I'm a strong supporter of universal health insurance, and a fan of the Obama administration. But I'm appalled by the deal the White House has made with the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying arm to buy their support.Sitting in Canada, where we already have a universal government program, I feel sorry for Americans. Corruption is slowly eating them alive and the failure to get an honest public healthcare system is a very bad sign. Rome slipped from being a republic to a tyranny in a series of halting steps just as America appears to be doing.
Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That's basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it's proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the Boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We don't know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details haven't been made public.)
Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher health-care costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs. To be sure, as part of its deal with the White House, Big Pharma apparently has promised to cut future drug costs by $80 billion. But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?
In return, Big Pharma isn't just supporting universal health care. It's also spending a lots of money on TV and radio advertising in support. Sunday's New York Times reports that Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health insurance, starting this August (that's more money than John McCain spent on TV advertising in last year's presidential campaign), after having already spent a bundle through advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA.
...
But I also care about democracy, and the deal between Big Pharma and the White House frankly worries me. It's bad enough when industry lobbyists extract concessions from members of Congress, which happens all the time. But when an industry gets secret concessions out of the White House in return for a promise to lend the industry's support to a key piece of legislation, we're in big trouble. That's called extortion: An industry is using its capacity to threaten or prevent legislation as a means of altering that legislation for its own benefit. And it's doing so at the highest reaches of our government, in the office of the President.
...
We're on a precarious road -- and wherever it leads, it's not toward democracy.
Leaders like George Bush beat their chest as "patriots" while they sold their country to corporations, and now Obama, who ran on a ticket of reform, of transparency, is walking in George Bush's footsteps. Tragic.
2 comments:
My initial response was outright distrust. I thought maybe Obama is trying to get a foot in the door so to speak, but then I wonder if he wants to say that he got reform and that will give him political clout. I remain skeptical... maybe that skepticism is a bad thing for all of us. Perhaps this is the best that can be achieved at this time and better things will follow as it progresses. This country is so set on it's individual traditional thinking and it's special interests...
I think Obama simply sees the ballooning costs of health care as a serious economic impediment for the US and wants to fix it.
Americans are big on "individual freedom". That's fine. I like that too. But somehow they think that being captive to some big private insurance corporation is better than being "managed" by a public institution like Medicare. That makes no sense to me.
Both are big bureaucratic institutions. Both tend to lose the individual in the bowels of the paperwork and silly regulations.
But at least the public institution is not busy trying to maximize a profit off of you. And the ethics of an indifferent public bureaucrat are much preferable to the cynical manipulation by a paper pusher in a private insurance company where there are monetary incentives to deny you coverage.
But somehow the American people find the private big institutional health care supplier "superior" to the government supplier. That I find to be bizarre.
I would love to look after my own health care, but I'm realistic. In a modern society with complex technology, you simply can't do it. You have to rely on big organizations. My prejudice is you are generally better off with a government institution which isn't motivated by greed. Sure, there is less incentive to innovate, but there is also less incentive to maximize profits at your expense.
I can understand those who fall the other way, but my experience with both the US and Canadian systems leads me to prefer the Canadian system.
Post a Comment