How does this not qualify as corruption? Rhetorical question.

Exactly. How is this legal? Is this not selling votes?

change mercenary corporations can believe in.

I missed this negotiation the first time around; anyone know when to catch the C-SPAN re-run?

Transparency my ass. Hillary would be in the stocks by now if she’d tried this crap.

Open secrets demonstrates as much as 75 percent of Mike’s campaign finance originates outside of his home state.

He’s sitting on nearly a million right now… More than a huge portion of his constituents will earn in their lifetime.

Sign these health care petitions

http://BIT.LY/HR676

This one targets Mike Ross to get us HR 676 and until then we boycott Tyson chicken.

http://BIT.LY/single_payer_ross

Get this bumper sticker that reads
TAX THE WEALTHY TO KEEP EVERYONE HEALTHY

http://BIT.LY/Le7Hf

Read our blog http://blog.democratz.org

rather than ”transparency”… I feel as if it’s through a glass darkly…

I don’t know if Rahm is to blame for all of these fucking backroom deals for pharma or if Obama is to blame for appointing fucking Rahm.

One thing that did occur to me however… when Politico is the source of some of this info, I suspect they are trying to rile the progressive base and don’t entirely believe their stories. I know there is wrongdoing, but something to keep in mind.

Pretty sure there are monetary limits on PhRMA donations to pols. No enforcement here? Fines and prison….anybody?

As I understand it, the deal was for the mother of all pro-bill ad-buys – $150-200 million. Which is shocking enough by itself. The interesting thing here is that it’s pretty unclear that the admin needed to do anything at all to get big pharma on board with the President’s plan. There’s plenty to suggest they would’ve been there regardless of the $80 billion cap on plan-related price reductions (which is really what the deal was for, and not $80 billion in real “discounts”).

The reality is, big pharma has been sitting on the sidelines bluffing for months now… trying to get the Dems (and the president) to think that they might not be there for reform in the end, and therefore tryin’ to get us to cop to a price reduction cap or whatever else they can extract from the admin (and therefore from taxpayers)… basically, waiting to see if they can get something for nothing. The fact is, big pharma NEEDS healthcare reform. Their domestic market would immediately increase by 50 million users or so, and they’re really pretty confident that healthcare reform will mean less pressure on them for short-horizon price reductions and outright medicine-withholding from the insurers and therefore more flexibility on the long time horizons they need to fund R&D. Their innovation pipeline – how they really make money — has become increasingly stagnant as the greed of the insurers squeeze them more and more. They would’ve reached this same conclusion irrespective of the $80 billion free-be concession. They’re not good people by any stretch of the imagination, but their interests are no more aligned with that of the insurers than those of doctors or, for that matter, those of Democrats.

Wow, who came up with the Tyson’s campaign for 676? That’s an actual strategy. Good job.

Silly me. The first time I heard this ad-buy mentioned, I breezed by in a hurry under the mistaken assumption that PhRMA was advertising against these guys. Thanks for providing the proper team listings for us, Jane.

Will Rogers was right, the D’s are a long way from being an organized party.

Isn’t it about time citizens and ideas that are being called ’socialist’ stand up and call those who cast such aspersions the facists they are?

And anyone who doesn’t think the U.S. is well on the path to fascism need to read this and this and think about what the U.S. is doing in their name.

To be clear, there are two different ad buys in question here.. to avoid confusion.

1. There’s the ad buys (in favor of the Blue Dogs and other assorted bribees and against progressives and other honest folk) that PhRMA has been doing on their own to advance their own corporatist agenda within the Democratic camp.

2. Then, separately, there’s the ad buy they agreed to in their deal with President Obama (in support of whatever final bill is agreed and against the rethugs and other final opposition).

These are two completely different things. Being lobbyists, they’re also, by definition, hypocrites, so it won’t occur to them that buying ads to lobby against something while simultaneouly buying ads to lobby for something is in any way oxymoronic.

Dan Froomkin is out of gates in fine form over at HuffPo about this issue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..55524.html

Damn, I had just eliminated HuffPo from my usual rounds, since 3-5 Paylin stories on the frontpage every single day since last Fall was getting to be too much, but now they gotta add quality like Froomkin?

Mike Ross and…
Grayson?
Alan Grayson?
That Alan Grayson?
Our Alan Grayson?

Talk about covering your bases!

Jim Himes said there was no coordination with PhRMA and him on the ads, and there’s no reason to think it’s not true. Independent expenditures are not supposed to coordinate with the campaign, that’s why they’re “independent.”

More suspiciously, there was much worry that there would be a repeat of 1994 and that there would be tons of advertising against members of Congress, which many felt led to the 54 seat swing to the GOP.

It would be the concern of someone whose thinking was — well, focused on electoral consequences to factor something like that in to a deal.

I remember reading that Obama used to host poker night in Chicago to bring members of both parties together. I understood this to mean he was a decent poker player himself.

When i hear of these bush league negotiations i flash on that. Why give away such mammoth prizes before the game even starts. Why was single payer never at the table. Are Democrats just terrible negotiators or is it all just theater?

It makes me weary.

Thanks.

what I’m completely confused about is why link Medicare Plan-related drug prices to healthcare reform at all… why would PhRMA agree to that and why would we? Nobody knows what impact healthcare reform will have on drug prices, with a very good chance (as I outlined in my post above) that reform will actually help Big Pharma in the end. Reform could bring increased competitive pressure to bear, and that would put pressure of drug prices in our favor. But it may not (and the rethugs clearly think that it won’t). Secondly, up to 50 million more people woud be able to afford Big Pharma’s products who are not otherwise able to do so. And then there’s the research boon of government healthcare tolerating longer returns horizons than private insurance (already the case with VA and Medicare)… and that would REALLY help Big Pharma. Economists will be debating that one for ages after reform is passed.

I think that the real agenda with the $80 billion in Medicare Plan-related savings are more about locking in $80 billion in reform-unrelated deficit-reduction measures, than anything else.. In which case, this deal is cynical on more than one level.

Bernie Sanders has a post up at the HuffingtonPost. Anyone concerned about a real progressive I’d check it out or does the thought of a “socialist” frighten you? If so the media has done it’s job well and the corporations can breath a sigh of relief. One of only a few legitimate progressive
in Congress.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..55836.html

Ad ‘em right back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqd0XiNvtI0

Ridicule is the best defense.
/jc

Clever ad but just what the fuck is Obama’s health care legislation? He’s been very evasivive. What’s he affraid of? The people?

hey anyone heading to NN in Pittsburgh ???

Alan Grayson will participate in a Netroots Nation panel moderated by Kagro
it takes place on Friday, August 14 at 1:30 pm.

linkage

…to talk about what it’s like once the elections are over and it’s time to turn campaign promises into policy solutions

or golden geese whatever the case may be

I also like the email I got from these folks. Fox Advertisers to boycott! And some have pulled ads!

http://www.democrats.com/boyco…..sers?ad=d0

Or at least dem’s dot com SAY ads were pulled, they have a list! *G*

Srsly, I saw a few I use, and they don’t get my money no mo . . . what little we have won’t go there!

(bastids)

Thanks for all yer doin . . *G*

I thought we were already DOING that? ‘Cept the MSM of course . . . *rollseyes*

Pharma did get something for nothing — the price reductions are completely unenforceable as far as I can tell.

Jim Himes is the Democrat from Goldman Sachs. I would tend not to believe much of what he had to say. There doesn’t have to be any coordination just an implicit understanding.

What he said . . . nice to Dan F at the wheel.

Real jounalism? In people’s faces? With HARD questions?

To share with us progs?

Just like FDL! *G*

So, the obvious question:

How many other secret deals are there that we don’t know about yet?

And was taking single payer off the table one of them?

Heh, 3 D Chess is not for the weak!!!

Snark aside, who KNOWS how this will all play out.

There’s LOTS of reason to think, we’re screwed.

There’s enough to ponder to hold hope.

The suspense is killin me at this point though.

I want an end game so we KNOW whether to laugh, cry, both or hit the streets with metaphorical pitchforks and labor strikes and more.

I REALLY hope we don’t HAVE to hit the streets. THAT could get ugly, LOTS uglier than the last time in our youth. Although 4 Dead In Ohio, Chitown ‘68, last years caged protesters, Seattle, and such are pretty ugly.

Democracy, it’s always ugly, I expect. ‘Cept when ya sleep on it (see Nixon – Obama).

You might enjoy this by Ian Welsh:

Ruling out “single payer” from the very start was an act of mind-bending incompetence on the level of disbanding Iraq’s army during the occupation of Iraq. From a policy point of view “Medicare for all” provides massive savings, and we know it works because the equivalent policies have worked for every other nation in the world who ever implemented then. From a sales point of view it’s much harder to demonize Medicare and much easier to explain it. From a negotiation point of view pre-compromising is so stupid that anyone who has spent 5 minutes in a third world bazaar or taken even a single negotiating class knows better.

The current health reform “bills” are turning into a clusterf*ck of epic proportions. Scrap them, introduce Medicare for all, target Senators who won’t vote for it with bone-crushing ads which ask why they want 22,000 American to die every year who could be saved for less money than the Iraq war cost; explain with nice simple pictures how much money they receive from the insurance industry and note that they are willing to let Americans die in exchange for blood money from the medical industry.

Too bad he pulled his punches with that “blood money” riff — kidding!

Ya know, I’m really LIKING the concept you put forth that Pharma could be held feet to fire with giving them a NEW HUGE MARKET, but still keep them lowered in pricing, with fewer patent extensions, MORE generics for the masses.

Cuz, if I was Obama, I’d USE that leverage or tell them they get NOTHING.

I guess, though, Obama’s already DONE a deal . . but still, maybe the heavy hammer is still hidden behind his back . . . damn I’d grasp at any hope at this point, wouldn’t I . . *sigh*

“The waaaaaa aaaa ting is the HARDDDDDDDD esttt part.”

oh I agree with you. I think all we got from it was the appearance of deficit reduction on an unrelated non-discretionary line item (the Medicare Plan). Like I said above, in #9, I don’t think we had to offer Big Pharma a thing to get their support on health reform in the end. They would’ve been there for us anyway, eventually.. instead, they just sat back and pretended like they might actually come out against it, lobbied Dems, bribed Blue Dogs, and whatever else they needed to do to con our side of the aisle into giving them something for their support.. support they would’ve given regardless. In short, they bluffed, we the people folded.

32% Favor Single-Payer Health Care, 57% Oppose

http://www.rasmussenreports.co….._57_oppose

“A bone crushing campaign” against what, 98 members of the Senate? That’s got victory written all over it.

I have avoided commenting on the deal with Big Pharma until now. But if Rachel Maddow’s report tonight on the astroturf lobbying group “60 Plus” which has now released a “Death Panel” ad is correct – namely, that they get most of their money from Big Pharma, why isn’t this a reneging on the deal? Let’s see, we let Big Pharma off a “slap on the wrist” cost reduction in return for their paying for ads in favor (sort of) of Health Insurance reform, but it turns out they also are funding deeply dishonest ads for the other side, why then, they’re not really “on our side” at all, are they?

Is this what the administration and Congress thought the deal was? If not, why is it still a deal?

Thanks Lambert . . . that was a fine, fine read.

Along with Bernie Sanders new messaging and Froomkin up and running, there’s a fresh wind of prog blowin thru da hauz! *G*

I’ll be at Ross’s town hall Friday–I’ll try to hit him with this and the United Health junket he enjoyed after stalling 3200 in committee. I’m a registered voter who lives in his district, so hopefully I’ll be heard above the din.

jane, do you know if this level of support for single payer has changed much over time? …course this is a Rasmussen poll…..

Jane! I mean, Mz. Hamsher!

You don’t actually READ and BELIEVE Rasputin Rasmussen do ya?

*G*

In regards to the issue at hand, it goes back to pressure.

You have lead the way for pressure, in a great way.

I think we need MORE pressure of masses in the streets, for SINGLE PAYER, and no concessions.

We have Dem Majority, we have reconciliation.

The ONLY thing stopping a full sweep all along has been corporate pressure and money, combined with a lack of action in the streets, and mass demonstrations the like of Vietnam Protests, and more.

I won’t spoil what has been a GREAT day for me, given Dan Froomkin’s return, and Bernie Sanders’ announcement, both broken for me here at FDL, in THIS thread you posted, by YOUR readers.

Given all that, I’m less sure now that we SHOULDN’T be going for their balls, instead of weaving and bobbing and jabbing.

But likely, it’s all what you’ve done (Mz. Wheeler, your staff, and bless Mike Stark for all they do) that’s led us to this place where I CAN think about going for a jugular or a testicle tactic now . . . which I wanted to do so LONG ago!

As others and you have said, the return of Congress will tell the tale. In the meantime, more ammo, more pressure and as Norske is fond of suggesting bless his heart and all his vital organs, “Point the damned gun OUTSIDE the foxhole!”

You bring it dammit though, no matter what ANYONE sez, Mz. Hamsher, in any way you can. We all win when you do!

Your efforts might not always result in the what ya wanted, but they have obviously have ended in IMPACT, every time you take the lead on an issue.

And that’s the lot in life for a prog outlook and life.

Ya do the best ya can, and know that it’s NEVER what ya hoped for or planned for, but it’s likely ALL THE TIME, better n what we had.

Thanks for that lesson, ma’am, intended or not . .

*G*

Bernie Sanders’ announcement

I must have missed that and I can’t find it now. To what are you referring?

What was the United Health junket?

Different polls get different results — I imagine single payer is taking a lot of the ”socialist” hammering that’s in the air right now, though not nearly as bad as if it was actually on the agenda.

very subtle dig at the ‘tiny dancer’ :-)

Yep, Obama and the Dems bought a pig in a poke so far. Now, if they had the guts, they still could go after Pharma. But instead of Medicare seeking to negotiate prices (Pharma and the right’s line in the sand), they could simply point to the deeply discounted pricing Pharma already grants certain government programs (e.g. VA, Medicaid etc). No need to negotiate anew when it’s aleady been done.

I overreached with the use of the word “junket.” Instead, Ross was an honored invitee to a reception/fundraiser hosted by the insurance companies. I understand that United has been a big player in all of this, and Ross is on record saying that United Health’s ideas should be considered at the table. Just further evidence of a quid pro quo at work. If I am able to press Ross on this issue Friday, I’ll be more precise in my language.

i’m not sure if this is it, but bernie sanders takes it to the intarwebz:

I hope you’ll join me for my new show, Senator Sanders Unfiltered, produced by Brave New Films. Follow my show on Twitter at SandersShow, join my Facebook page, or subscribe to my YouTube page.