Despite all the talk about “bending the cost curve,” President Obama and Harry Reid have declared all-out war on cost control. They are in the process of doing everything they can to kill Byron Dorgan’s bipartisan drug re-importation amendment. They have delayed the vote on his amendment for days (effectively filibustering their own bill), had Lautenberg create an 11th hour poison pill amendment to gut Dorgan’s amendment (which has a safety trigger–see, this is how triggers are used in Washington to kill good ideas), and may try to bring final cloture on the bill to stop a vote from ever taking place on the amendment. Obama and Reid are doing all this to kill one of the only honest cost control ideas so far that has a real chance of becoming law, and one of the only reform proposals I have yet seen that will help the majority of Americans reduce their health care bills.
Dorgan’s amendment would allow Americans to buy the exact same prescription drugs at cheaper prices from Canada or Europe. Americans pay considerably more for pharmaceuticals than other countries because our government refuses to collectively negotiate lower drug prices on our behalf. Basically, every other industrialized nation does it, and that is why their citizens pay less. While Dorgan’s amendment is a byzantine end run around this core problem, it at least has the bipartisan votes it needs to become law. The CBO projects reimportation will save American consumers $100 billion over the next decade. I think the CBO greatly underestimates the potential savings, which could easily be four or five times as much.
This is how cost control is really done. This is economics 101. “Bending the cost curve” will not be truly accomplished with minor tweaks to payment bundling formulas or taxing people’s health insurance benefits in hope of some bank shot, “starve the beast,” cost control magic. You bring down prices by using a large group of people to collectively negotiate for the best price possible. If our government would stand up to the drug makers and collectively bargain on our behalf, it could save us close to a trillion bucks. You reduce cost by allowing people to shop around for the best value.
What is sickening is that Obama campaigned on this rather small, common sense cost controlling idea. Yet Obama traded away drug re-importation to PhRMA in a sweetheart deal. He also traded away direct drug price negotiation in the same deal. Obama and Reid have clearly taken the side of protecting corporate profits instead of bringing down health care costs for regular Americans. I shutter to think of all the other good cost control ideas Obama and Reid were able to more quietly kill as part of some secret industry deal that we still don’t know about. Next time they send Peter Orzsag to pimp all the awesome “bending the cost curve” ideas in the bill, the appropriate response from reporters is to laugh in his face. For the past few days, Obama and Reid have rather publicly fought against bringing down America’s health care costs.



14 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
IMO the spin on this should be that the WH and Reid are forcing Americans to subsidize drugs for the rest of the world. Because they are.
it is murder by spreadsheet,or unafordability
they are cold,cold hearted monsters
That is even too kind. The drug companies make a good profit in those other countries. If our price went down their are unlikely to go up.
Obama is more simply just letting PhRMa rob us blind.
my assessment of him was so wrong………….sigh
Obama to America.
This is still a stick-up!
The criminals are still in charge.
Nobody blames you. ;) He was definitely the lesser of the two evils. Imagine President McCain! I’d have liked Kucinich, but between the Senate and the MSM he would probably have been prevented from doing anything. We have to keep making changes in the House and Senate.
“Imagine President McCain!”
Yeah, I think the only major difference is that McCain wouldn’t have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize. Other than that I don’t see things much different…DADT, DOMA, indefinite detention, etc would be more or less the same. Obama’s changes to Bush’s policies tend to be cosmetic by simply changing the wording along with a few minor policy changes and then acting like it is something new – these guys go and have major high level meetings to come up with a different term for “war on terror.” Probably the scariest thing that I’ve heard come out was when Holder said that it didn’t matter what the results of the KSM trial were, that KSM would be locked up whether he was found guilty or not guilty.
a rather large club you belong to there girlfriend – with membership increasing by the minute
I’m having this kind of day :D
The thing on the lifetime limits is very interesting. Reports are that the greatest costs are at the end of life. So just terminate coverage and you will not even need one of those end of life consultations; no coverage; no decisions about care to be made; end of life = just got cheaper.
What about Medicare and its larger pool? Lifetime limits?
Tell me they hadn’t thought of that. And, how would life time limits effect Medicare if that is the source of broader coverage?
Why are “we” already blaming this on Obama? Congress develops and votes on legislation. The president doesn’t.
I do think there is a lot to your statement, and its simplicity doesn’t change its truth, although that fact is so frustrating that many Firepups want to ignore it. I would have said the same thing as you did a few days ago, however just this week for the first time I think there is a lot to Mr. Walker’s statement that “For the past few days, Obama and Reid have rather publicly fought against bringing down America’s health care costs.” I still think their footdragging could be explained by complex factors, such as:
- the need to at least be seen attempting to honor deals they used to hold back the industry lobbyists until the broader will of Congress replaced the deal, which was actually what the WH expected all along.
- the pace of the legislative process and the need to get things to the next step, where the final endgame (bi-cameral conference by whatever name) will remove these offending sellout policies.
That’s what I’m hoping for, but for the first time I think Mr. Walker and others are bringing up some real points of concern that could represent the tipping point for when real reform started to disappear with either the help of Obama/Reid or because of their passive lack of leadership. We’ll see…
Great post, Jon. [If it's worth it to you to bother to edit, your strong closing paragraph is marred a bit by "shutter" where you meant "shudder."]
“Already”?? Someone’s not thinking critically about surface PR…
Not to apply a repeat of the full ‘mikesong treatment’ here (who, to his credit, as his comment at 11 demonstrates, took his dose with grace and an open mind), but I need to point out the immense benefit that secret legislating brings to those who want to insist, or simply want to trustingly believe, that that’s how our federal legislature is in fact currently operating in its current Party-strangled state.
Yes, Congress is supposed to develop and vote on legislation. But what gets written and negotiated behind closed doors is something we cannot assess as to authorship, wouldn’t you say?
And most of the original drafting, and major tweaking of this legislation has gone on behind closed doors.
Sometimes we even hear from one of those backroom negotiators, who lift the fog of plausible deniability just a little, as Senator Chuck Grassley took the time to do at length yesterday on the Senate floor:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=S12904&position=all
Can anyone credit the extent of the boundless, breathtaking arrogance, and disrespect for democratic process, demonstrated by Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley and the others here (including Senator Hatch at one time), even knowing, as I’m sure they did, that the President was ultimately backstopping their secret efforts?
Who the hell were they, and who the hell were they to think they could get away with, effectively shutting out the rest of Congress from a rewrite of one-sixth of the national economy, that will affect every single American? That just these six Senators – five men and one woman – meeting secretly, off the public record, were somehow going to create the perfect solution on their own, and, to top it off, had the gall to believe that they could insist that the rest of our uninvolved, uninformed, unconsulted federal representatives eventually accept it and enact it essentially as-written? All simply because, so the story goes, three belong to the Republican Party, and three belong to the Democratic Party?
The reality undoubtedly is, rather, that their brazen behavior was actually because they had the President (and thus Harry Reid) secretly backing (and, through Baucus and his staffers and ex-staffers at the White House, contributing content to) their White House-proxy deliberations all along, as Chuck Grassley’s comments, for one, make quite clear.
I really think you’re veering off the truth here. What, did you expect the WH to pursue a Democrat-only strategy from the beginning when they have no margin for error on 60 votes? Not even allow any consideration of a bipartisan process? Get real. Of course there had to be some early Gang of 6 bullshit. And then as you point out in bold, the WH was trying to pressure them to move along and finish up, so we could move on to the broader Senate where any deal would inevitably fall apart…and you have a problem with this?
Also, you vastly overestimate the control that Obama and Reid have over the Senators. It’s called herding cats for a reason, and the Senators are quite capable of exerting their will. Don’t forget that Dorgan was one of Obama’s earliest allies…and he just may be in this process as well.
I think the difference between you and me, mikesong, is that I believe in the separation of powers and understand and appreciate its purpose, and you think, or wish, or just don’t care one way or the other, that we have a Parliament.
So when you say:
I say:
I expected the White House to respect Congressional prerogative to write its own bill(s), speaking as the representative voice of the American people it is designed to be. The President – executor of our laws – simply has no right to dictate policy or legislation in the name of Party to our Congress nor, especially, to dictate or encourage a secret process end-running regular order, which the Gang of Six so egregiously did.
This legislation and this legislating was and is THE JOB OF CONGRESS.
“Get real” yourself. This should be about legislating, but you (and Harry Reid) are in fact promoting backroom political deal-making in lieu of public legislating with a Democratic majority and a Republican minority. Do you understand, or appreciate, the difference? The Gang of Six “bipartisan” process subverted democratic legislative process that is already inherently multipartisan – because, by design, Congress and its committees and public debating forums give equal opportunity, within limits, to every incumbent Member of Congress.
WHEN did people become so ill-informed about the necessary and vital due, democratic process of public legislating.
And I’m sorry, Mike, the Parties DO CONTROL CONGRESS – which is why the American people now basically hate its guts. Thanks to floor debate in the Senate – which has been stifled in the House – it is more difficult for the Party to completely dominate the Senate as compared to the House, but so far, Harry Reid has successfully carried the White House’s water on this bill, with the help of Max Baucus (and his “iron fist” control of the Finance Committee – a Reid quote) pretty much from Day One.
No doubt the plausible deniability cover will work for you and every other wishful-thinking American, unless and until you understand how the legislative process actually works in practice today, and who really holds the power. The insiders aren’t helping to inform us (except for the half-truths of people like Grassley), and that’s just what your guy Obama is counting on to keep people like you feeding the partisan Party wars and blissfully ignorant of ‘inconvenient’ reality.