Go Home

prescription drugs

8 documents found in 0.001 seconds.

Welcome to the Republican Tea Party

contract-on-america_627d8.jpg

How refreshing to see an effort to actually hold Republicans accountable for their nasty, selfish attitudes toward fellow citizens. The Democrats have an answer to the Republicans' effort to craft a new "Contract With America".

Behold, the Republican Tea Party Contract ON America, where Democrats are prepared to remind the country of what Republicans have been up to this year.

Contract high points include:

  1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)

    Put insurance companies back in charge, repeal tax credits for small businesses, allow insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions and to drop coverage when a person gets too sick and make prescription drugs for seniors less affordable.

  2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether

    Turn the guaranteed retirement benefits of America's seniors over to Wall Street CEOs by putting Social Security at risk in the stock market or, as some Republicans have called for, phase out Social Security altogether and end a program millions of American seniors rely on for their survival.
  3. End Medicare as it presently exists

    Phase out and end Medicare as it presently exists for future generations of seniors -- ending Medicare's guaranteed healthcare benefits for more than 40 million American seniors -- and replace it with a voucher system which will result in higher premiums and fewer services for seniors.

  4. Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil

    At a cost of nearly $700 billion, extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and big oil, which are set to expire and which have and will continue to explode the federal budget deficit.

  5. Repeal Wall Street Reform

    Roll back the toughest consumer protections ever enacted, allow banks to continue to grow too big to fail, and ensure that predatory lenders continue to utilize their most abusive practices.

  6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes

    Cap liabilities for those responsible for environmental disasters like the Gulf oil spill and let companies like BP decide which victims deserve compensation for the disaster and what the timeline for relief should be.
  7. Abolish the Department of Education

    Put the big banks back in charge of student loans and put an end to federal assistance for public schools.

  8. Abolish the Department of Energy

    End America's investments in a clean-energy future and disband the organization responsible for oversight of nuclear materials.

  9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency

    Gut the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act -- which together protect our kids from air pollution and keep drinking water safe -- and disband the watchdog that holds polluters accountable.

  10. Repeal the 17th Amendment

    Take away your right to pick your U.S. Senator

That's what they've promised. Not just a walk back to the Bush years, a walk back to another century. Perhaps they could repeal the Emancipation Proclamation, too.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (748)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1113)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Digby's right. The Villagers are constitutionally incapable of taking in any information that contradicts their consensus narrative, as you'll see in this clip with Terry Moran and David Axelrod on This Week:

MORAN: So according to the president, then, David, health care reform as we know it, that huge bill that Congress labored on for months, is dead, right?

AXELROD: No, that's not true at all, Terry. I think what he's saying is let's take a look at this. There are so many elements of this -- tax breaks for small business, extending the life of Medicare, more assistance for seniors with their prescription drugs, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, help for people with pre-existing conditions -- that are too important to walk away from. What he's saying is, let's get back to it.

Now, I will -- I must tell you that, if you look at the polling in the Washington Post yesterday on the Massachusetts race, it's very clear, people don't want us to walk away from health care. They want us to address their concerns with the program, and they want Brown to come and work with us and not be obstructionist. That was very clear in the polling.

And I suggest that the Republican Party look at that poll, as well. Their policies were viewed more dimly than -- than Democratic policies. And people were crying out for cooperation instead of obstructionism.

So we're looking forward to working together to pass this on behalf of the American people, who are going to feel greater and greater burden from this -- these health care costs if we don't step up and deal with it.

MORAN: You're looking forward to pass this. Now, this -- the president sounded like he was reducing the scale, let's coalesce around some core elements, insurance reform, cost containment. And -- and are you talking -- what do you think of the idea that is being...

AXELROD: Well, I think what the president...

MORAN: I do have a question here. What do you think of the idea that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are cooking up that you could essentially strip the Senate bill of a few provisions on a parliamentary maneuver requiring only 51 votes and then getting the bill through the House? Do you, A, think that's possible? And, B, getting the original $800 billion bill that the voters of Massachusetts soundly rejected, do you think that's a good idea?

AXELROD: Terry, again, I think you're misreading the Massachusetts poll. I think people want action on health care. In fact, the bill that the House and the Senate passed, which are largely the same in the main, were patterned in many ways on the Massachusetts health care plan, which is a unique plan in that state. And 68 percent of the people who voted last week said they liked the Massachusetts plan. Senator Brown said he wouldn't change it.



Sanders' Deal Lays The Groundwork For National Health Care

I've been a little astounded at the progressive attacks on Bernie Sanders. Read what Katrina vanden Heuvel in The Nation writes about his healthcare deal: (h/t Heather)

Without fanfare, the good Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, has continued to work behind the scenes to champion community health centers--something he has done for years (also here). These non-profit, community-based facilities provide primary healthcare, dental care, mental health services, and low-cost prescription drugs on a sliding scale. As amendments were added in recent days to win over the Liebermans and Nelsons of the "greatest [undemocratic] deliberative body" in the world, Sanders made sure that a $10 billion increase in funding for the health centers was included.

"This is not gonna solve all the problems of the world," Senator Sanders told me yesterday. "But expanding access to high quality primary health care, and low-cost prescription drugs, and mental health counseling, and dental care--which is a big issue--this is a very significant step forward. If you walk into a health clinic and you have no insurance at all they will treat you on a sliding scale basis. So, that's affordable healthcare."

There has also been little news coverage of Sanders' fight to allow states waivers so they can move forward with their own "health insurance concepts, including single-payer." Such language is now in the Senate bill and Sanders is still working with Senator Ron Wyden to strengthen it. That is exactly how Canada developed its healthcare system, with a successful program incubated in Saskatchewan. This provision is actually stronger in the Senate bill--it didn't make it into the House version.

"It's still in play," Sanders says.

As for the community health centers--officially named federally qualified health centers--they were spearheaded in the 1960s through legislation authored by Senator Edward Kennedy. There are now 1200 of them across the country with over 7500 satellites. 20 million Americans utilize these facilities, including 1 out of 6 Vermonters, giving the state the highest rate of participation in the nation.

Also critical, the funding would expand the National Health Service Corps which provides loan repayments and scholarships for primary care doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and mental health professionals. Sanders points out that currently there is a "primary healthcare crisis" with "tens of millions of people"--even people who have insurance--unable to find a primary healthcare doctor or dentist.

The House bill provides $14 billion in funding for the federal health centers and service corps. Sanders says that indications from the White House and Democratic leadership are that there is a "good chance" the final bill will do the same. That would translate to health centers in 10,000 more communities throughout America within 5 years, and increase the number of people served by over 100 percent, to 45 million. It would also create 20,000 new primary care practitioners, dentists, nurses and other healthcare professionals. Sanders emphasizes a George Washington University study that shows the $14 billion expenditure would save money--$23 billion in Medicaid alone--"because you're keeping people out of the hospital and out of the emergency room. Now if this is not a win-win-win situation, I don't know what is," he says.

Sanders notes some other positive elements of the Senate bill.

"We can talk about the politics, and all of our disappointments," he says, "but at the end of the day you're gonna have 31 million more people who have health insurance--taking us up to some 94 percent [covered]. That's not an insignificant achievement and we shouldn't become too cynical about it."

Sanders also says the insurance reforms--banning denials based on preexisting conditions, lifetime benefit caps, and dumping people because they ran up a high healthcare bill--are significant.

[...] Sanders urges progressives to continue fighting for House provisions--including the $14 billion for community health centers, progressive taxation as opposed to taxing healthcare benefits, and a strong public option.

But can we get a better bill and still get 60 votes?

"Well, that remains to be seen," Sanders says. "What is being increasingly discussed all over the country is this is extremely undemocratic. You've got a strong majority in the House who want to do something, and all of that effort is nullified by one or two people in the Senate. Does that make sense to you? I don't think it's fair. So I think we want to take a look at how we deal with a dysfunctional situation like we've seen on the Senate healthcare bill, and you know, maybe some good will come out of that."

DonationsTracker.com - Make a Donation to Donation



Axelrod on Healthcare Bill: 'We Will Get It Done'

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (514)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (990)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

(h/t David)

David Axelrod discusses the healthcare bill on This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, David, the public seems to have questions as well. We did a poll this week, ABC News/Washington Post poll, that showed that 53 percent of the public think their own health care will cost more if this passes, 55 percent think the health care system overall will cost more, and only 37 percent think their own quality of care will be better.

In the face of this kind of skepticism, is it wise to ram through legislation like this, such a huge piece of legislation on a party-line vote?

AXELROD: Well, I would say a few things, George. First of all, you say this is what people think, I think when people see what actually happens after these reforms are passed, those concerns are going to be allayed, and they're going to realize that if they have insurance, they're more secure in their relationship with their insurance company, their costs are going to go down.

If they don't have insurance, they can get it at a price they can afford. It's going to reduce our deficit. It's going to extend the life of Medicare. Medicare recipients are going to get a better deal on prescription drugs and better care. So the reality I think will trump polls numbers in the dead of winter as this debate is going on.

In terms of ramming it through, we've been talking about this, we've been debating it and considering it for eight months. The Republican Party has spent a month engaged in parliamentary maneuvers and dilatory tactics to try and prevent and vote.

Understand, the big question here isn't whether or not we're going to get a vote, whether this will pass or not, the big question is whether the Republican Party will allow a vote. A majority of senators support this reform, and the Republican Party wants to prevent it from coming up for a vote. I think the American people are entitled to a vote.

If you are a person with pre-existing conditions, if you're a small business person who can't afford health care, if you are a person who became seriously ill and was thrown off your insurance -- their insurance because of that, if you're going bankrupt because of out-of-pocket expenses, you need the United States Senate to act.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But most of the changes, even if the bill passes won't be instituted until after the next presidential election, so you're asking people to take an awful lot on faith.

AXELROD: George, that's not really true, almost all of these insurance protections, the things that will protect people in terms of out-of-pocket costs, the pre -- children...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: (INAUDIBLE).

AXELROD: The day the president signs the bill, children with pre-existing conditions will now be -- an insurance company can't keep them from joining their parents' insurance policy. People with pre-existing conditions will have a catastrophic plan they can join.

And then, of course, when the thing goes fully into effect, everyone will be on insurance, insurance companies can't ban anyone with pre-existing conditions. But there are number of insurance protections that go into effect as soon as the president signs the bill. And not to mention, will begin reducing that gap in Medicare prescription coverage. So there...

Continue reading »



Congressional Democrats are calling for two inquiries after the New York Times reported earlier this week that drug companies were jacking up their prices, negating savings they promised for healthcare reform:

Responding to news reports of unusually high wholesale price increases in brand-name prescription drugs, four House leaders and one senator asked for government reviews of the pricing practices.

Although drug makers challenge the theory, some experts say the run-up in wholesale prices may be partly related to the industry’s concerns about future cost containment under any health care legislation.

“Recent studies have indicated that the industry may be artificially raising prices for certain pharmaceutical products in expectation of new reforms,” the House Democrats wrote in a letter to the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress. “Any price gouging is unacceptable, but anticipatory price gouging is especially offensive,” the letter added, asking the G.A.O. to conduct an expedited review of the price increases.

[...] Separately, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Democrat who has led efforts in the Senate to seek more concessions from drug makers, wrote to the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services asking for “an immediate and thorough investigation into drug industry pricing and recent increases, and the extent to which these increases may affect the Medicare and Medicaid programs.”



So Senate Democrats on the Finance Committee offered an amendment that would enable the federal government to bargain for lower drug prices for their bulk purchasing, a direct assault on the White House/Big Pharma deal from a few months back. Basically it would shift poor seniors back onto Medicaid for their drug purchasing, where the government can negotiate discounts. This would save the government over $80 billion dollars.

And Tom Carper of Delaware defended the secret deal in the most amazing of ways:

I was not involved in negotiations with PhRMA but I believe that the administration was, obviously PhRMA was, and I presume this committee was involved in some way in those negotiations.

And what PhRMA agreed to do through those negotiations is to pay about

80 billion dollars over 10 years to help fill up half the donut hole. That's my understanding. And they are prepared to go forward and to honor that commitment. As I understand it, the commitment from our colleague Senator Nelson would basically double what was negotiated with PhRMA.

And whether you like PhRMA or not -- remember I talked earlier today in our opening statements, I talked about four core values, and one of those is the golden rule, treat other people the way I want to be treated?

I'll tell you -- if someone negotiated a deal with me and I agreed to put up say, 80 dollars or 80 million dollars or 80 billion dollars and then you came back and said to me a couple of weeks later -- no no, I know you agreed to do 80 billion and I know you were willing to help support through an advertising campaign this particular -- not even this particular bill, just the idea of generic health care reform? No, we're going to double -- we're going to double what you agreed in those negotiations to do. That's not the way -- that's not what I consider treating people the way I'd want to be treated.

That just doesn't seem right to me.

This is incredible. The deal is transparently one to protect drug industry profits. There's just no doubt about this. Carper is saying that it's more important to get a few generic ads in support of health care reform than to save the US taxpayers $80 billion dollars. Backroom deals must be honored even if they hurt people. That's the "golden rule" in Washington.

Did Carper not know that cameras were rolling when he said this?



Senate Kills Import Drug Plan

pills.jpg

HeraldNet:

In a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate on Monday killed a drive to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from abroad at a significant savings over domestic prices.

On a 49-40 vote, the Senate required the Food and Drug Administration to certify the safety and effectiveness of imported drugs before they can be imported, a requirement that officials have said they cannot meet.

"Well, once again the big drug companies have proved that they are the most powerful and best financed lobby in Washington," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

Continue reading »



Republicans Copy Answers

More Crooks exposed from The Hamster

Republicans Copy Answers

If I did this in school, I'd get expelled:

Copying a national Republican group's sample answers, Kentucky 4th District congressional candidate Geoff Davis and several others seeking office around the country have submitted identical answers to an AARP survey.

At least five GOP candidates offered the same responses to questions about Social Security, health-care costs and prescription drugs. The others are from California, Florida, Nebraska and Georgia.

Davis admitted yesterday through a spokesman that he copied the answers to all three questions from materials distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee.