Event Calendar
February 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 * * *
<< (add event) >>


User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search


Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

Schweitzer's Drug Play

by: Montana Cowgirl

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 03:20:06 AM MST


The idea of reimporting cheap prescription drugs from Canada, where drugs cost a fraction of what the identical medicine costs here, has been dormant for many months, if not years. Then, yesterday, Schweitzer stormed into the china shop and shattered some dishes.

Two questions arise. First, why had the issue gone dormant? Short Answer: The Obama Administration cut a deal with the Pharmaceutical Industry, early in the healthcare reform game, in which Obama pledged to kill any efforts to reimport drugs from Canada in return for the Drug Industry running TV Ads and other media--$80 million worth--in support of Obama's healthcare plan.

That's a shady deal by any measurement, unless the ultimate Obama plan finds some way to drastically reduce or subsidize prescription prices. Thus far the plan does not appear to do so.

But more troubling, and way under the radar, is the fact that our senators have taken the bait. Both Tester and Baucus recently (and quietly) voted against a Senate Bill that would have authorized the reimportation of prescription drugs (made by American companies) from Canada.    

Beyond that, there lurks the more dark and deplorable history of Baucus giving the pharmaceutical industry one of the greatest government corporate giveaways in history.  Those were the days when Baucus was hugging George Bush as a way to get re-elected (how times have changed).  And the most insidious part of that 2002 vote by Baucus, of course, was that Baucus's Chief of Staff left Baucus's office shortly thereafter, to cash in in a new job lobbying the Senate on behalf of the drug industry, employment which quickly made him a millionaire.

The second question is what the White House and/or Secretary Sebelius is going to tell Schweitzer. Has Schweitzer gotten too cute? Has he poked the tiger one time too many? Will Obama somehow retaliate or freeze-out our Governor? Or, has Schweitzer put them in an impossible position and thus revived a very important issue, and put it on course for some sort of resolution? Perhaps even a concession from the drug industry that is something more than a promise to run stupid and ineffective campaign ads for a stupid and ineffective corporate giveaway which the White House is trying to sell us?

This is a major poke in the eye of the Obama team and is sure to get some national attention (as Schweitzer always seems to do.)  But hey, the Obama Administration deserves it. 

Montana Cowgirl :: Schweitzer's Drug Play
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Hey, SOMEbody has to poke the tiger! (0.00 / 0)
The country is dying out here for lack of health care.  PEOPLE are dying out here for want of health care! Someone needs to not only POKE the tiger, but also kick the tiger in the ass!  If Schweitzer is the guy to do that, great.

One of my first (0.00 / 0)
comments here at LiTW included my vision of what health care reform would look like.  This pricing imbalance was part of that.

Why not start over?  Build a reform measure with 4 parts: 1. pre-existing conditions, 2. drug pricing at comparable scale in adjoining countries, 3. tort reform, and 4. interstate sale of insurance.   That would be hard to resist for both the left and the right. The Roman Emperor Hadrian is thought to have answered the question of how the Roman Empire was built by saying, "Brick by brick."  


Tort reform? Why? (0.00 / 0)
Take a look at reality, not the make believe sound bite world that Repubs. use.  Reality...so called frivolous suits never make it to court. Second, 99% of the lawyers are not going to take on a case that is going to be tossed out for being frivolous...that does nothing for your reputation except ruin it.

Do you own a credit card? Has your credit card company jerked you around, raised your interest rates, added new fees?  Welcome to the world of interstate credit card sales....these companies find the the state with virtually no regulations, set up shop there, and use the law that allows them this freedom to totally by pass stricter state regulations. Is that what you want for insurance companies? Your state insurance laws would be meaningless...

If you are truly a conservative you would want a system that lower costs, cuts the deficit, and covers everyone...something like Medicare for all. And by the way...nearly half of health care today is paid for by the government.


[ Parent ]
bigsage (0.00 / 0)
The answer is that tort reform would be sleeves off the vest for the left and would generate support from the right. Keep reform to 4 simple, understandable bricks that generate the greatest support.  Add more bricks later.

[ Parent ]
it is true that reimporting drugs is something both sides could agree on (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I find it so funny that repubs (0.00 / 0)
will take your number one idea, preexistings, and bandy it about as something that is popular and could happen sans any other sorts of comprehensive reforms. But it is a red herring. It just can't happen without a total package, and here's why.

If you regulate insurance companies to not discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions, insurance prices wil spiral out of control (moreso than they are now), because a whole bunch of people who are expensive (read older and unhealthy and currently uninsured) to cover will enter the market. Either those policies will be so expensive as to not be affordable by the consumer, or everybody's policies will increase in price to subsidize them.

And when prices increase, healthy young people (the invincibles)  will increasingly opt out of insurance, as there is no incentive to maintain coverage (especially as it gets more expensive)--they can get coverage when they get sick. And with young healthy's opting out, prices in the pool will have to increase.

So covering preexistings without comprehensive reform--mandates and subsidies in the current bill--will only exacerbate the problems we have: unaffordability and high level of uninsured.

And the other 3 points you raise that you want to do will do nothing to cure the basic problem you create by forcing insurers to accept people with preexistings without any other comprehensive reform.

And those last three points are not anything that most people would consider "major reform." In fact, the last--selling policies across state lines--will do to our health insurance market what credit card dereg did to the credit card market: start a race to the bottom with insurers relocating to the states with least regs in order to fleece consumers with bad financial (now insurance) products. I find it so hilarious that republicans selectively champion state's rights, but in this case want the federal government to overrule state protections on insurers to open up the states to predatory, unregulated insurers.

So all this is is another smoke screen to get Congress to "start over." Which means kill the bill and do nothing. Republicans have never wanted to do any of the 4 things you refer to when they have the power to do so. Why has that scenario changed now or will it in the future? There is no integrity behind your 4 part plan. It only furthers the political goals of republicans. And anybody who knows health policy can see that.


[ Parent ]
What really gets me was all that talk about controlling costs and keeping deficit neutral didn't include this cost saving mechanism. (0.00 / 0)
I mean, a major cost control was simply not considered?!?  What. A. Complete. Joke. JC you've been following this, you know keeping costs down was supposed to be a big part of this!  

[ Parent ]
Actually no JC (0.00 / 0)
Just like the fed govt provides flood insurance, they could create a reinsurance unit to allow commercial insurers to buy this coverage at easy squeezy rates that would prevent that price spike.

[ Parent ]
Run that figure (0.00 / 0)
through the CBO and get back to me, Craigie, will ya?

Oh, and reinsurance wasn't part of your 4 point plan. What other fixes for your loopholes do you have?

Who's going to pay for all the uncovered costs for the junk plans you want to sell over borders?

Truth is, reform based on Craig's 4-fold path is nothing more than a block of swiss cheese. Good for a party when you serve it to lobbyists, corporations and politicians but worthless when it comes to basic sustenance.


[ Parent ]
JCigie (0.00 / 0)
Reinsurance and other mechanisms would be the plumbing to implement any plan.  Sorry you are having difficulties.

[ Parent ]
I thought you conservatives hated socialist programs (0.00 / 0)
like flood insurance. What gives with having the feds backstop another failed private corporate enterprise by privatizing the profits and publicizing the risk with a massive reinsurance program? You're asking the feds to level out a market that has shown inability to regulate itself.

You guys are so selectively hypocritical.

And where's those CBO numbers, Craigie? How many people will remain uninsured under your plan? How much will it cost the government? What will happen to individual and group rates? What will the average out-of-pocket increase to? What is its effect on the deficit?

Crickets...


[ Parent ]
JCigie, (0.00 / 0)
crickets?

Are your comprehension impaired today?  I rolled out an idea where everyone could claim success...and bitch about what the other guy got and what remains to be done.  People would cheer the simplicity and cheer politicos acting responsibly.

What is your hangup with the CBO scoring?  Would it be any more onerous to cover pre-existing conditions than what is on the table now??

But it just doesn't matter what I think as no one is willing to work together now. Yesterday, I saw this very troubling news from the New England Journal of Medicine:  http://www.nejmjobs.org/rpt/he...

Let's see, add 30 million new insureds and watch the physician population shrink.  Now that's reform!!!!!  You Dems and Dem enablers own this disaster.


[ Parent ]
"What is your hangup with the CBO scoring?" (0.00 / 0)
You can't get health care legislation through Congress without it.

"no one is willing to work together now"

No one (meaning democrats and republicans) are willing to work together because: 1) republicans don't want to compromise with democrats; 2) republicans want democrats to pass only republican ideas; 3) republicans don't want comprehensive health care reform; 4) republicans want a political win by ensuring Obama fails on healthcare; and 5) republicans don't believe that there is a moral imperative to see that the poor have meaningful health coverage beyond the ER.


[ Parent ]
Well JCigie (0.00 / 0)
that brings us full circle to what I proposed.  A 2000 page bill is not the way to go.  Give both sides something for them to claim a victory. Keep it simple. Move forward in a responsible manner that us mere citizens will applaud.

[ Parent ]
Fool me once, shame on you ... (0.00 / 0)
I rolled out an idea where everyone could claim success...and bitch about what the other guy got and what remains to be done.  People would cheer the simplicity and cheer politicos acting responsibly.

Craig, you are assuming that the Party Of No really isn't the Party of No.  All throughout this process we have seen time and time again that concessions made to Republicants have had no effect on their voting.  None.  What you claim would be hard to resist for the both the left and the right is a sham.  What is irresistible to the right is endorsing total failure from those on the left.  If Harry Reid wrote the bill with the 4 planks you propose today, it would garner precisely zero Republicant votes in the Senate.  After all, a Democrat wrote it.

Further, your plank 4 rather defeats any price controls, and actually allows for more abuse based on state law as opposed to federal mandate.  The CBO report on that option shows it quite clearly, and that's why JC makes a relevant point.  I too would like to see you justify your point 4 in a favorable light.  


[ Parent ]
I don't like point 4 (0.00 / 0)
either.  I said as much many months ago.  That being said, it takes away opposition that badly wants this aspect and builds support.  As I said it gives something for everybody to cheer... and throw rocks at.

But what the hell, none of this will happen.  


[ Parent ]
KILL the Bill (0.00 / 0)

   If this bill passes it will probably sack the treasury by 2013/14. the current expenses of multiple invasions and illegal occupations (the love of Repugs) makes it impossible with out increasing the already killer debt.

  Had the HCR bill the means of Improved Medicare for All - cradle to grave, the Pool of funding would manifest itself as it does for Medicare now.
  The elimination of the reason we are mired in this cesspool is entirely due to the Insurance Cartel and Drug industry for 70 years ...With Improved Medicare for All the Cartel would be decaying, dying embers on the sideline with elective surgery.

  Nothing changes as long as these Terrorist Corporations own our Legislatures. Conservative think is the swamp where these concepts of Privatization and Deregulation FESTER.
 And KING Obama w/ Rahmbo have Killed the Dem party just like the Neo-cons and Evangelicals did to the GOP.

   i must say this edition of Centrist in the West might be getting it's Huevos on. there's hope.


[ Parent ]
Is that True-- (0.00 / 0)
that the Dems in Congress voted down a bill to bring drugs from canada? WTF?

It's hard to believe, but amazingly, it's true. (0.00 / 0)
I was shocked too when I first learned this.  I mean it seems so obvious.

[ Parent ]
Will Schweitzer run against Baucus? (0.00 / 0)
I received an automated call the other night that required me to push "1" or push "2" in response to a few questions, the first being about importing far less expensive drugs into Montana.

Another questions wanted to know if I would vote for Baucus the next time his term is up(again, yes or no).

The last question asked if I would vote for Schweitzer or Baucus in the next senate election.  Guess Schweitzer is looking to move up to higher and better things on the national stage after his term of Governor is up.


so (0.00 / 0)
how did you vote?

[ Parent ]
I know how I would vote : ) (0.00 / 0)


i agree that the feds deserve a big poke in the eye for their cowardice (0.00 / 0)
and i hope this is a trial balloon to also create a public option health care choice for montanans. it would make us the Delaware of health plans for businesses all over this country after enduring the huge premium increases of the past few months by the parasites....

borrow about 50 million from coal tax fund to start it and there would be so many companies moving their corporate headquarters here that you would be hauling tax revenue into Helena in copper ore dump trucks.

we could pay off the fund and grow our jobs and tax base within no time. and brian would be president within 10 years. guaranteed.

companies and citizens all accross the country are just waiting for some leader with courage to make the first move and get these leeches off our asses.  


by the way... (0.00 / 0)
is there some byzantine way to get e-mail notification on this lousy system so i can respond to comments? or do i have to keep checking manually?  i can't find it anywhere but as you all know i am often a bear of very little brain.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox