that won't deny them an expensive, but necessary cancer treatment just because they are old. This withdrawal from Medicare by the more prosperous retirees is where the private insurers will really benefit. The public plan/Medicare will become just another form of welfare w/ pressure from everyone above the subsidy cut-off income to reduce its cost and coverage.

[Jefferson23]

27. Yep, and tell me where in the hell are Obama's surrogates?

We have the majority and the only one I hear predominate is Howard Dean. I am so angry at the lack of response to support Obama. Maybe Dems should have organized a march on Washington, back when single payers advocates were pushing themselves into hearings and getting removed. I feel terrible that we did not respond and come out in force to remind ALL Dems what Americans want. I email, make call and such, but this is just frustrating as hell to watch play out.

[KoKo]

53. Why haven't the Dems & Obama pushed to have better or any spokespesons out there

to counter the obfuscations of the many RW Repugs and Repug/Think Tank spokespersons who are on CNN/MSNBC/CNBC and Faux all day long? Howard Dean is the best spokesperson but he's not on much because someone in this administration doesn't want him on. The only spokespersons I've seen are a few Blue Dog Dems who can't refute the statements by the Repugs and people like Donna Brazille who aren't effective. If Dems haven't learned how to counter Repug Talking Points by now..then it means that they are told not to or don't want to.

[No Elephants]

44. Look at the real big picture then--and the total picture. A public option is very likely to fail.

Keeping insurance costs down depends on a large pool of people, so that you get some young and healthy and some sickly and/or older.

All the poorest and sickest people will choose the public option and the rest of us will have to pick up the tab. Corners will have to be cut as far as care and/or taxes will have to be raised. And the RW will say, "See, public involvement in health care costs a lot and worsens health care," just as we've been saying since Teddy Roosevelt first proposed it for America.

Meanwhile, to compete with public option until the public option becomes unappealing, private health care insurance will lower its costs, most especially for the young and healthy--but only until it kills the public option.

Whereas, if the counry were to go single payer, costs would REALLY come down and stay down because of all the young and healthy people in the pool.

BTW, all the money that hospitals and health care insurers supposedly "gave up?" What did they get in return for those "gives?" A smile?

But this is attention deficit disorder posting. The issue for this thread is not health care insurance or public option versus single payer, but disclosure of meetings with health care executives.

[No Elephants]

49. It's been in trouble since single payer was taken off the table.

[Hannah Bell]

101. why should the meetings be secret? you don't answer, you divert to

the approved whipping boy.

[earth mom]

86. You are speaking truth that people don't want to hear around here.

They prefer to live in the dark with their fingers in their ears.

:crazy:

[No Elephants]

38. If it makes no difference who he met with or why, then the balance should be in favor

of disclosure, not in favor of secrecy.

In general, the people have a right to know what the government is doing. (Government of the people, by the people, for the
people.

The President is the people's number one employee. He lives in the people's house. The people have a right to know with whom he meets.

This President ran on transparency and needs to be held accountable for his campaign promises, for the health of the Party and the nation. He cannot run on transparency and change and then follow the Bush path of "We'll tell you what we want you to know, not what you want to know."

Need I go on?

The appropriate, democratic and American solution is to post articles favorable to Obama. , not to try to silence people who post articles like this. In a democracy, especially a democracy tha favors free speech, the people should not be trying to suppress disclosure. It's bad enough when government does that. The people should be insisting on disclosure.

People who cannot deal with a news story about ANY administration, be it Bush or Obama, that does not simply applaud candidly scare me for the future of this nation more than anything the Executive, Courts or Congress combined could possibly do, short of taking away our votes by force.

[KoKo]

60. If he releases a list of all groups he's met with wouldn't it show he listened to ALL SIDES?

That to me is the point of this. Of course he had to meet with Heath Care Executives, and other Special Interests but we assume he also met with advocates of Reform and Special Interest Groups for Reform.

So why the reluctance to issue this list if he's honestly "listened to all sides" which is what he said he would do in his campaign.

This whole thing smells. And covering up and covering up doesn't keep Obama's policies transparent...which is what we were also promised. Transparency.

To use the Bush Policies as some basis is a slap in the face to those Democrats who voted for him and for the Change he promised.

[harun]

96. Does he have to meet with you?

[Hannah Bell]

99. why should it be secret, then?

[Donnachaidh]

8. Change anyone? I *hear* lots of ka-ching, but no real change

for the poor schmucks who voted for TRANSPARENCY.

[4dsc]

9. And you wonder why Obama is losing support??

WTF again.. Do you wonder why Obama is losing ground with the American people. His administration is acting just like the last one in so many area's it make my head spin.. This cannot keep up of he will lose me too.

[Vidar]

11. More of Obama's famous trasparency.

[QC]

62. He's very transparent--you can see right through him. n/t

[Coyote_Bandit]

17. Bringing transparency in government?

Change I can believe in? Hardly.

[Steerpike]

18. As usual I'm confused.

Is President Obama telling the Secret Service not to release this information (or block it's release), or is the Secret Service doing this as a matter of their own policy?

[No Elephants]

50. You're confused because government likes to confuse us. BOTH the Secret Service and the President

work for the people. And this is not a national security secret, like the formula for the hydrogen bomb. If it were, we could get it off the Internet, like we could get the formula for the atom bomb. No, this is about image and big business. Therefore, it will be kept secret, like the meetings Cheney had with oil company executives.

How does it keep Obama safer to keep secret how many insurance and hospital executives he met with at the White House (or anywhere) last month?

Is it any secret that Obama is in the White House most days and nights? Can a wannabe assassin travel back in time?

[Steerpike]

64. I guess I knew that.

I was just trying to find a way in my mind to give the President intellectual cover. But, there really is none.

[Javaman]

21. Transparency?

the fix is in.

[Captain Hilts]

22. NOT cool. nt

[Jefferson23]

23. I could literally cry. I think I will be putting my time and efforts working to

get public funded elections. Living through the last 8 years was painful enough, watching Obama and especially the Blue Dog Dems, I just don't see any other way we will get out from under the influence of these blood sucking lobby groups.

[No Elephants]

51. Sorry to say, I don't think changing election law is going to help, except for the election laws

that make it harder for third party candidates and the ones that allow the two parties to control debates.

No matter how we change finance laws, there will always be loopholes, as there are with McCain Feingold. Soft money, funny money, honey money (rich spouse or lover) whatever,

And look what happened last election. Obama opted out and McCain violated the law more than aonce with impunity, thanks to Bushco; and Obama opted out, and each pretended he was the one with the moral high road.

Congress is never going to pass a law with real teeth in it. And, if it does, this SCOTUS will overturn it. This SCOTUS is never going to rule that our Constitution allows us to control campaign spending in any meaningful way. After all, that's not what the Framers had in mind in 1789 when they contemplated the cost of TV and radio ads.

I've turned my money to Amnesty International, the ACLU and HRC for human rights and to PBS, so I have some hope of finding out what is ACTUALLY going on. At least as long as Bill Moyers keeps broadcasting on PBS.

[qanda]

25. Oh my Lord, please tell me this is not for real....

Come on, Obama! I'm rooting for you but I will not turn a blind eye to foolishness.

[xchrom]

26. ...

:grr: 'Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.'

[Name removed]

28. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[City Lights]

29. Where's the transparency?

:mad: This really ticks me off. :grr:

It's Dick Cheney's energy task force all over again. :thumbsdown:

[No Elephants]

54. You betcha!

[glitch]

55. The transparency is in the betrayal. nt

[QC]

63. I think it's in the transparent hypocrisy. n/t

[FloriTexan]

34. Visitors to the WH are there for many reasons...

For example, some insurers may not want their visits to the president known. He courts many people for many reasons. Obama is probably, in equal parts, negotiating, chewing butt and praising people for cooperation.

[No Elephants]

52. WOW. Since when is it up to insurers to decide whether they can use the people's house

and the people's president in secret?

And since this thread is only about meeting with insurance executives, we don't have to worry about the many reasons people in general visit the white house. We already beat that to death in the threads about the WH logs.

[FloriTexan]

57. If I were trying to get insurers to back my plan...

and I invited them or they requested to come to my whitehouse to negotiate on issues that some in their industry may or may not approve of, then yes, I would like to be able to accomodate that request. I'm just suggesting that some "secret" meetings may actually have a positive purpose that could be undermined if the word of such meetings got out. If Obama can meet with someone in secret and get them to do the right thing for this country I have no problem with it. No problem at all. Release the information at some point, but when it is appropriate to do so. I don't know who asked to meet with whom.

If the topic was "beat to death" already, why is it still coming up.

[No Elephants]

68. We had public White House logs for years

until Bushco and government functioned a lot better when we had more sunlight than it did during the most secretie administration ever, when Cheney was able to have secret meetings with the energy execs. I am very sorry to see Obama following the lead of Bushco over and over, including in secrecy. He ran against Bush more than against McCain; and he promised change, hope and transparency.

Reporting the number of meetings and with whom they were held does not say what was discussed, or what position either the admin. or the exec took. So, I don't see how your reasoning covers just the number of meetings and the identity of the "meeters."

As I posted in Reply # 38\

"In general, the people have a right to know what the government is doing. (Government of the people, by the people, for the
people.

The President is the people's number one employee. He lives in the people's house. The people have a right to know with whom he meets.

This President ran on transparency and needs to be held accountable for his campaign promises, for the health of the Party and the nation. He cannot run on transparency and change and then follow the Bush path of "We'll tell you what we want you to know, not what you want to know." "

Please also see Reply ## 44 and 50.

As far as the topic being beat to death, I think you misread my post. I was simply trying to keep the discussion to insurance executives, rather than the more general topic of "visitors to the white house" (which would include things like 10 year olds having a play date or Michelle's great uncle).

[Stuart G]

35. Why is he doing this???nt

[nightrain]

36. sickening and scary, isn't it?

I spose what I'm feeling is "betrayed". I don't like being lied to, by anyone, and that includes Dems, Presidents, and loved ones.

[montanto]

37. Sue them. Again.

Hard to imagine that we are already having to sue our "change" administration
over practicing what it said it would eliminate. Sad. Someone is going to have
to explain to me and others like me why I/we should bother to vote in future.

[Jefferson23]

39. http://www.publicampaign.org/ Clean Elections

[No Elephants]

58. I hear ya, but please see Reply 51.

[No Elephants]

61. Donate to the ACLU because they are the org. bringing these suits.

[fascisthunter]

43. nice to see transparency in our government

[Solly Mack]

65. Wheee

[JDPriestly]

66. What is the White House hiding? There is nothing wrong with

meeting with people in the healthcare industry. Or is there? Why is this secret. It has nothing to do with national defense or anything of that sort. At least with energy you could make the argument that national interests required secrecy, but with healthcare? This is a feeble argument. What is the Obama administration covering up here? Why would this information be so damaging unless something shady is going on?

I thought we were going to have transparency in government. Is this something Obama's aides have cooked up? We need to ask Obama about this. There is no national security issue regarding healthcare.

[nradisic]

67. I am disappointed...

I expected more from President Obama. If he continues at this rate, throwing principles out of the window, he may end up being a one term president and that would really suck for the coutry...

[texastoast]

69. This is wrong

And hypocritical.

[sarcasmo]

83. Bingo.

[stranger81]

70. Sounds like change we can believe in!!

Not.

[ProudDad]

71. Same old shit, different container

Business as usual by the other right-wing of the corporate big business party...

[newtothegame]

73. It's ok, Obama made history. n/t

[ProudDad]

75. Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely...(n/t)

[ProudDad]

76. Yep, Obama made history...

Racial profiling is alive and well

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/22/racial_profiling_is_alive_and_well/

[Qutzupalotl]

77. Here's the list

Meeting Participants:

Stakeholders:

Insurers

George Halvorson, Chairman and CEO of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)
Jay Gellert, President and CEO of Health Net Inc.

Hospitals

Thomas Priselac--President & CEO, Cedars-Sinai Health System
Rich Umbdenstock-- President & CEO, American Hospital Association (AHA)
Ken Raske--President,Greater New York Hospital Association

Physicians

J. James Rohack, M.D.-- President-Elect, American Medical Association (AMA)
Rebecca Patchin, M.D.-- Chair-Elect of the AMA
Rich Deem-- Senior Vice President of the AMA

Medical Device Companies

Michael Mussallem--Chairman & CEO, Edwards Lifesciences
Steve Ubl-- President & CEO, AdvaMed
David Nexon-- Senior Executive Vice President, AdvaMed

Pharmaceutical Companies

Richard Clark--Chairman, President & CEO, Merck
Billy Tauzin—President & CEO, PhRMA
Rick Smith--Senior Vice President, PhRMA

Labor

Andy Stern, SEIU
Dennis Rivera, SEIU Health

Administration Officials:

Nancy-Ann DeParle, Director of the Office of Health Reform
Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Larry Summers, Director of the National Economic Council
Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary

After the meeting, the following stakeholders will join President Obama for his remarks:

* George Halverson, Chairman and CEO of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
* J. James Rohack, M.D., President-Elect, American Medical Association
* Richard Clark, Chairman, President & CEO, Merck
* Michael Mussallem, Chairman & CEO, Edwards Lifesciences
* Dennis Rivera, SEIU
* Tom Priselac, President and CEO of Cedars- Sinai Health System


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Todays-Health-Care-Costs-Meeting-Participants-Fact-Sheet-and-Letter/

:shrug:

[glinda]

79. I don't like the secrecy. What are they hiding?

[humbled_opinion]

81. If President Obama...

feels like he doesnt need to release the details of visits than that is his prerogative. Stop all this insanity there is a world of difference between Obama doing something and Bush doing something its called MALICE.... One had it and one doesn't....

Get a grip.

[sarcasmo]

82. Who owns the beltway? Insurance lobbyists and bank lobbyists.

[progressoid]

84. oh great.

[drm604]

85. Didn't I just hear him say that they were sending out a list of the executives?

:shrug:

[earth mom]

87. Obama totally tried to brush this off tonight during his speech-like it was nothing.

:grr:

[Tx4obama]

89. It was nothing...

because he released the list 'before' the press conference.

[Tx4obama]

88. List has been released

From Politico.com

Minutes before a press conference .... the White House released a list of visits by health care executives.


Anne L. Weismann, Esq.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
1400 Eye Street, NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Ms. Weismann:

I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to the United States Department of Homeland Security dated June 22, 2009. The request seeks records relating to any visits to the White House by eighteen health care executives since January 21, 2009. I understand that the Department of Homeland Security responded to your request by letter dated July 7, 2009. The letter stated that the legal status of White House visitor records is the subject of ongoing litigation and that the White House is reviewing its policy governing the discretionary release of such records.

There is no more important issue than health care reform, and the President is fully committed to helping Americans live healthier lives, preventing illness, and increasing the competitiveness of our country. Given the compelling public interest in the health care debate and the President’s goal of increasing transparency in government, we have reviewed the White House visitors records related to the eighteen individuals listed in your request through June 30, 2009. The President has decided to exercise his discretion and release the following information, which is reflected in the relevant visitor records:

· Bill Tauzin visited the White House on March 5, May 19, June 2, and June 24.

· Karen Ignagni visited the White House on March 5, 6, and 11 and June 30.

· Richard Umbdenstock visited the White House on February 4, February 23; March 5, March 25, March 30; April 6, and May 22.

· J. James Rohack visited the White House on March 25, June 22, and June 24.

· William C. Weldon visited the White House on May 12.

· Jeffrey B. Kindler visited the White House on March 5, May 6, and June 2.

· Stephen J. Hemsley visited the White House on May 15 and 22.

· Angela F. Braly visited the White House on February 13.

· George Halvorson visited the White House on March 27 and June 5.

· Jay Gellert visited the White House on February 10, March 11, and March 20.

· Thomas Priselac visited the White House on April 3.

· Richard Clark visited the White House on March 24.

· Wayne T. Smith visited the White House on June 4.

· Rick Smith visited the White House on May 19 and June 2.

In addition to the above information, the White House visitor records reflect that Mr. Tauzin, Ms. Ignagni, Mr. Umbdenstock, Mr. Rohack, Mr. Kindler, Mr. Halvorson, Mr. Gellert, Mr. Priselac, David Nexon, and Rick Smith were scheduled to attend a May 11 meeting at the White House. We understand that all the individuals attended the meeting except Mr. Kindler, and that Mr. Clark attended as well. Finally, the visitor records do not reflect any visits by the following individuals: Ben J. Lipps; William A. Hawkins, III; or Robert L. Parkinson.

We are continuing to review your specific FOIA request, as well as the White House’s general policy governing the discretionary release of visitor records.

Sincerely,

Gregory B. Craig

Counsel to the President

[lexanman]

90. Did I wake up after a dream and find out McCain was really elected?

Did Obama get taken up by those Body Snatchers? What In The Fuck is going on?

[hedgehog]

91. White House Discloses Meetings With Health Care Executives

The Obama administration released Wednesday night a list of 15 health-care lobbyists and senior executives who have visited the White House to discuss health-care reform.

The list was released in response to a lawsuit filed earlier in the day by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, which had been denied access to the names by the U.S. Secret Service. Many of the meetings, it turned out, were well-known gatherings that had already been publicized.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/white_house_discloses_meetings.html?wprss=44

[chatnoir]

92. Obama Has Met At Least 27 Times With Private Health Care Industry Executives

President Barack Obama has hosted at least 27 meetings with some of the most influential private health-industry executives in the country in an effort to placate or at least quiet potential opponents of reform in what remains a tenuous legislative process.

Under pressure from a good-government organization, the White House released on Wednesday evening the names of industry officials whom the president has met and the dates of their meetings. The records show that, from early February to late June, the White House has invited 15 of the health care and pharmaceutical industry's most powerful players.

....

More at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/obamas-private-health-car_n_243115.html

[change_notfinetuning]

93. depends on the meaning of "declines", "disclose" and "transparency"

[IndianaGreen]

98. Donald Rumsfeld: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

Since John Negroponte is one of Hillary's advisers on Latin America, why not have Obama do his own version of Cheney's energy task force stonewalling?

The hopes of spring have given way to the disappointments of summer.