Mahakali Overdrive was on the rec list a few days ago with a diary called Rep. Anna Eshoo Responds to Jane Hamsher. It was one of the better diaries I've seen and I was happy to rec it as the issue hit close to home and the approach taken was serious and fair. The background is that Rep. Eshoo cosponsored an amendment that provides a 12 year period of exclusivity for biosimilar medicines. Jane wrote a post attacking the amendment as a death sentence for cancer patients. Eshoo responded, and Mahakali Overdrive did a fantastic job in summarizing the whole issue.
Jane was not so happy about it and called Mahakali a paid troll and sneered that FDL wouldn't allow that type of post. Mahakali has since taken a break from dKos. I wish it weren't so.
Jane made some mistakes here; a hyperbolic title and a hair trigger on calling out trolls (in the FDL post she even goes after (and later apologies to) a long respected member of her own community, who appeared in the video with a supporting sign).
However, I don't want this to be a Jane Hamsher bashing diary she does a lot of great work. Specifically she provided the talking point that Democrats in the House would not support a bill without a public option. The efforts in whipping Progressive members was quite influential in the debate. For once I thought, there are some activists that know how to get their message into the talking head debate and advance their causes. This is the key to why the Eshoo amendment = death sentence argument was ineffective. It didn't improve the debate or advance the cause.
Despite some oft expressed dissentiment I think it's awesome that Jane hired Slinkerwink to blog for $$. We should all be so lucky (PS: I'm available, and so is MinistryOfTruth, Grayson if you're reading this hire him over at Congressmanwithguts.com).
Lets talk about me, I'm a huge concern troll. I live in Anna Eshoo's district. I live in my parents' house paid for by biotechnology (heart disease drugs). From the founding to it's sale earlier this year the company was not ever profitable. It would have been profitable either in it's 18th or 19th year. So, at least in their case there was a real need for a period of exclusivity. I'm all for strong antitrust actions, but I'm not convinced that these periods of exclusivity (p.o.e.) equate monopoly threats. We need to consider interdependencies (how firms interact). Does this p.o.e. keep other entrants from the market? I doubt it, given the long time from founding to profitability and the high costs of FDA approval. What would be the effects on the amount of novel drugs and the cost of them with less of a p.o.e.?
At this time I am now in mild support of Eshoo's amendment. I read her post on the HuffingtonPost and was impressed with it. But still, I'm not sure how many years biotech companies need to recoup their investment. 12 years? 10? 7? 5? How do you set a broad rule to apply for a variety of different situations? This is tough.
Jane makes an excellent case that the cost of these drugs are too high. Lets work on that problem with specifics and stop calling people sellouts and trolls (on both sides of this debate). Also it would be helpful to all to avoid false equivalencies, pharmaceutical companies are not insurance companies (most actually produce something novel). And all pharmaceutical companies are not the same, even all biotech companies are not the same.
Finally: Mahakali, please stay! (I hope I followed in your footsteps) This was Mahakali's plea for civility, and I will repeat it. After all I've committed all the mistakes Jane has, what passionate and frustrated advocate hasn't?
I know. People will go berzerk attacking FDL here. Please. This may well have been an honest mistake, but before running off to your phone calling in outrage against the Eshoo Amendment, try to understand what's at stake. Human Life. Not the reputations of bloggers or politicians. Human Life. That is the topic of this diary: attempting to make sense of the Hamsher-Eshoo debate.
UPDATE: Thanks to all that rec'd this diary. The spinoff pie fight is regrettable, it focuses on the wrong issues. Lets figure this amendment out for ourselves. How about some kind of a compromise? Like a 5-7 year period of exclusivity with the possibility of a one time extension for 5 or 7 more years? One of the reasons I'm only a mild supporter of Eshoo's amendment is because of the per se rule of 12 years. Why not use some kind of a rule of reason (case based) approach? The extension process could help with that without creating too much bureaucracy.