Obama Announces Agreement With Drug Companies

This is what some posters have referred to as a secret deal that Pres. Obama made with drug manufacturers. Maybe I am not seeing the whole picture, but it seems to be a mighty good thing for seniors on Medicare - which most of us are.

Precisely, what is the problem with this "deal"?

According to the article, "It was not immediately clear how much of the $80 billion would benefit Medicare beneficiaries directly and what portion would accrue to the federal Treasury. The offer is contingent upon enactment of a sweeping health-system overhaul.

"For the past week, Obama and congressional Democrats have struggled to overcome anxiety that extending health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans might cost the nation more than $100 billion a year. While surveys show a majority of voters are eager for broad changes to the nation's health system, polls also indicate growing unease over the rising deficit and the financial burden of a series of industry bailouts."

buggyone - i believe the problem [or part of it - at least for me] was that the pharma cos RAISED the prices on the medications prior to the implementation of this agreement. the increased prices enabled the payment of the $80 bil!

my medications rose to off-the-wall prices - and i am NOT on medicare plan d! am not on medicare - and won't be for a while! i am fortunate that i found a grocery chain that offers some of my prescriptions at reduced cost - but not all of them!

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

According to the article, "It was not immediately clear how much of the $80 billion would benefit Medicare beneficiaries directly and what portion would accrue to the federal Treasury. The offer is contingent upon enactment of a sweeping health-system overhaul.

"For the past week, Obama and congressional Democrats have struggled to overcome anxiety that extending health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans might cost the nation more than $100 billion a year. While surveys show a majority of voters are eager for broad changes to the nation's health system, polls also indicate growing unease over the rising deficit and the financial burden of a series of industry bailouts."

Once again, I have to ask - since this seems to be a very good plan for seniors on Medicare, what, precisely, is the problem with the deal?

Originally Posted by buggyone

Once again, I have to ask - since this seems to be a very good plan for seniors on Medicare, what, precisely, is the problem with the deal?

The way I read the article, there isn't a deal yet.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Obama Announces Agreement With Drug Companies

This is what some posters have referred to as a secret deal that Pres. Obama made with drug manufacturers. Maybe I am not seeing the whole picture, but it seems to be a mighty good thing for seniors on Medicare - which most of us are.

Precisely, what is the problem with this "deal"?

You are not even in the same conversation.

The "deals" he made are the ones made "privately" during the putting together of OBAMA CARE. They sure did not come out in 2009 which is the date of your link.

It is beginning to come out. I will link you to TWO sites. First is a site that reports stuff like this in our language and the second is the actual report from the HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE...albeit a Republican controlled committe but facts are facts I would say....

This is from this month...May of 2012

"The House Energy and Commerce Committee issued a press release today, concerning the many back-room deals that helped push ObamaCare upon an unwilling populace:

In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama repeatedly made promises to usher in an era of transparency, “put an end to the game playing,” and broadcast health care negotiations on C-SPAN. However, in 2009, a series of conflicting media accounts documented efforts by the authors of the health care law to make an agreement or series of agreements with health care industry stakeholders to squelch opposition and generate support for the legislation. These meetings and negotiations with various outside interest groups were never made public, and many members of Congress – from both parties – were not a part of those negotiations.

House Energy and Commerce began looking into these little “deals” back in February 2011. Today’s release highlights a secret deal between the White House and PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America.

It was widely known that PhRMA was brought on board to support ObamaCare, but it has always been portrayed as an understanding reached between pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and the Senate Finance Committee. The extent of the White House’s involvement was kept under wraps, but according to the House committee’s new briefing memo, it appears to have included efforts from then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel and Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina.:"

"Messina eventually grew angry that PhRMA CEO Billy Tauzin was reneging on their end of the agreement, because he sent an email to the association’s top lobbyist that said, “What the hell? This wasn’t part of our deal.” They must have ironed out their differences, because two months later ObamaCare got through Congress, and the rest is (grim) history.

Precisely what was included in “our deal,” as the Deputy White House Chief of Staff called it? The House Energy and Commerce Committee promises to lay out the details “in the coming weeks,” along with discussing “how the full details of this agreement were kept from both the public and the House of Representatives.”

This obfuscation was quite deliberate, as an email between White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy Ann DeParle and a PhRMA representative makes clear. In the email, DeParle muses, “I think we should have included the House of Representatives, but maybe we never would have gotten anywhere if we had.”

The ObamaCare drug deal - HUMAN EVENTS

Now, as you can see there was some monkey shines going on and they have been digging and digging trying to find out what went on because DESPITE WHAT OBAMA SAID THIS ENTIRE LAW WAS DONE IN SECRET...and I suppose in years to come we will find out more.

Now, if you want to read the actual report...this will link you to it...

"http://energycommerce.house.gov/media/file/pdfs/20120516Obamacaredeals.pdf

I am sorry...you are not going to be able USING FACTS to make him an honest man !!!!!


PS...YOUR LINK IS NOT THE DEAL THAT POSTERS REFER TO....WE REFER TO THE BACKROOM AND SECRET ONES LIKE THIS

A little more on the deception, and a reference to the article that the thread starter linked to.....it is referred to in the report...

from the op link...

"On Saturday afternoon, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) put out a news release announcing that he had "secured an $80 billion commitment" from drugmakers."

From the House report...

"On June 20, 2009, the White House issued a 296-word statement from President Obama
announcing an agreement between the nation’s pharmaceutical companies and the Senate.6 The
statement makes no mention of White House involvement."

"The investigation has determined that the White House, primarily through the Office of Health Reform Director Nancy Ann DeParle and Messina, with involvement from Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, was actively engaged in these negotiations while the role of Congress was limited. For example, three days before the June 20 statement, the head of PhRMA promised Messina, “we will deliver a final yes to you by morning.” 7 Meanwhile, Ms. DeParle all but confirmed that half of the Legislative Branch was shut out in an email to a PhRMA representative: “I think we should have included the House in the discussions, but maybe we never would have gotten anywhere if we had.”8
Given these facts, it is unclear why the White House did not fully disclose its involvement with outside stakeholders in the development of the legislation. Their efforts are particularly surprising given the President’s repeated promises of transparency."

"After this Committee initiated its investigation into the potential promises or agreements made between PhRMA, labor unions, insurers, medical associations, and other trade and advocacy organizations, the White House derided the Committee’s request for basic information about its legislative efforts as “vast and expensive.” The White House refused to produce any of the requested documents and only produced to the Committee a list of meetings based on “calendar entries and other readily available information.” These calendar entries do not provide information on the attendees or details of discussion."

isn't the problem the vague way information about the bill is presented?
Very typical and let there be no doubt the lack of specificity is by design. Remember they are lawyers and know exactly the intents.

And we all know the words released to we the people do not match the reality of the bill or it's intents.

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

isn't the problem the vague way information about the bill is presented?
Very typical and let there be no doubt the lack of specificity is by design. Remember they are lawyers and know exactly the intents.

And we all know the words released to we the people do not match the reality of the bill or it's intents.

btk

DUPLICITY

DEF..."the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action "

USE IN A SENTENCE....Obama care was the epitome of duplicity !!!

Do I see your point as being you are angry about the Health Care act because it was not done publically on C-SPAN as Pres. Obama said it would happen?

To me, the Affordable Health Care Act is a very positive thing and is going to help millions of Americans who are uninsured and who could not get health insurance otherwise. It is helping seniors who have lost health insurance and cannot get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions and is reducing the "donut hole" for Medicare drugs. Aren't these good things?

Originally Posted by buggyone

Do I see your point as being you are angry about the Health Care act because it was not done publically on C-SPAN as Pres. Obama said it would happen?

To me, the Affordable Health Care Act is a very positive thing and is going to help millions of Americans who are uninsured and who could not get health insurance otherwise. It is helping seniors who have lost health insurance and cannot get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions and is reducing the "donut hole" for Medicare drugs. Aren't these good things?

It is not JUST the Cspan thing at all. THE ENTIRE process was done behind closed doors...he used blackmail for votes...he paid off drug lobbyists with deals. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HIS OWN WORDS WERE...THAT the most important thing was too reduce health costs...NOT DONE AT ALL. Address tort reform...NOT DONE AT ALL.

Plus if you check the CBO recently because the bill was paid for by "maybes" and "what ifs" the cost is rising through the roof along with health care costs.

Yes, they are good things...if he had done JUST that but he couldnt stop...dont you understand...he is quoted as this being his "legacy" and Joe Biden said famously, "this is a big f%^&*() deal"

The Supreme Court will announce it's decision next month on whether the Affordable Care Act will continue or not. If it is overturned, a lot of people will lose their benefits immediately, such as seniors paying less for meds, young people not being allowed to stay on their parents plans until age 26, people being discriminated against for pre-existing conditions, and people being denied coverage.

I think it's a winning issue either way for President Obama. If it's overturned, he can say I tried my best to pass this, and if reelected I will try for universal health care for all, which would not be unconstitutional. There is a reason why Obama wanted this case decided before the election, when it could have been deferred until next year.

To me, the Affordable Health Care Act is a very positive thing and is going to help millions of Americans who are uninsured and who could not get health insurance otherwise. It is helping seniors who have lost health insurance and cannot get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions and is reducing the "donut hole" for Medicare drugs. Aren't these good things?

I am torn by Obama Care.

First it was done in a way that said to the American people that what you think about this does not matter, it is going to happen and you are going to like it!

Second, I don't think that Obama or anybody in government have ANY idea of how much this will save or cost. It is a guess based on bad politics and bad math.

Third, I think this will saddle my daughter and her family with a bill that the government, me, you, or anybody even has a small grasp on what this will really cost, if they say they do, they are lying!

Which brings me to the part where I am torn. I am not that far away from retiring and medicare and what you say would benefit me, but at what cost.
I plan on drawing my SSI when I am 62 but I also know that is on the backs of our sons and daughters! Now add on health care!!
I have to admit that thinking about maybe having a saftey net when I retire that may help protect my savings from health cost sounds great but am I going to have to save even more and use less of it in my retirement so I can give it to my daughter so she can pay for this "Good Deal" ???

I think it is a nice idea created in a bad way by bad polititians. Ones who would and have told us anything to get it passed and I am suprised that you think that it would all just turn out great, like say SSI. That is going so well right now. Our children are going to have to pay for that and health care.
And please don't tell me that health care is going to go down and cost us all less. That is just the party line.

Originally Posted by janmcn

The Supreme Court will announce it's decision next month on whether the Affordable Care Act will continue or not. If it is overturned, a lot of people will lose their benefits immediately, such as seniors paying less for meds, young people not being allowed to stay on their parents plans until age 26, people being discriminated against for pre-existing conditions, and people being denied coverage.

I think it's a winning issue either way for President Obama. If it's overturned, he can say I tried my best to pass this, and if reelected I will try for universal health care for all, which would not be unconstitutional. There is a reason why Obama wanted this case decided before the election, when it could have been deferred until next year.

janmcn - if indeed that supreme court decision should come to pass, can't the congress - just as quickly - pass legislation that will maintain those "good" protections so that they are not lost? after all, the legislation should be shorter to write and to read!!!

Originally Posted by notlongnow

I am torn by Obama Care.
[snip]
I think it is a nice idea created in a bad way by bad polititians. Ones who would and have told us anything to get it passed and I am suprised that you think that it would all just turn out great, like say SSI. That is going so well right now. Our children are going to have to pay for that and health care.
And please don't tell me that health care is going to go down and cost us all less. That is just the party line.

good points, all, notlongnow. media is deluged with cries that we are leaving too many bills to be paid by future generations! how come others think that it is okay to leave this bill to them? how should we determine which they should pay for and which they should not? oh, my, my!