Article

2009-08-07 Home Front: Politix

Durbin Says Congress Can Require More Drug Savings

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2009-08-07 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#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">newc 2009-08-07 04:35|| 2009-08-07 04:35|| Front Page Top

#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 Senates 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. Kirkpatricks piece:
Failing to publicly confirm [the drug lobbys] descriptions of the deal risked alienating a powerful industry ally currently helping to bankroll millions in television commercials in favor of Mr. Obamas 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">Frank G 2009-08-07 08:59|| 2009-08-07 08:59|| Front Page Top

23:58 OldSpook
23:53 Procopius2k
23:53 Capsu78
23:41 GirlThursday
23:39 Procopius2k
23:34 Procopius2k
23:22 GirlThursday
23:18 Cornsilk Blondie
23:16 Redneck Jim
23:15 Cornsilk Blondie
23:12 Redneck Jim
23:11 lotp
23:08 GirlThursday
23:08 Redneck Jim
23:04 Redneck Jim
22:59 Frank G
22:57 Skunky Glins 5***
22:44 Procopius2k
22:33 trailing wife
22:31 OldSpook
22:29 OldSpook
22:28 OldSpook
22:13 trailing wife
22:13 GirlThursday