| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Durbin Says Congress Can Require More Drug Savings |
| 2009-08-07 |
| Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration told Democratic senators that its agreement with drugmakers doesn’t bar Congress from requiring the industry to absorb further cuts in government spending on drugs, Senator Dick Durbin said. White House aide David Axelrod told the senators “as far as he is concerned there is no deal” requiring the administration to protect drugmakers from further spending cuts as part of a U.S. health-care overhaul, Durbin said. He spoke during an interview taped for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt.” Drugmakers agreed to $80 billion in drug-cost savings in negotiations with the Obama administration earlier this year as Congress began drafting health-care legislation. The administration also has negotiated cost-saving agreements with other areas of the health-care industry. All agreements come with an expiration date. Axelrod held a closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats today. Durbin said the White House aide denied a media report that quoted a drug lobbyist as saying the agreement requires the Obama administration to prevent Congress from imposing further drug savings. “He told us there was no agreement in that regard,” Durbin said. “I don’t think any, if many, of us feel bound by any understanding or agreement along those lines.” |
| Posted by:whitecollar redneck |
| #2 Rich Galen's Mullings.com: • The New York Times had an amazing front page story yesterday which I would have thought would have jumped to the top of every cable news cycle except for the Senate’s confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. • The headline of the story was: “White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost” by David Kirkpatrick. • I want you to read the lead paragraph very slowly: Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday 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. • Whoa! Check Please! • How can the words “industry lobbyists” and “White House” be in the same sentence? We have been told – to the point of needing Compazine (an anti-nausea drug) – that this administration was, is, and will always be a lobbyist-free zone. • Yet, here it is; in the newspaper of record. The White House had reached a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry to put a ceiling on the amount of money the government could save by negotiating for lower drug prices. In the words of the NY Times, the White House “had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the [health care] overhaul” but “had never spelled out the details of the agreement.” • Oh, here we are in graf seven: The new attention to the agreement could prove embarrassing to the White House, which has sought to keep lobbyists at a distance, including by refusing to hire them to work in the administration. • Embarassing? Ya think, DiNozzo? (To quote Leroy Jethro Gibbs). • It turns out that there is a quid pro quo for keeping the drug companies out of the rough and tumble world of free markets. Again, from Mr. Kirkpatrick’s piece: Failing to publicly confirm [the drug lobby’s] descriptions of the deal risked alienating a powerful industry ally currently helping to bankroll millions in television commercials in favor of Mr. Obama’s reforms. [emphasis mine] • So… let me walk through this. In strange world in which Obamaville is located, lobbyists are bad only if and until the White House needs them to do things like run ads in favor of nationalized health care and then lobbyists are good. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-08-07 08:59 |
| #1 And I say we start with you DICK. CURSE you DICK, you service to this country is no longer needed. Cut Dick Durbin off from healthcare. He no longer needs it - you are a NAZI, DICK. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-08-07 04:35 |