-
-
ron paul is as guilty. If he was so good, he should have put out Acts on Tape for the rest of degenerates occupying offices.
... BUT BIG BREAK IN THE NEWS
We have the best democracy money can buy.Obama and Big Pharma: Deal or no deal?
by Jon Brooks
9 hours ago
56 Votes
Health care stories are clicking big in Buzz these days. This week, a series of articles from different sources about one particular skirmish in the overall battle illustrated just what a high-stakes—and fluid—game is being played by everyone at the table.
The latest flare-up was sparked this week when the LA Times reported the pharmaceutical industry’s top lobbyist, Billy Tauzin, crowing about what Big Pharma had received in return for agreeing to $80 billion in cost savings plus the bankrolling of a pro-reform campaign:
"Tauzin said he had not only received the White House pledge to forswear Medicare drug price bargaining, but also a separate promise not to pursue another proposal Obama supported during the campaign: importing cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe. Both proposals could cost the industry billions…"
The next day, the New York Times corroborated the deal:
"...White House officials...assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion…"
But then Congress weighed in. From a Bloomberg article titled "Drugmakers may have trouble enforcing deal w/ congress":
"The bargain U.S. drugmakers struck with President Barack Obama...can’t be enforced on Congress, lawmakers say. Democratic lawmakers...including...Nancy Pelosi and...Henry Waxman have said Congress isn’t bound by the agreements..."
On Aug 8, the New York Times ran this story, called "Obama Reverses Stand on Drug Industry Deal":
"Caught between a pivotal industry ally and the protests of Congressional Democrats, the Obama administration...backed away from what drug industry lobbyists had said ...was a firm White House promise to exclude from a proposed health care overhaul the possibility of allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices under Medicare...Several Senate Democrats said...White House officials had told them there was no such deal, sowing yet more confusion..."
And on August 9, AP reported just how much support the pharm companies were—apparently still—willing to pony up:
"The nation's drugmakers stand ready to spend $150 million to help President Barack Obama overhaul health care this fall...a staggering sum that could dwarf attempts to derail his chief domestic priority."
So is it deal or no deal? The Times reported that people involved in the original negotations said there had been "some ambiguity" in the discussions. Sounds like an understatement.
In any event, some liberal bloggers on the Huffington Post and Daily Kos are crying foul. And Rep. Bernie Sanders may have summed up suspicions about dealing with the pharmaceutical industry when he said, "The drug companies form the most powerful lobby in Washington. They never lose."
But the New York Times also reports that although the pharmaceutical industry opposes a public insurance plan—one of Obama's top priorities—"its lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting it, in part because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards." And while longtime health-care reform advocates may see a poison pill in any deal involving the industry, the enrolling of tens of millions of currently uninsured people in new health plans could mean big profits to drug companies while still putting them on the same side as the pro-reform crowd.
High stakes, lots of buzz, which will only increase when Congress returns from recess.Comment
-
On the topic of illegal immigration, this is just lovely...
Next year’s census will determine the apportionment of House members and Electoral College votes for each state. To accomplish these vital constitutional purposes, the enumeration should count only citizens and persons who are legal, permanent residents. But it won’t.
Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau is set to count all persons physically present in the country—including large numbers who are here illegally. The result will unconstitutionally increase the number of representatives in some states and deprive some other states of their rightful political representation. Citizens of “loser” states should be outraged. Yet few are even aware of what’s going on.
SC*AR
Originally posted by JamesE30Comment
-
the problem there is not with the census. the census quite rightly should account for all persons living regardless of immigration status. the problem is with using that to determine the re-districting. perhaps voter registration should be used instead. btw, that article forgets to mention that legal permanent residents cannot vote in federal elections either (only citizens can) so should the census exclude them too?Comment
-
I agree with you that the census is there to count how many people are living in a specific area, illegal or legal. But when it comes to using that data to redistrict certain areas, it's just another thing that pisses me off and is unconstitutional.
o and btw, it's from the WSJ. You should be proud that it's not one of my other right wing "conspiracy" sources :D
SC*AR
Originally posted by JamesE30Comment
-
All of Obama's televised apperances, including those town hall meetings are staged. He is basically pitched soft ball pitches from audience members who are told what to ask to make it seem like he knows what he is talking aboutOriginally posted by robbieosterman
SC*AR
Originally posted by JamesE30Comment
-
The argument that "but but but but Bush did it" has to be one of the most ignorant arguments out there (I'm not calling you ignorant Kish). Bush is NOT the President anymore, so it is irrelevant to bring him into context. Two wrongs do not make a right. Regardless if Bush did it or not, Obama shouldn't be, but that's too much to hope for from our current Julius Ceasar.
Honestly, when people forget about Bush, and Obama and his supporters have nothing to fall back on, he is going to be in some serious shit. He will have absolutely no excuses to justify what he is doing, that goes for all of his policies and tactics, not just this minor one
SC*AR
Originally posted by JamesE30Comment
-
Read my above post.Originally posted by nickpdx
SC*AR
Originally posted by JamesE30Comment
-
Comment
Comment