President Obama should disclose all "deals" made with the drug, insurance and health care industry!

[Better Believe It]

The Obama Administration should fully disclose all "closed door" deals, agreements and understandings they may have reached with the drug, insurance and health industry now!

That's how the White House can end all of the speculation and confusion regarding any closed door deals they may have made with the drug cartel or any other segment of the health care industry. That's called transparency.

And the White House should make no further closed door deals with those special business interests.

Is that unreasonable and expecting too much from President Obama who promised a new government openness and transparency, a change we all supported and wanted to believe in?

President Obama said on January 21, 2009: "this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known."

Unless that was empty political rhetoric, President Obama should have no problem releasing any and all information regarding this matter.

[katandmoon]

1. It was empty political rhetoric.

[timeforpeace]

12. Even if he did, everyone here would still support it. So what's the point?

We would destroy the earth in His name if he had made that a campaign promise.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

19. Following the lead of someone attempting to make a positive change seems like a

better choice to me then paying any attention to the eternally whiney and unhappy.

[ThomCat]

62. Right. Didn't we see that it was empty political rhetoric

months ago, with his private deals with Wall Street? How can this be a surprise to anyone?

He's going to meet with the big corporations to find a compromise they'll buy into, which means one that ensures that they stay profitable. And then he'll announce his success in helping us, even though our interests were not strongly represented at that table.

It would have been nice if we had lobbyists who represented us as thoroughly and unfailingly as the corporate lobbyists represent their clients. And it would be wonderful if politicians let our reps sit at the table during these negotiations. But the only people who supposedly represent us all took money from the corporations. So nobody truly represents just us. x(

[Better Believe It]

67. Deals and more deals. And where are we during all of this deal making?

Is anyone asking President Obama to release all of the facts regarding these "deals"?

[ProSense]

2. Maybe you should stick to facts.

Statement from the President Obama on Agreement to Bring Down Drug Prices for Americans Seniors

"I am pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached between Senator Max Baucus and the nation's pharmaceutical companies that will bring down health care costs and reduce the price of prescription drugs for millions of America's seniors. As part of the health reform legislation that I expect Congress to enact this year, pharmaceutical companies will extend discounts on prescription drugs to millions of seniors who currently are subjected to crushing out-of-pocket expenses when the yearly amounts they pay for medication fall within the doughnut hole any payments by seniors not covered by Medicare that fall between $2700 and $6153.75 per year. The existence of this gap in coverage has been a continuing injustice that has placed a great burden on many seniors. This deal will provide significant relief from that burden for millions of American seniors".

"The agreement by pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the health reform effort comes on the heels of the landmark pledge many health industry leaders made to me last month, when they offered to do their part to reduce health spending $2 trillion over the next decade. We are at a turning point in America's journey toward health care reform. Key sectors of the health care industry acknowledge what American families and businesses already know - that the status quo is no longer sustainable. The agreement reached today to lower prescription drug costs for seniors will be an important part of the legislation I expect to sign into law in October. I want to commend House chairmen Henry Waxman, George Miller and Charles Rangel for addressing this issue in the health reform legislation they unveiled this week. This is a tangible example of the type of reform that will lower costs while assuring quality health care for every American".

Kerry, Stabenow, Nelson Push to Address 'Doughnut Hole' During Health Reform

Obama Tackles Medicare’s Donut Hole

Deal, no secret.

[depakid]

8. Details of the "deal?"

None that I can see.

[Cha]

9. He can't stick to facts

because then he'd have to lay off the whine.

[solstice]

25. So why the FUCK doesn't Obama get rid of the DONUT HOLE?

The only "discount" that would be meaningful for seniors would be a 100% discount.

So just how much of a "discount" will Obama's big pharma pals be handing out? Not much of one, I'll bet.

[IndianaGreen]

30. How about this LBN story? It debunks your PR release.

White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: August 5, 2009

WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4002572&mesg_id=4002572

[earth mom]

3. Exactly. But given all the U/R's on this thread, few around here want to hear this.

Funny too given that there is a rant at the top of the greatest page telling people to search for truth.

Obviously some truth is disposable when it points to the lies of the Obama administration. :eyes:

[debbierlus]

41. Love your quote.

[rocktivity]

4. There was no deal

At least, there's no reason to believe there was one.

The New York Times turned an assertion by a Rethug pharma lobbyist and a very vauge line from an e-mail by Obama's deputy chief of staff into a "done deal." But now they're backing away from the story--by insinuating that it's the Obama White House that's backing away from the story!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Better Believe It]

5. If that's true, President Obama can address the matter publicly by

clearly stating that his administration has not made or reached any "deals", agreements or understandings with the drug cartel or any other healthcare industry special interest regarding healthcare legislation.

[ProSense]

6. He can also hold a press conference to show his birth certificate.

There was no deal, but, according to you, Obama must publicly state that there was no deal to prove to you that there was no deal? How RWingish of you.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Baltoman991]

10. Get over

yourself. President Obama wasn't elected to kiss your ass and your ass only. Why is it that when someone points out FACTS to you, you blow right over those posts and continue down thread demanding he do things you claim he has or hasn't done?

Seriously, your spew is getting tiresome and quite boring.

You've made your case. Nothing Obama does is going to be good enough for you short of literally kissing your ass. So get used to the fact that it isn't going to happen.

[Cha]

11. Yep, it's all about them and their latest

way they can twist what-ever into a bloated whinefest.

[Better Believe It]

14. So President Obama being open and transparent is kissing my ass ....

and everyone else who hoped the days of closed door "deals" with Wall Street and corporate American were over?

Whatever. Once again you sidestepped the subject matter and decided to engage in a personal attack and trash talk rather than civil debate and discussion.

Did you also support the Bush's governments closed door deals with big coal and big oil? I guess you forgot all about Richard Cheney's secret Energy Task Force. Do we need to refresh your memory on that?

[debbierlus]

40. It is sad to witness the same people who bashed Bush supporter's as 'sheep'

Act the same exact way, under Obama.

[tranche]

35. He also needs to publicaly address his relationship with Louis Farrakhan

:eyes:

[Better Believe It]

38. That's bogus and has nothing to do with the subject matter here.

Of course, you already knew that.

But what a clever remark if one can't understand the subject matter!

Bet it took you all day to think up that one, rookie!

[mkultra]

59. he already did, but much like a birther, the evidence was rejected by you and IndianaGreen

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Given how much people here freak out at anonymous sources in politico

I don't think he should disclose a damn thing until health care gets passed.

[Better Believe It]

15. I take it you haven't read any of the public sources in the New York Times and other publications.

Well, President Obama could clear this all up quickly by releasing any and all information on any closed deals the White House might have made with the drug cartel and other health care special interest business groups.

He could, but you don't want him to.

You wrote: "I don't think he should disclose a damn thing until health care gets passed."

So you think we should accept with support any kind of bill written by the insurance industry and drug cartel that might be voted on by Congress?

I take it from your comment that you don't favor any more openness and transparency in the government than we experienced during the Bush government which was next to none.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Quite frankly, I don't care what you accept or don't accept

[Better Believe It]

17. Unfortunately that also seems to be the attitude of the drug cartel and insurance companies.

They don't care what we think.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. I'm sure they don't

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

20. I 'd like to see this, but if I don't then I'll at least have satisfaction of watching

you and your troupe get all puckered up about it. At this point it almost makes it worth it.

[newinnm]

27. Never mind his promises huh

He promised that the healthcare negotiations would be done in the public eye.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Every politician breaks promises

Jesse Ventura probably kept more of his promises than any other politician I can think of. He was still a shitty Governor.

[IndianaGreen]

36. They call upon us to supply American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do.

May I remind of how Lyndon Johnson's 1964 broken promise of not sending American boys half-way around the world to fight the battles of Asian boys ended up destroying his Presidency.

In Obama's case, it may well be a promise kept that will bring him down: the foolish commitment to an expanded war in Afghanistan!

On edit, since we are on this topic:

Costly U.S. campaign expected in Afghanistan

Decade-long presence could be more expensive than Iraq, analysts say

By Walter Pincus

As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war.

Since the invasion of Afghanistan eight years ago, the United States has spent $223 billion on war-related funding for that country, according to the Congressional Research Service. Aid expenditures, excluding the cost of combat operations, have grown exponentially, from $982 million in 2003 to $9.3 billion last year.

The costs are almost certain to keep growing. The Obama administration is in the process of overhauling the U.S. approach to Afghanistan, putting its focus on long-term security, economic sustainability and development. That approach is also likely to require deployment of more American military personnel, at the very least to train additional Afghan security forces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32346408/ns/world_news-washington_post/

This is the wrong strategy, and it will cost a lot in terms of treasure and lives.

[boppers]

18. I haven't seen anything in this thread proving such a deal was made.

Of course, wild-eyed speculation of conspiracy, complete with mis-pointed fingers, trumps facts for the willfully outraged.

Here's a starting politcal hint, for those who failed basic US government 101:

1. Obama's administration has no power to write legislation based on such hypothetical deals.
2. Obama's administration actually works in a different branch of government.
3. Blaming Obama, therefore, is a willful distortion of facts.

[depakid]

21. Hey, I'd just like to see the details of the $80 billion dollar savings

that supposed are going to help close the Medicare Part D donut hole. This was announced 6 weeks ago- but I've not seen a single thing about what was purportedly put on the table.

[boppers]

22. 80 billion in reduced future profits. (Savings? Heh.)

What was put on the table:
Do this or else we either nationalize you, regulate you out of business, or reduce your monopoly on drugs.

Basically, the bargain was that pharma has to promise to make less accelerated profits in the future, and be a slightly less expected profit growth industry, while still being profitable as a private business.

"Savings" is spin.

Kind of like dealing with a nasty landlord, and getting him to agree that they will only increase your rent 2% next year, instead of an expected 12%, and claiming that the negotiation was a 10% "savings". In return, the landlord doesn't get his property seized.

[masuki bance]

24. Shouldn't this be a response to #18? nt

[boppers]

42. #18 was about Obama.

Obama didn't cut the deal or write the legislation, he gave direction about what kind of bill he'd like to sign.

[Better Believe It]

44. So President Obama cut a deal without really cutting a deal.

Thanks for the clarification.

Glad to hear from you that there is a iron wall of seperation between the White House and Congress.

If the White House isn't involved in negotiations with members of Congress and the health care industry on legislation what is Rahm Emanual's job? Going on coffee runs for White House staffers?

And why are all of these members of Congress regularly visiting the White House .... perhaps just taking in the White House tour?

Come now, you understand how politics really works in Washington, right?

You're just putting us on, right?

[boppers]

45. You got me.

The American government is actually a dictatorship, and everything Obama says, and does, must be followed by Congress.

If Obama says something will happen a certain way, Congress just provides window dressing.

Rahm's job is just to make it look like Obama talks and negotiates with congress, when the real secret is that Congress is just filled with obedient servants to the Dear Leader.

Thus, anything Congress does, or doesn't do, is REALLY Obama's doing.

[IndianaGreen]

32. You are the one living in denial, and you are enabling secret deals

White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: August 5, 2009

WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”

<snip>

Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”

A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4002572&mesg_id=4002572

[boppers]

43. Thanks for putting something in-thread.

I'm still missing the part where Obama writes the legislation, and should be blamed, especially since Obama is only in the seat for 8 years maximum, but laws stay on the books for much, much, longer.

So, are they going to re-negotiate with Obama in 10 years, or Congress?

[newinnm]

26. Come out on record

Saying whether there was a deal or not. How hard can that be?

[mkultra]

60. already done and denied.

[leftofthedial]

28. and banks

[IndianaGreen]

29. The morons that unrecommend this are enabling smoke-filled room deals

What became of the transparency promised during the campaign?

White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: August 5, 2009

WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4002572&mesg_id=4002572

[TheWraith]

31. They've already said no deals have been made. What more do you expect? nt

[IndianaGreen]

33. Just like they said there was no more torture or spying on Americans

If Bush had a "D" after his name, there would be people here cheering everything he did.

I kid you not, I saw that shit happen when LBJ was President and the war in Vietnam was raging. Those that opposed the war were called disloyal and traitors.

[boppers]

46. No more spying on americans? What?

When did anybody *ever* say that? Were search warrants suspended at some time, or FISA, or foreign intelligence?

[Better Believe It]

37. President Obama said deals have been made with the health care industry

Are you claiming that he lied?

[mkultra]

61. Obama said that CONGRESS made deals with them

can you prove that he is lying?

[debbierlus]

39. Surreal. Unrecommends for transparency about deals with corporate insurance & big pharm

Wtf?

Unrecommending a post about transparency of government?

This is just weird.

Who is unrecommending these posts?

[ProSense]

47. "Unrecommending a post about transparency of government?"

Maybe they're unrecommending kneejerk reactions to bullshit rumors.

[uponit7771]

48. ****WHITE HOUSE SAID THERE WAS NO DEAL MADE!!!!*****

Another knee jerk "believe the M$M" post

[Better Believe It]

49. President Obama publicly bragged about the 80 billion dollar deal he made with big Pharma

Have you conveniently forgotten that?

[FrenchieCat]

50. It wasn't a nefarious "secret Deal"....it was a gentlemen's agreement.

Didn't you follow the news at the time?

Obama wasn't "bragging"....
he was simply announcing
what many are now attempting
to make seem was a secret.

More people insured means more drugs sold by Drug Companies,
even at a lower price....its the volume that counts.
but you knew that...right?

[Better Believe It]

54. And tell us what "gentlemen" represented the insurance industry and drug cartel?

You actually call these corporate crooks and opponents of a strong public option "gentlemen"????!!!!

I have to wonder what you call the Wall Street banksters!

Was this one of your Republican big Pharma "gentlemen" you had in mind?

Billy Tauzin, American lobbyist and politician is President and CEO of PhRMA, a pharmaceutical company lobby group.

[FrenchieCat]

55. Did you have your hissy fit in March too?

cause that is when Tauzin was publicized as being involved
in working on this deal.

And to be honest, I really don't give a shit who he is,
the point is there ain't no legislated deal,
just a handshake.

I'd rather have the drug lobby sitting on the sideline this time around,
than have them adding their money and voices against health care reform
in this debate a la 1993.

Other than biting on this tired hit piece by the media,
who, perhaps like you, would prefer the status quo,
what is your point?

[Better Believe It]

57. Why do you think the drug cartel is sitting around on the sidelines during this process.

You wrote: "I'd rather have the drug lobby sitting on the sideline this time around,"

All of the evidence clearly indicates the drug cartel is playing a huge role in the drafting and promotion of health care legislation that will enrich them beyond their wildest dreams!

And you think they are on the sidelines?

[ProSense]

51. Is that what they're calling official statements now

public bragging?

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

56. Better Believe it!

Especially if it is the President speaking.

[solstice]

52. *****WHITE HOUSE LIED LIED LIED!!!!!*******

AS USUAL.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/health/policy/09lobby.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

August 9, 2009
Drug Industry to Run Ads Favoring White House Plan
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON — The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.

The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.

With House Democrats moving to extract more than that just as the drug makers finalized their advertising plans, the industry lobbyists pressed the Obama administration for public reassurances that it had agreed to cap the industry’s additional costs at $80 billion. The White House, meanwhile, has struggled to mollify its most pivotal health industry ally without alienating Congressional Democrats who want to demand far more of the drug makers. White House officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Many Democratic lawmakers have railed for years against what they consider the industry’s excessive profits and pointedly insisted in recent days that they do not feel bound by the White House’s commitments.

[ThomCat]

64. +1

All the people who keep insisting that no deal existed just because they don't know about it, and their hero Obama would never do such a thing, should post some serous retractions now. :P

[Vidar]

53. No, we can't have him honoring his promise for "transparency in government".

[dionysus]

58. elevens!!1!!!!!!!!11

[Better Believe It]

63. Posts 58 - 61 are on ignore! I'm sure they didn't have much of anything useful to contribute/

If any brainless blowhards annoy you, just put them on ignore for a month or so. You can check back to see if they've learned to behave in the civil and democratic manner.

[ThomCat]

65. No, they didn't. Just knew-jerk shit with nothing behind it.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

66. There was no deal

There was no deal

White House says there was no deal. You insist there was. Oh well. LOL!