Well crap. The White House and Sen. Carper have shut down the

[Thickasabrick]

Senate Health Care Debate.

The White House, aided by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), is working hard to crush an amendment being pushed by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) to allow for the reimportation of pharmaceutical drugs from Canada, Senate sources tell the Huffington Post.

As a result, the Senate health care debate has come to a standstill: Carper has placed a "hold" on Dorgan's amendment and in response, Dorgan tells HuffPost, he'll object to any other amendments being considered before he gets a vote on his.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) is a lead co-sponsor of Dorgan's amendment. She said she's confident that, as of now, they have the votes they need. "I think that's why we're not having this vote," she said, smiling.

Complicating matters for the White House, the amendment has the support of a number of Republicans, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (Maine), John McCain (Ariz.), Charles Grassley (Iowa) and David Vitter (La.). Opponents of the amendment worry that many more Republicans may join the amendment not because they agree with it, but because they want to put the health care bill in jeopardy.

That means the White House and the drug makers need to persuade as many Democrats as they can to oppose the amendment despite their previous support for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/pharma-deal-shuts-down-se_n_388895.html

This just fucking sucks.

[polichick]

1. The absurdity of this is breathtaking! Not only are we not allowed to...

...buy drugs here at decent prices, but we can't get them anywhere else either.

Fuck our "leaders."

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Could someone please tell me why Obama's White House is doing this? He's supposed to be on our side.

:(

[FiveGoodMen]

3. He pretended to be on our side. He's not really.

[atreides1]

5. He's supposed to be on our side.

I'm having doubts about that!

Personally I think that only a few Democrats in the Congress are actually on the side of the American people, and I'm beginning to think that this whole bi-partisan kumbaya moment that the President keeps hoping for isn't based on reality.

Just an opinion.

[MercutioATC]

6. "Safety concerns" is the official answer.

Yes, it's ridiculous.

[CrispyQ]

52. And yet they are not concerned about the safety of the pet food, toothpaste & drywall

we import from China. :eyes:

"Safety" only matters when profits are at stake. :grr:

[dana_b]

70. haha! true!

well if Canada owned as much of our country as China does, I'm sure this wouldn't even be a discussion.

[flyarm]

yep those Canadians getting meds from our Pharma corps are getting some serious dangerous, bad meds!

better watch out Canadians..we are killing you with our dangerous unsafe meds!!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:


has nothing to do with the secret deals Obama and Rahm made with big Pharma..shhh..no one is supposed to know about those secret deals..so if you talk about the secret deals..Agent Mike will let loose his agents to get you with their super duper taser spy rings!

[katkat]

77. safety concerns

We all know those Canadians will snarf down anything :-)

[Incitatus]

85. Yes, safety concerns is absolutely true.

The safety of the stock prices and profits of pharmaceutical companies.

[kirby]

13. He secretly negotiated with PhRMA.

He secretly negotiated with PhRMA.. He got them to agree not to oppose his health care plan like they did Clintons. In exchanged for PhRMA helping out with the Medicare Part D donut hole, he promised that the pharmaceutical industry would not suffer more than $80 Billion dollars of cost over 10 years. So basically, the White House is screaming that the Senate is going to blow up the PhRMA deal, if the enact the common-sense re-importation language that has very popular support.

[Truth2Tell]

28. ding ding ding. FTW. nt

[ima_sinnic]

59. typical racketeering modus operandi

my respect for Obama has plummeted even lower than before--simply because he was supposed to be "different," "of the people"--I expected more, waaaay more. This does not help Democratic candidates in general, as it make the Democrats appear to be as duplicitously avaricious, greedy, and two-faced as Republicans.
Or is expecting genuineness and adherence to basic ethics by a Democrat "too radical" of me???

[jgraz]

36. Oh grow up. In his campaign, did he ever explicitly PROMISE to be on your side?

:sarcasm:

[GreenPartyVoter]

38. Now that you mention it, he did say something about being on the side of hope and change. I'm too

much of a doom and gloomer to be on the side of that.

Ditto :sarcasm:

:rofl:

[Capn Sunshine]

44. OH for Christ's sake, it's political calculus

No need to explain that here, because we already know what we know

[Sparkly]

61. And even if he did, he didn't say "cross my heart" so...

... people are so childish to be disappointed. :sarcasm:

[bkozumplik]

71. oh crap

did anyone look at his fingers during the speech?
were they crossed??
crap.
Well we only have ourselves to blame for this one.

We need to verify the finger crossing to know his real meaning. Otherwise he is just being consistent with what he said and we just have to accept it because we voted for him.

And I'm not being sarcastic here.

[bkozumplik]

72. you're right. I feel so stoopid

I think all the progressives feel stupid right now.

Good one, Obama and congress-- you got us. Well played.

[Telly Savalas]

49. Can someone provide evidence besides the unnamed "Senate sources" cited in the article

saying that he is doing this?

The article itself posted an updated saying that the White House says it isn't doing this. The known facts suggest that this is an unfounded bullshit rumor.

My Senate sources say that the White House supports the abduction and murder of every family's first born. Is everyone going to rage against that?

[flyarm]

58. shh..shadow government ring a bell????? eom

[inna]

63. He's not, it's painfully clear at this point.

Crap.

:(

[treestar]

86. Um, the Senate is doing this

[Inuca]

4. Calm down, they will have a vote on this

tomorrow morning. Announced by Reid in the Senate a little while ago.

[madfloridian]

7. There should be no calming down on an issue that will help so many.

The WH should not be doing this.

[Inuca]

8. And maybe they are not

"Publicly, President Obama continues to support reimportation, as he did during the campaign.

"The President supports reimportation of safe and effective drugs. He made that clear in his FY 2010 budget, which included $5 million to enable the FDA to begin developing policy options," reads a statement from the White House. "The Food and Drug Administration has raised safety concerns about the current proposal and will continue exploring policy options to create a pathway to importing safe and effective drugs."

(from the HuffPo article linked to in the OP)

[amandabeech]

43. If the FDA says that they cannot guarantee the safety of re-imported drugs,

that will probably be enough to satisfy at least some of the people around the President. They will tell him that by banning re-importation, he has not gone back on his word.

Personally, I think that drugs manufactured in Canada or Sweden, for examples, would be perfectly safe even if they aren't re-imports.

[flyarm]

65. just read the words.."RE-IMPORT"..THAT MEANS THE OTHER NATION IMPORTED THEM FROM US!

re-import..means..they were imported from us and now we want to "RE".."Re-import" them..

so are we exporting dangerous drugs to other nations? are "WE" exporting unsafe drugs to other nations?
because all we want to do is "RE-IMPORT " WHAT "WE " HAVE EXPORTED!

[amandabeech]

83. Excellent campaign slogan, really.

The FDA will probably say that they cannot guarantee that the drugs have not been stored properly or adulterated outside the U.S. or some such B.S.

[AllentownJake]

9. The White House should not be doing a lot of things

He has to raise 1 billion dollars for 2012 to be competitive with his GOP opponent because he destroyed the public financing of election in 2008. He isn't dumb, that is where Rahm came in / was brought in.

[dmosh42]

10. An example of the "corporatist" wing of the Dem party! n/t

[Fumesucker]

37. But they don't *call* themselves that..

So obviously, they aren't "corporatist" at all, eh?

And yes, for those whose sarcasmometers have recently melted and let out the magic smoke from overload, it's :sarcasm:

[amborin]

11. this explains it:

all pretty shocking, but explains a lot:

"the "smoking gun" that links Barack Obama with Bob Rubin-Goldman Sachs, free trade
and cuts in entitlements. It’s the young Senator Barack Obama’s little commented on
and little-known speech to the Hamilton Project in April, 2006, well before he
became president.

Obama stated:
"I think that if you polled many of the people in
this room, most of us are strong free traders and most of us
believe in markets. …So, hopefully, this is not just going
to be all of us preaching to the choir. Hopefully, part of
what we are going to be doing is challenging our own conventional
wisdom and pushing out the boundaries and testing these ideas
in a vigorous and aggressive way."

snip<

Senator Barack Obama ran a stealth campaign for the presidency in which he took
positions on issues that he obviously didn’t believe which explains why he
jettisoned them early on (FISA; NAFTA renegotiation; DADT; DOMA etc.). But
the REAL, unvarnished Obama was unveiled in a speech he gave as a Senator
from Illinois in 2006. He spoke at the request of "my friend" Bob Rubin
whose Goldman Sachs had just funded the Hamilton Project, a free trade
think tank embedded in the Brookings Institution..."

snip

Wall Street Dems Unveil Plan to Undermine Progressives

Here’s a big shocker – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party
today announced it would be beginning its new war in earnest on the
grassroots elements of the party that are demanding serious public
policy changes. As the Financial Times reports, Citigroup Chairman
Bob Rubin held a press conference at the Brookings Institution to
announce the formation of the so-called "Hamilton Project." After
paying lip service to various economic problems afflicting the country,
Rubin and his former Treasury colleague Roger Altman quickly let it be
known exactly what they are up to.

snip

<http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17981>

<http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17984>

[amandabeech]

45. Thank you very much for posting this information. nt

[dana_b]

74. yes, thank you.

If some of us didn't already know it, this makes it even more painfully clear that what many of us want just does not matter.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Canuckistanian]

14. This whole "canadian drugs" thing is ridiculous

Everyone is working SO HARD to get "canadian drugs", or more specifically, drugs at Canadian prices. Both Canada and the US get exactly the same drugs from the same factories.

Why isn't anyone asking the question WHY drugs are so expensive in America? And why isn't there legislation to lower the price?

It's probably just a matter of negotiating prices of mass buys. Get RID of the provision in Medicare Part D and you're there.

Hey, we'd LOVE to keep selling drugs to you, you keep a whole sector of our country in business, selling drugs over the border.

But it all could be ended if the Medicare Part D ban was rescinded.

[laughingliberal]

17. Ok, logic will get you nowhere. lol. nt

[bain_sidhe]

21. Because we're not really importing Canadian drugs...

we're importing effective government regulation.

[RoyGBiv]

26. Can we just start importing Canadians?

Taking you as an example, they seem to have a calmer head and more logical outlook on such things.

To suggest a brief answer to your question, the reason is because no one is telling them to ask these questions. The focus of the media is on "Canadian drugs" as somehow being naturally cheaper and whether or how we get them, which takes the focus away from asking the more pertinent, damning question of why drugs are so much more expensive in the US.

[KamaAina]

33. Also we're paying for an endless stream of pharma ads

and you're not, 'cause they're not allowed in the Great White North.

Of course, if we adopted the Canadian approach, that would leave the network newscasts, CBS in particular, with no sponsors at all.

[Canuckistanian]

39. Another thing we're thankful for

In addition to our single-payer health care, we're NOT subjected to these endless drug commercials, promising us a cure for every ill with a single pill. We know that health care is best left to DOCTORS, not shiny TV spokespeople. I wouldn't even PRESUME to second-guess my doctor on vital prescription drugs that may even save my life.

We have so many restrictions on drug company ads that the drug companies decide NOT to air most of them on Canadian TV. And the very few that DO make it to air are VERY unpopular.

It's a cultural thing, I guess. We have more trust in our physicians than drug companies. We let DOCTORS make the choices for us.

[JoeyT]

42. Yeah, that'll never catch on.

"And why isn't there legislation to lower the price?"
<teabagger>Socialism!!!!111111eleven. </teabagger>

The second the right heard the words "price regulation" they'd go (more) batshit. Randroids would start strapping on suicide vests.
We honestly don't need half the country shrieking about how wonderful the pharmaceutical industry is the way they did the insurance industry.

Edited to add: I'm not sure getting rid of the Medicare part D stuff would actually help drug prices for everyone, either. Last medication I took regularly didn't come through insurance of any sort and cost me roughly about 10 times what it would've cost me to order it from Canada.

They use the "safety" defense to prevent people ordering drugs from Canada. Seriously, they act like you guys have witches stirring up cauldrons of Viagra or Xanax up there or something. You know, those crazy Canadians with their lack of government regulations. ;)

[katkat]

78. Canuck

I have yet to hear or even imagine any justification for the prohibition against Medicare being able to negotiate med prices as private insurance companies do.

I mean, can anyone defend that with a straight face?

[AzDar]

15. This is nauseating.

WHO the fuck did we elect??

[Tesha]

82. We elected a friend of the corporate state.

It was clear almost from the get-go that we would have a choice between
Corporate Friend #1 and Corporate Friend #2 on the Democratic side and
Corporate Friend #3 on the Republican side.

All others were deemed non-starters by the (surprise) Corporate Media.

Tesha

[sixmile]

16. Kicked

Because I am speechless

[timeforpeace]

18. Finally a HCR issue that really is hugh. Big Pharma's number 1 issue. This alone

would decrease health care costs enormously, and the White House blocks it.

[Cant trust em]

19. The White House is clearly interested in getting some reform...

even if its weaker than it could be.

This is the path of least resistance.

[Cant trust em]

20. Opposition from the White House might not mean crap.

Not like they've had much influence in this debate as it is.

If they advocate in opposition to this as hard as they supported the public option then it could pass.

[Neecy]

22. What a farce.

The "White House and the drug makers" working hand in hand to fuck over the American people with the complicity of Congress.

This is all so brazen. I can't believe they do this shit openly - crime sprees used to be a little better disguised.

[Enrique]

23. video of Tom Carper pleading senators to honor Obama's Pharma deal

cites the "Golden Rule"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJa_kTXad1Q

[Thickasabrick]

29. Thanks......makes it even more nauseating. nt

[Bluebear]

32. oh my lord...

[dana_b]

79. f*** the "golden rule"

and f*** him. Sorry - I know that' not helpful but I'm so sick of this stuff. Everyday its some new betrayal or some crap that wasn't even on the radar before now.

[StarfarerBill]

24. They're going for a clean sweep: No single-payer, no public option, no Canadian pharmaceuticals.

The corporate/Congressional trifecta! W. would be proud...

[rudy23]

46. Don't forget about the mandates! :)

Don't forget that now we're forced by the government to buy into this racket under penalty of law.

[StarfarerBill]

48. Good point; make that a quadfecta!

:banghead:

[inna]

66. I don't think a Republican president would be able to get away with this crap.

People would be out in the streets already if it was McCain or Bush behind the same monstrosity of a legislation.

Who needs Republicans with "Democrats" like these.

:banghead:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Everybody read the story, right?

"Opponents of the amendment worry that many more Republicans may join the amendment not because they agree with it, but because they want to put the health care bill in jeopardy."

There's your answer.

[blindpig]

27. Ah, chess......

(need a smilie for giggles)

[leftstreet]

30. Ah, you've got the wrong board there

[Thickasabrick]

31. I love Spock. nt

[inna]

68. .

:P

Borock:

[KamaAina]

34. This is the first truly bipartisan thing that has happened in Congress since 1994

and what does President Bipartisan do? :eyes:

[timeforpeace]

35. Just mind boggling that this, and the Afghan war, are the hills he has decided to fight on.

[liberation]

55. Funny, ain't it?

Apparently supporting actual health insurance reform would put him in a collision course with right wingers, so he completely capitulated lest he "hurt the feelings of the right."

Yet he had no significant problems angering liberals with his escalation of the war in Afghanistan.


I am not going to vote Dem again, most likely, since I have seen them only grow a spine when it comes to completely undermine or throw liberal policies and interests under the bus. Liberals sticking with the Dem party remind me of the abused partner in a relationship, who is trying too hard to earn the validation of their abuser. Next time, the Dems can count on the votes of those wonderful conservatives who would rather stick hot coals in their eye sockets than vote Dem. Good luck...

[earcandle]

80. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water... not all dems are like this. Vote Kucinich and

Grayson!  We'll get it right.  Don't let them undermine our
context for being, or let pretend dems taint the party.

[Dr.Phool]

54. Bi-partisan means.

They take turns fucking us.

[liberation]

57. I like Carlin's definition of bipartisanship:

“The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out”


And when it comes to go with the old dude who was always correct or trust the young charlatan, I know where my money is...

[gateley]

40. The FDA has concerns? Where was their concern when they approved all those

drugs that were later found to be harmful to people? (Not to mention aspartame!)

[Kansas Wyatt]

51. Like the drugs Big Pharma outsourced to China?

Oh, the worry was, 'you don't know if someone has been cooking the stuff up in tin pots.' Yet, Big Pharma outsourced it to be cooked up in tin pots anyway, and still jacked up all the prices.

[change_notfinetuning]

73. which the FDA doesn't have enough inspectors to ensure the quality of - so

we rely on China's quality control. Now there's an oxymoron.

[pinto]

41. Carper's hold only buys two days, iirc. Dorgan will get a vote on the Amendment.

Then we'll see.

[druidity33]

47. thank you

That's important info that i hadn't seen anywhere. Why wouldn't that be part of the lede in the articles/blog posts i've been reading about this?

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

50. are a lot of pharmeceutical companies based in delaware?

:shrug:

[QC]

53. How very, very hopeful and changealicious! n/t

[femrap]

56. Even Vitter....

the dude who pays women to diaper him so he can shit himself and get off on it...????

This is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond 'fucking sucks.'

[mmonk]

60. In Congress, political strategy is seldom about the best interests of the people.

It should be about right and wrong but alas, it seldom is.

[inna]

62. fucking incredible.

wtf, Obama??

:wtf:

:banghead:

[samsingh]

64. all i can say is 'wow'

[dhpgetsit]

67. It seems that The Powers Than Be will stop at nothing

to prevent any legislation that is REALLY intended to benefit We the People.

We must destroy this Neo-Fascist regime.

[drm604]

69. Read the update at the end of the article.

I don't know how long the update's been there, but it's there now and it says that the White House is denying this.

UPDATE: "We're not whipping against the Dorgan amendment. Those rumors just aren't true," says a White House aide in an e-mail. The aide says that the White House has taken no position on the amendment.

So we've got unnamed Senate sources saying one thing, and an unnamed White House aid saying the opposite.

Who should we believe? I have no idea, but let's not jump all over this until we know the facts for sure.

[katkat]

75. I hate holds

They should be done away with completely.

Is there anyway for them to be overridden?

[flyarm]

76. Harry Reid Slips Lifetime Limit Into Senate Bill

Harry Reid Slips Lifetime Limit Into Senate Bill

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/11/harry-reid-slips-lifetime-limit-into-senate-bill/

Harry Reid Slips Lifetime Limit Into Senate Bill
By: Jane Hamsher Friday December 11, 2009 8:34 am

When President Obama gave his speech on health care on September 10, he promised that there would be no limit on lifetime benefits under the health care bill:

They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.

Harry Reid didn’t agree evidently. Reid, who is solely responsible for crafting the bill that he introduced in the Senate, decided that there should be a limit on lifetime benefits. So when people get sick and have huge bills for things like biologic drugs that cost $50,000 or $100,000 a year, whose bills could become “unreasonable” because Congress is granting drug manufacturers “indefinite monopolies” (per Henry Waxman) that prevent generics from coming to market to compete with them, Harry Reid thinks they should eventually be cut off:

A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.

The legislation that originally passed the Senate health committee last summer would have banned such limits, but a tweak to that provision weakened it in the bill now moving toward a Senate vote.

[glinda]

81. The irony is that US medical companies are attempting to change Canadian HC system..

[varelse]

84. Why are free trade and the global competition so important

except when they might actually benefit the majority?

American manufacturers aren't generally protected so blatantly from competition in the modern market, so why are the US-based drug companies getting coddled?

[walldude]

87. Relax... nothing to worry about. You are going to get a half assed crappy

bill shoved up your ass no matter what. They can delay all they want now.