So now the left is pushing a lobbyist's version of events?

[ProSense]

A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.

The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.

<...>

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."

But the lobbyist who was given the outline defended its authenticity. And although the White House now says that drug price negotiations and reimportation were not actually discussed in the talks with PhRMA, the lobbyist said: "Well, that's bull -- that's baloney. That was part of the deal, for them not to push that."

The new uncertainty surrounding the deal comes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has repeatedly said that her chamber is not bound by any agreement it is not a party to. On July 8th, the day after the Journal reported some elements of the deal, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said in a public speech that his committee would not be tied down by the agreement.

Before recess, he followed through. His committee passed a bill that allowed for re-importation and drug-price negotiations.

In the Senate, Democrats Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Byron Dorgan (N.D.) pressed White House officials at a closed-door meeting last week, asking whether the White House had tied the Senate's hands.

The health care lobbyist said that what deal still exists is uncertain, as a result of House pressure. "Now the White House is backing away from it, as you know, because of pressure from the House, because the House was not a party to the deal," he said. "The Speaker put enormous pressure on the White House, , 'We weren't a party to it and we reserve the right to do whatever we want.' And which they did in the House Energy and Commerce Committee bill, which led the White House to say, 'Well, maybe it's not cast in concrete.'"

link

The left is being played by lobbyists, who know if they create the impression that Phrma has a sweet deal, it will be opposed by those gullible enough to believe it.

Suddenly a memo appears?

Lobbyist are all hush-hush on Bush/Cheney deals involving sweet deals for corporations, but they're all talk about alleged secret deals Obama made with an industry in non-secret meetings that actually result in savings for seniors?

Think about it: What's in it for the lobbyists? What do they gain by making a so-called secret deal public? What's the purpose of poisoning the debate?

This is the most ridiculous of all the lies and smears going around because it's being advanced by the left.

[librechik]

1. I view all media w caution--especially anonymous sources

I suggest others do the same.

BTW, the liberal side has no media, not really. I wish it did. We
wouldn't be losing as badly as we are. It's like they are ashamed
to be themselves. Or frightened.

[Pirate Smile]

2. Huffington Post smears Obama daily. They even leave them up long after they have been debunked.

[DrToast]

3. Huffpo is like the teabaggers on the left

Lot of bullshit on that site.

[Boomerang Diddle]

16. You're right. I don't even read Huffington Post anymore.

It's more interested in sensational headlines than getting it right.

[blm]

4. We KNOW Senate Finance CorpoDems have been with lobbyists and some WH staffers were supposedly

in some of those closed meetings. I would guess that makes it easier to form a narrative based on half-truths.

But, see, these closed door meetings are WHY there's a continuing problem for WH and the Dems - Obama got my 100% support in 2008 when he promised he'd come down on Senate and Congress to install cameras in these meetings so whoever was carrying water for lobbyists would have to do so ON CAMERA for CSpan audiences and voters.

I hate to say this, but, WH should have pressed both houses of Congress for their full cooperation on the transparency he promised, and they should have done it within days of taking office.

We wouldn't be HAVING such major miscommunication problems involving the WH, Dems, and viral lies like 'death panels' if WH had stuck to its transparency position.

[boppers]

5. How many channels are you willing to watch?

While the debates and lawmakers *are* being televised, would you really watch the thousands of cameras and broadcasts that would be needed to cover every single discussion held on a topic?

This seems to be the problem: no matter how much transparency there is, somebody is always convinced that there's a man behind a curtain, somewhere.

[Phx_Dem]

10. Exactly. And people seem to forget that Obama promised to bring

everyone to the table to negotiate. Those who keep whining that "this isn't the change I voted for" seem to have forgotten that.

[blm]

12. That wasn't said in my post.

But I do understand why you attach the train of thought of the whiners to a post about how this nation and this WH would be better off with transparency.

[blm]

11. What do they do now? There are 3 Cspan channels and they already show many mundane hearings

for those willing to watch.

And, if WH and Congress can prioritize what issues they target in speeches and legislation, then they can have cameras in the meetings room while they are crafting the legislation for that issue.

Some dirty dealers can ALWAYS find a reason to argue against transparency, but, responsible citizens DEMAND it and a number of crucial national issues NEED it.

[Canuckistanian]

6. Let's see the final draft of the bill

We can figure out ourselves whether a "deal" has been made.

[Phx_Dem]

7. Where's the memo you "uncovered," Huffington Post? Huffington Post

is doing its very best to smear Obama daily and make sure the Democratic party is so fractured it can't pass a fucking kidney stone.

The alleged deal with big Pharma doesn't sound like a bad deal to me anyway. If they are willing to spend $150 million on pro-health care ads in addition to cutting Rx costs by $80 billion, I think that's a pretty decent concession. Would it be better to have no reduction in Rx cost and hope we can get twice the $80 billion with absolutely no guarantees, while big Pharma spends their $150 million on anti-healthcare ads? I don't think so.

It's not the Republicans that are fucking up healthcare, it's the Democrats. If we were united, we could overcome the Republican lies and the blue dogs, but thanks to progressives like Huffington Post, the Democrats are, once again, turning against each other and the blue dogs have very little incentive to work with the liberal Democrats. Thanks assholes.

[masuki bance]

8. You want the deal to stay secret? nt

[ProSense]

9. You believe lobbyists? n/t

[masuki bance]

13. This is hilarious, you have been denying for over a week that

there ever was a deal, now you are upset that the secret deal is now not so secret.

[ProSense]

20. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? n/t

[Enrique]

14. so isn't Obama angry about this?

so he's negotiating in good faith with them, and then they go out and punk good liberal blogs and get his supporters all upset.

Seems like he'd be angry, both on his own behalf and on our behalf.

I agree with you this leak was done in some self interest on the part of the leaker.

But that's true of most leaks, and a lot of useful information comes from leaks.

Maybe the useful information here is about the relationship among democrats:

The health care lobbyist said that what deal still exists is uncertain, as a result of House pressure. "Now the White House is backing away from it, as you know, because of pressure from the House, because the House was not a party to the deal," he said. "The Speaker put enormous pressure on the White House, , 'We weren't a party to it and we reserve the right to do whatever we want.' And which they did in the House Energy and Commerce Committee bill, which led the White House to say, 'Well, maybe it's not cast in concrete.'"

[Thrill]

15. I agree with Thom Hartmann that Obama doesn't care what comes out of the committes

He just wants to get it to Conference. And then they can do what they want with the bill, and then tell the blue dogs and the conservadems they better get on board.

[blm]

17. That's exactly what I'm hoping for.

Though Durbin's willingness to capitulate PUBLICLY on public option was worrisome since he's supposed to be one of Obama's main go-to guys in the senate.

[girl gone mad]

18. n/t

[quiet.american]

19. While deals are no doubt in the works, this HuffPo piece, especially headline, is off the mark.

Even though the article is quite lengthy, what it boils down to is:

Anonymous Lobbyist: I swear this is the memo of the deal that **was** being made

WH: No, it's not.

PhRMA: No, it certainly is not.

Somehow, HuffPo spins this into the SCREAMING headline:
"INTERNAL MEMO CONFIRMS BIG GIVEAWAYS IN WHITE HOUSE DEAL WITH BIG PHARMA"

Can you say sensationalism.

[ProSense]

21. Exactly. An internal memo from the lobbyist. n/t

[bvar22]

22. Unrecommended.

Dubious, convoluted speculation in another transparent attempt to smear The Left.

The Left isn't being "played".
The Left has been consistent and specific about what The Left supports.
The Left has NOT held ANY secret meetings with any Health Insurance/Big Pharm Lobbyists.

The Bill supported by The Left (HR 676) and co-sponsored by 85 Congressmen is available online for anyone to read. It is only 27 pages long, contains NO "Firewalls" or loopholes, and does NOT subsidize the Health Insurance Industry.

Maybe it is YOU who is being "played" into supporting a Bill that in reality closes the door on Single Payer and contains only a token "Public Option" that is designed to fail?

[ProSense]

23. "The Left has NOT held ANY secret meetings with any Health Insurance/Big Pharm Lobbyists."

See the OP!

[high density]

28. single payer??

The door was never open on that to begin with.

[hileeopnyn8d]

24. Did they post the memo they obtained?

If not then there's about 57,000 newspaper articles, blogs, pundits and DU threads I can ignore.

[ncteechur]

25. Hell no. They didn't post a copy (scanned or otherwise) but they did post "what it said".

[ProSense]

26. "Internal memo"

The article phrased it so that it reads like this is an official memo. It's some document the anonymous lobbyist is pushing as an "internal memo" from inside the industry.

Idiots.

[hileeopnyn8d]

29. Internal

Is an internal memo something you pull out of your ass?

[high density]

27. Some people enjoy being played like a violin

The lobbyist isn't even certain about what is going on, so I don't know why people are spending even a half second thinking about this.