Daily Kos

Corporatecare for PhRMA

Digg this! Share this on Twitter - Corporatecare for PhRMATweet this submit to reddit

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:20:04 PM PDT

Last week Jon Cohn and Sam Stein reported on a just how much of a sweetheart deal PhRMA actually got by negotiating with Baucus and the White House on reform efforts. In return for the $80 billion in reduced payments to drug makers over the next decade, the industry stands nonethless to profit handsomely, as much as $137 billion over the next four years. Cohn, reporting on "an October forecast by IMS Health, a respected global research and consulting firm."

The report, which IMS distributed to clients and which a source provided, projects that the drug industry will see average annual growth of 3.5 percent between 2008 and 2013.

Back in March, IMS had projected no growth at all during that same five-year stretch. In fact, it projected the drug business would actually contract slightly--with negative annual growth of 0.01 percent.

What changed? A major factor, according to IMS, was the emerging details of health care reform.

Health reform, as currently envisioned, wouldn’t merely bring coverage to the uninsured. It would also fill in the "donut hole" in Medicare Part D--the gap in coverage that leaves beneficiaries with serious health problems paying for hundred if not thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket prescription costs.

In addition, because it will take several years to close the donut hole, reform relies on voluntary discounts from the pharmaceutical industry to make drugs more affordable in the intervening years. But those discounts would apply only to name-brand drugs, not generics.

Put it all together, and you have more demand for name-brand drugs. As a result, IMS believes, pharmaceutical companies would be able to raise their prices--enough to boost revenue significantly: "If this bill is implemented," the report concludes on page 138, "an increase in prices on new drugs can be expected."

Closing the donut-hole is a critical part of healthcare reform, and will help America's seniors, no doubt about it. But never fear about PhRMA being left behind, because their brand-name drugs remain protected. Nonetheless, PhRMA and IMS, the research firm which produced the report disputed Cohn's and Stein's interpretation. Here's what IMS had to say:

The cumulative $137 billion difference between the April and October 2009 forecasts takes into account a large number of factors impacting the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. These include the macroeconomy, the changing mix of innovative and mature products, generics, the rising influence of healthcare access and funding on market demand, along with the effect of any potential legislation. The direct impact of current U.S. healthcare reform measures embedded in the IMS forecast is less than one percent of projected total industry sales through 2013.

While the industry is undoubtedly going to reap some benefit from healthcare reform, today's news hints that IMS's projection might have actually had to more with the industry's response to the impending healthcare reform:

Even as drug makers promise to support Washington’s health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation’s drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years.

In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992.

The drug trend is distinctly at odds with the direction of the Consumer Price Index, which has fallen by 1.3 percent in the last year.

Drug makers say they have valid business reasons for the price increases. Critics say the industry is trying to establish a higher price base before Congress passes legislation that tries to curb drug spending in coming years.

"When we have major legislation anticipated, we see a run-up in price increases," says Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, a professor of pharmaceutical economics at the University of Minnesota. He has analyzed drug pricing for AARP, the advocacy group for seniors that supports the House health care legislation that the drug industry opposes....

This year’s increases mean the average annual cost for a brand-name prescription drug that is taken daily would be more than $2,000 — $200 higher than last year, Professor Schondelmeyer said.

And this means that the cost of many popular drugs has risen even faster. Merck, for example, now sells daily 10-milligram pills of Singulair, the blockbuster asthma drug, at a wholesale price of $1,330 a year — $147 more than last year. Singulair is now selling at retail, on drugstore.com, for nearly $1,478 a year....

But this year’s price increases would effectively cancel out the savings from at least the first year of the Senate Finance agreement. And some critics say the surge in drug prices could change the dynamics of the entire 10-year deal.

Was the deal Baucus and the White House made with PhRMA worth it? Not without securing a promise, which undoubtedly would have nixed the deal, that PhRMA wouldn't do precisely what it has done: jack up prices to set a new price base for when reform kicks in.

All of which points to the one lie that's been told about this healthcare reform effort: Barack Obama isn't going to be the last president to take it on. Until real cost controls are imposed on industry, until the nation's healthcare consumers have as much sway in Washington as industry lobbyists, this system is not going to be reformed.

  • ::

Tags: healthcare reform, biologics, lobbyists, PhRMA (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 67 comments

  •  Assuming We Pass This, Obama Signs It, (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Minerva, Mol

    ...and then we consider healthcare to be "Fixed" going forward I'd say you're correct.

    All of which points to the one lie that's been told about this healthcare reform effort: Barack Obama isn't going to be the last president to take it on.

    But I don't think that's very realistic.  The "Health Insurance Reform" wording change had a very specific purpose.  By isolating insurance, you get the endorsement of the AMA and the pharmaceutical industries.  You have to come back later and do specific regulation on health care providers and the pharmaceuticals, and then you get the insurance companies to endorse that.

    •  Divide and Conquer (0+ / 0-)

      would definitely be a valid long term agenda in regards to facing entrenched interests.

      If only I could believe this was truly the current administrations agenda.

      "Dick Cheney loves snowboarding. He thinks it's waterboarding, but colder." -David Letterman

      by Yogurt721 on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:50:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Money talks! (0+ / 0-)

        Obviously, its for our own good to spend so. Obama and the Dems know what's best for us.

        We should not question the Party.

        The NAFTA-like GATS and its ratchet effect is an potential minefield for public health care! It is SO important that EVERY Democrat needs to read up on it, NOW!

        by Andiamo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:16:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately, it's a rich person's strategy. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Blutodog, sully18

      The well-to-do can handle that. What's $13-14k for a lawyer or some such critter?

      Those of us stuck in the poor muddled middle are, as usual, screwed.  We already can't afford health care and this bill will make sure to rub our faces in the fact.

      Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

      by dinotrac on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:57:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Time to make more money for them. (0+ / 0-)

        If you can't, maybe its for the best.

        Not everybody can be on top. Not everybody is worthy.

        Sleep.

        The NAFTA-like GATS and its ratchet effect is an potential minefield for public health care! It is SO important that EVERY Democrat needs to read up on it, NOW!

        by Andiamo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:18:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  True enough. (0+ / 0-)

          I wish more Democrats and progessives were as honest about their attitudes towards the majority of people as you are.

          Which leaves health care reform as its shaping up a bad deal for most of the country because, in case you hadn't noticed, the median family income is just a little more than $53,000.

          Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

          by dinotrac on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:43:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  best.post.ever (5+ / 0-)

    thank you for not being afraid to tell the truth

    Love truth, but forgive error-Voltaire.

    by Krush on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:24:46 PM PDT

  •  I'll believe in reform when... (16+ / 0-)

    ....I actually see reform. Unfortunately, I don't think any real reform will happen anywhere until we reform the way our congressmen are funded. That's the real battle, and until that occurs, I don't really see much else changing drastically.

    The sleep of reason produces monsters.

    by Alumbrados on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:24:57 PM PDT

    •  More fundamental that that... (9+ / 0-)

      revoke corporate "personhood."

      Game Over. The corporations win. And they will take us all down with their greed.

      by The Dead Man on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:48:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's really the key (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Alumbrados

        Which, unfortunately, is itself under lock and key.
        In a big platinum lined vault.

        The same day he threatened to veto oversight and transparency legislation, Obama issued a proclamation celebrating "Sunshine Week". Har Har

        by Wamsutta on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:12:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some things are too important to be left to (0+ / 0-)

          "leaders"

          Their leaders don't trust them that much.

          The NAFTA-like GATS and its ratchet effect is an potential minefield for public health care! It is SO important that EVERY Democrat needs to read up on it, NOW!

          by Andiamo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:19:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And what exactly do you think that will do? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        stokecityfan12

        Are you in favor of preventing the AFL-CIO from endorsing candidates, or the National Rifle Association not being able to lobby Congress, or the Center for American Progress not being able to put out a press release supporting cap and trade legislation?

        Sorry, but being able to speak in politics through the corporate form either exists, or it doesn't. Revoking corporate personhood in the way you seem to think warranted would silence every American who wants to work collectively with like-minded citizens for their common interests.

        Sean Parnell
        President
        Center for Competitive Politics

        Congress shall make no law...

        by Sean Parnell on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:26:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The benefits to real people far outweigh that (0+ / 0-)

          argument.

          I think this from reclaimdemocracy.org outlines it pretty well:

          We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

          Game Over. The corporations win. And they will take us all down with their greed.

          by The Dead Man on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 05:55:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK (0+ / 0-)

            So, shutting down any political speech from organized interest groups is OK in your book. Sad, but fortunately the First Amendment does not tolerate such speech suppression. I for one am happy to live in a country where the AFL-CIO, NRA, Sierra Club, AT&T, Club for Growth, the RNC and DNC, and multitudes of other collective associations of citizens are free to speak out.

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics

            Congress shall make no law...

            by Sean Parnell on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:48:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are choosing such a narrow view (0+ / 0-)

              the effects of "entities who are not people" to have the rights of actual people has helped create the horrible mess this country is in.  I don't see how limiting corporate power to something more reasonable woud limit groups of people from lobbying (for good or ill) congress.  If anything it may even shift congress' attention to actual citizens instead of some wall street construct.

              Game Over. The corporations win. And they will take us all down with their greed.

              by The Dead Man on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:57:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

                Umm, we're not talking about "limiting corporate power," we're talking about whether groups of citizens organized for some collective purpose (making a profit, representing workers, advocating on an issue, performing volunteer work, etc) are able to speak and lobby through that collective organization.

                Or are you under the impression that it's OK to make it illegal for groups with a for-profit purpose or economic interest to lobby and speak, while other groups with more "benign" purposes are free to speak? Because the Supreme Court calls that viewpoint discrimination, and it is strictly verboten.

                Look, there's two arguments:

                1. Corporations aren't people, and therefore can't speak. OK, that shuts out the voices of for-profit companies, but also others who are organized in the corporate form: unions, advocacy groups, trade and professional associations, etc.
                1. For-profit corporations have too much power, so we should silence or limit their voices. OK, that's viewpoint discrimination, and can't be done under the First Amendment.

                So, pick your argument.

                Sean Parnell
                President
                Center for Competitive Politics

                Congress shall make no law...

                by Sean Parnell on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 08:48:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Who spends the most on lobbying? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Alumbrados, polar bear

      MDs, hospitals, and Pharma are 3 of the top 6.

      Insurers would be up there, too, but their spend is more fragmented across organizations.

      Competent governance is just around the corner!

      by Minerva on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:50:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not only will Barack Obama not be ... (16+ / 0-)

    ...the last President to take on health care, this won't be the last time progressives take it on. The minute whatever is passed gets passed - assuming it does - we'll be back in the struggle to improve matters, working for that day, I hope, when truly universal coverage will be the order of the day. Whether it's the way the French do it, the Canadians do it or the Danes do it, we won't be done with coverage reform until then.

    I refuse to accept "no can do" as a proper slogan for progressives.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:27:28 PM PDT

  •  I think EVERYONE has understood that there (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    oysterface, TooFolkGR, MCMetal, annieli

    would be more after this.  The qualitative difference is that this bill sets a fundamental foundation upon which all else will be built, a foundation that was not existant before.  The most notable examaple being a public option.  All those pushing for a po know that it is a proverbial trojan horse upon which later legislators can turn into a real single payer system.  

  •  I'm afraid HCR is going to backfire on dems (7+ / 0-)

    It's going to be such a massive giveaway, and I'm afraid prices are going to continue to go up and up. The higher prices of the next 10 years are going to be blamed on the dems, regardless of what the insurance companies do. People will not trust dems to fix the new mess they perceive the dems to have made.

    It may lead to the birth of a third party.

    I really don't think the conservadems have really thought the consequences thru on this. In trying to perserve the status quo, they are wrecking it, by not going for policy that will lower prices.

    Today's problems are yesterday's solutions. Don Beck

    by Sherri in TX on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:37:46 PM PDT

    •  Conservadems got their bribe $$$ (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      polar bear, 888

      everyone else can suck it.  They can always cash in (if not re-elected) and get a cushy board position.

      Game Over. The corporations win. And they will take us all down with their greed.

      by The Dead Man on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:49:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thats right, they screwed up. Its all so tragic (0+ / 0-)

        They didn't mean to.

        Its an honest mistake.

        We trust them. They are good.

        The NAFTA-like GATS and its ratchet effect is an potential minefield for public health care! It is SO important that EVERY Democrat needs to read up on it, NOW!

        by Andiamo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:23:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The US Goverment (6+ / 0-)

    By the people , for the people ........Until a better offer/higher bidder comes along , anyway ......

  •  I always believed this to be the case (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    oysterface, cybrestrike

    The HCR bill will be a beginning, hopefully.  I hope it doesn't backfire.

    "I drank what?!" -Socrates

    by bagman on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:42:48 PM PDT

    •  It will be good. All will be well. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama and the Dems care deeply about our welfare.

      Thank you, Obama.

      We know that you are doing your best.

      We don't deserve you.

      Those other countries,
      we agree, they don't exist.

      The NAFTA-like GATS and its ratchet effect is an potential minefield for public health care! It is SO important that EVERY Democrat needs to read up on it, NOW!

      by Andiamo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:26:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When the prices escalate it just moves the system (0+ / 0-)

    to require further regulation and we will achieve single-payer plus wage and price controls. So much for the RW claims of free-market perfect comeptition.

    "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

    by annieli on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:44:04 PM PDT

  •  So bag current health care bills for quick reform (7+ / 0-)

    1. US drug companies can charge no more than they do in Europe for same drugs. Takes all the burden off US "regulations" and not something right wing can argue about. This lowers US health care cost by 5%.
    1. Insurance companies must spend 85% of all premiums on health care for clients. This lowers US health care cost by 15%.
    1. Insurance companies must accept all applicants. No restriction on pre-existing conditions, no denial of care, no lifetime limits, basic care package with $2,000 max deductible per year offered to all clients.
    1. Lower Medicare age to 55 point at which most Americans are "unemployable" should they lose jobs. Raise Medicare rates to cover increased costs and to pay Medicare bonus to primary care physicians. Medicare tax increased by eliminating income cap and expanding to all income not just payroll on which Medicare applies. Head of Aetna Health Insurance would pay $7.5M in Medicare tax on his $50M income.
    1. Raise Medicaid qualifying income level. All children under 18 covered by Medicaid automatically.

    Above would provide near universal coverage cut US cost by 20% upfront and another 10% as people would not need to go to ER for care and would get preventive care upfront.

    •  Don't use forbidden words (0+ / 0-)

      Don't use that word with the E.

      This is paradise.

      The NAFTA-like GATS and its ratchet effect is an potential minefield for public health care! It is SO important that EVERY Democrat needs to read up on it, NOW!

      by Andiamo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:28:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why does this feel like a huge distraction . .. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Minerva, JC from IA

    That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill,

    Let's see, $10 billion out of $2.4 trillion - the total health care cost to this country - is one cent out of $2.40 spent . . . .

    OK folks, lets go to the mat on this one and get the cost down to $2.39 . . .

  •  I know why pharmacos are raisin prices like crazy (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Sherri in TX, 0wn, cybrestrike, polar bear

    Because they can.

    Guess why doctors and hospitals raise prices all the time?

    Because they can, too.

    And nothing in the current reform appears to begin to address the fundamental misalignment of market incentives that screws patients and allows healthcare professionals to slowly strangle the national economy.

    How could it be done differently.  Its pretty simple really - lots of other countries have figured it out.

    Competent governance is just around the corner!

    by Minerva on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:46:22 PM PDT

  •  Congress should ignore the deal (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, cybrestrike, polar bear, 888

    they are a separate co-equal branch of government after all.  Besides, what's Pres. Obama going to do, veto health care reform over a side deal with PhRMA?

    •  They care deeply about us (0+ / 0-)

      They are doing their best.

      Thank you, Obama, thank you Nancy Pelosi.

      We're almost there.

      Almost there.

      Almost there.

      Almost there.

      The NAFTA-like GATS and its ratchet effect is an potential minefield for public health care! It is SO important that EVERY Democrat needs to read up on it, NOW!

      by Andiamo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:30:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, I guess Obama is lying, then. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    askew, willowby

    More boycotts are in order.

    In fact, why don't we just impeach him now?

    Anybody who looked at the current reform effort as being the final one was myopic at best.

    Under no circumstances is any legislation ever final.  And, I don't think anyone has ever implied otherwise, the POTUS included.

  •  big pharma (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Wamsutta, 3goldens, 0wn, polar bear

    phucks obama.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Turkana on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:53:10 PM PDT

    •  big pharma (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Wamsutta, 3goldens, Turkana, 0wn

      phools Obama.

      "You go from the right, I'll go from the left and I'll meet you at K Street." Cenk Uygur

      by polar bear on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:54:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  big pharma (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        polar bear

        pharts in our general direction.

        The same day he threatened to veto oversight and transparency legislation, Obama issued a proclamation celebrating "Sunshine Week". Har Har

        by Wamsutta on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:09:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  big pharma (0+ / 0-)

          is a phink!

          "You go from the right, I'll go from the left and I'll meet you at K Street." Cenk Uygur

          by polar bear on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:26:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Foreign Free Riders and the high price of US meds (0+ / 0-)

            From: Foreign free riders and the high price of US medicines

            "The US government, backed by the pharmaceutical industry, wants to convince Americans that they're paying more for drugs because they're contributing more than their fair share of the costs of research and development. Not so, argue two researchers who have looked at the evidence.

            The United States government is engaged in a campaign to characterise other industrialised countries as free riding on high US pharmaceutical prices and innovation in new drugs.1 This campaign is based on the argument that lower prices imposed by price controls in other affluent countries do not pay for research and development costs, so that Americans have to pay the research costs through higher prices in order to keep supplying the world with new drugs.1,2 Supporters of the campaign have characterised the situation as a foreign rip-off.3 We can find no evidence to support these and related claims, and we present evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, we explain why the claims themselves contradict the economic nature of the pharmaceutical industry.

            Origins of the campaign
            The campaign, strongly backed by the pharmaceutical industry, seems to have started in the late 1990s as a response to a grass roots movement started by senior citizens against the high prices of essential prescription drugs.4 This issue was the most prominent one for both parties in the 2000 elections and has since been fuelled by a series of independent reports documenting that US drug prices are much higher than those in other affluent countries.5-7 The idea that other countries are exploiting the US has led to a hearing of the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and was behind a Department of Commerce report that strongly advocated that other developed countries raise prices on patented medicines.8 But are higher prices really necessary?

            The free rider myth
            We can find no convincing evidence to support the view that the lower prices in affluent countries outside the United States do not pay for research and development costs. The latest report from the UK Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme documents that drug companies in the United Kingdom invest proportionately more of their revenues from domestic sales in research and development than do companies in the US. Prices in the UK are much lower than those in the US yet profits remain robust.9,10

            Companies in other countries also fully recover their research and development costs, maintain high profits, and sell drugs at substantially lower prices than in the US. For example, in Canada the 35 companies that are members of the brand name industry association report that income from domestic sales is, on average, about 10 times greater than research and development costs.11 They have profits higher than makers of computer equipment and telecommunications carriers12 despite prices being about 40% lower than in the US.11""

            The NAFTA-like GATS and its ratchet effect is an potential minefield for public health care! It is SO important that EVERY Democrat needs to read up on it, NOW!

            by Andiamo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:48:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Point of clarification (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    3goldens

    The deal was made with "PhRMA," the pharmaceutical industry trade/lobbying group.  "Pharma," and expression that refers to the industry at large, is raising prices.  

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:53:56 PM PDT

  •  That so-called "Donut Hole" (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    3goldens, bagman

    is the Pit Of Death into which REPUBLICANS and the inadequate, spineless, suck-up dumbass Dem-whores (which isn't all of the Dems) want the POOR to be kicked into so they DIE EARLY from not having the money needed for prescriptions or other medical treatments.

    It's the way certain capitalists in a German speaking country in the late 1930's would have done it IF they had been in a good mood.

    The donut is a disgrace by any measure (except repub measurements, but those are lies, anyway).

    But those heartless motherfuckers in big pharma have already jacked prices WAY UP to prevent any sort of discount from affecting their fucking obscene profits.

    Even as drug makers promise to support Washington’s health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation’s drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years.

    In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992

    These people suck so badly I want them to have huge personal problems, get poor and......

    Torture good, Healthcare bad, Marijuana evil.
    Doc in the Twitterverse

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:59:16 PM PDT

  •  Hello, lights on, nobody home? (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    3goldens, exMnLiberal

    Turn it as you will, the White House sold out.  BTW, read Baucus' bio and you'll see that he's spent all his working life in the service of the insurance industry.  This bill is a mess.  And it's going to cost ordinary Americans more than you can imagine.  Poor house, here we come.

    I thought until the last week that I could support the bill because on balance it was better than the status quo.  I don't think so anymore.  As it now stands, voting it down is the best course.  The Democrats, nearly all of them, really screwed the pooch.

  •  Let me fix that (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    0wn

    Until real cost controls Democrats are imposed on industry elected and actually USE their majority, until the nation's healthcare consumers have as much sway in Washington as industry lobbyists, this system is not going to be reformed.

    The same day he threatened to veto oversight and transparency legislation, Obama issued a proclamation celebrating "Sunshine Week". Har Har

    by Wamsutta on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:07:54 PM PDT

  •  and from a link in the diary, even Howard Dean, (0+ / 0-)

    it seems, may be slipping towards the dark side.

    Among the biologics industry's most high-profile advocates has been former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, who is consulting for a law firm that has a deep roster of biologics clients. In July he wrote an Op-Ed in the Hill newspaper arguing for a "commonsense and fair approach" to give biologics companies at least 12 years of exclusivity.

    Dean & Trippi for the 12-year protection

    "You go from the right, I'll go from the left and I'll meet you at K Street." Cenk Uygur

    by polar bear on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:08:46 PM PDT

  •  Today's outrage brought to you by... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    willowby

    I'm going to quibble with a few points:

    Was the deal Baucus and the White House made with PhRMA worth it? Not without securing a promise, which undoubtedly would have nixed the deal, that PhRMA wouldn't do precisely what it has done: jack up prices to set a new price base for when reform kicks in.

    Um, a deal might be worth it if it co-opts the opposition.  A better deal could have controlled costs more.  But since we're still only getting first reports about what side was actually promised in bill that hasn't been finalized yet, it's a bit soon to tell.  Another question could be, Is our distaste for the prigs at Phrma worth jeopardizing health care reform in the face of an avalanche of negative ads?  We should at least give consideration to the argument.

    Closing the donut-hole is a critical part of healthcare reform, and will help America's seniors, no doubt about it.

    We shouldn't minimize this point.  A lot of drug profits would come about because we're expanding the customer base of the drugmakers, just like the insurers in theory have a business incentive to support universal coverage.  I've been having lots of arguments with friends this past week who overlook this fact because anything that benefits Phrma must be bad.  We should get better terms for our money, absolutely, but this plank remains a good example about why the bigger battle is about getting health care to more people.

    All of which points to the one lie that's been told about this healthcare reform effort: Barack Obama isn't going to be the last president to take it on.

    Geez, Louise!  A lie!  Really? We're getting a bit breathless here.  Obama standing before Congress and saying he was determined to be the last president to undertake it was a great moment.  Rep. Dingell praised the line while acknowledging the point that the fight would certainly go on.  Guess that makes Obama a liar, don't it?

  •  The alleged health care reform is a hoax. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Blutodog, wsexson, Andiamo

    It`s an urban legend.
    "Until real cost controls are imposed on industry, until the nation's healthcare consumers have as much sway in Washington as industry lobbyists, this system is not going to be reformed."
    This statement pretty much sums it up.In other words," It will never happen."The R`s obstruct as they are the corporate are;and the D`s do pretty much the same except they blame it on the "Blue Dogs,"who are really R`s in elaborate disguises.Put it all together and you have a 2000 page document with 45 amendments which equal JUNK.

    "Someday,all those cocksuckers will get caught." Frank Zappa `88

    by sully18 on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:21:05 PM PDT

    •  Progress is our most important product (0+ / 0-)

      Don't worry, be happy.

      They care.

      The NAFTA-like GATS and its ratchet effect is an potential minefield for public health care! It is SO important that EVERY Democrat needs to read up on it, NOW!

      by Andiamo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 08:02:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Will we ever have leadership (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    3goldens, exMnLiberal

    that will invite pharma and the insurance industry to the table to say to them "I just wanted to bring you here today to let you know that you are fucked."

    Dick Cheney now has a heart attack for each deferment.

    by jazzmaniac on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:38:06 PM PDT

  •  Wow, $137B was exactly my estimate too... (0+ / 0-)

    ...in this diary last week, however, my rough estimates predict it will be closer to $137B per year, not over four years.

    And that doesn't even include the rush to hike prices before any HCR goes into effect, something we should totally expect after the credit card rate hikes this year.

    BTW, the calculation in the linked diary should've read:

    $137B (=$90B + $55B - $8B)

    •  $312.50 a year is what they pay (0+ / 0-)

      THEY WILL make healthcare affordable!

      They say so! In 2013

      1.2% reductions of everything, for ten years.

      Less is more!

      Illness is health!

      Slavery is Freedom!

      Thank you, Obama!

      The NAFTA-like GATS and its ratchet effect is an potential minefield for public health care! It is SO important that EVERY Democrat needs to read up on it, NOW!

      by Andiamo on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 08:06:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 67 comments