The Medicare Part-D "negotiation" bill (HR 4) that just passed in the House is shameful. Nearly every Democratic member of Congress ran on a promise to "fix the Medicare drug bill." They said such things in earnest tones at senior centers and school gyms and barns packed with everyday Americans. We believed them.
Now they’re in the squeaky halls of power in DC with Big Pharma lobbyists dangling bags of cash, and they think the American people are too stupid to recognize their flim-flam.
The Democrats preened on the floor of the House as though what they’re passing will actually do some good. Democratic Rep. Mike Ross said his wife called him from home saying she had to turn off the TV because of the lies the Republicans are spouting in opposition to their "fix." He said (paraphrasing), "Today we are letting the sun shine on our seniors and the way we conduct business in the chamber by holding the drug companies accountable." Bullshit.
Here’s what the Republicans really think of it (via Austin in PA’s diary from earlier today):
Consultant Alec Vachon, a former Republican staffer on the Senate Finance Committee, said, "The bill gives Leavitt no new powers to negotiate drug prices." Vachon added, "It's straight out of 'Oliver Twist.' All Mike Leavitt can do is go to drug manufacturers and say, 'Please, Sir, may I have some more discounts?' If Pfizer says 'no,' what does he do then?"
They think we’re stupid. There is no other explanation, other than the fact that a significant portion of the Democratic caucus is addicted to the high of drug money:
"But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her allies chose a far less ambitious plan -- to require the government to negotiate for lower Medicare drug prices -- that will come to a vote today. They stepped back largely out of concern that the pharmaceutical industry would stall a complex change, denying them a quick victory on a top consumer-oriented priority, aides say."
"A quick victory," is what they want. A quick perceived victory, not a quick real victory. They think they can go back to their districts this weekend and say to their constituents: "We made good on our promise," as though the average voter can’t understand the plain truth outlined in the CBO letter sent to Rep. Dingell on Jan 10 (via a comment by relentless in Austin in PA’s earlier diary):
CBO estimates that H.R. 4 would have a negligible effect on federal spending because we anticipate that the Secretary would be unable to negotiate prices across the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by PDPs under current law. Since the legislation specifically directs the Secretary to negotiate only about the prices that could be charged to PDPs, and explicitly indicates that the Secretary would not have authority to negotiate about some other factors that may influence the prescription drug market, we assume that the negotiations would be limited solely to a discussion about the prices to be charged to PDPs. In that context, the Secretary’s ability to influence the outcome of those negotiations would be limited.
It’s all part of a coordinated dance to create the illusion of doing something. Also from the Washington Post article this morning:
Helping lead the industry's charge is Breaux, the former senator, who is one of only two Democrats who played a role in drafting the 2003 bill. He said he plans to hopscotch the country holding public seminars on solving health-care problems, often in the states and districts of members of Congress who are pivotal to drug legislation. It is part of a program, called Ceasefire on Health Care, that is bankrolled by the drug company Pfizer and has featured speakers such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), who both sit on the Finance Committee.
It is a War on Health Care
More from the AP:
Democrats have said that savings produced by the negotiations would be used to reduce a coverage gap that is common in many plans. Reducing the gap, known as the doughnut hole, would lower those beneficiaries' out-of-pocket costs.
But Republicans counter that there wouldn't be any savings. Also, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation was unlikely to result in savings to taxpayers.