Democrats Want to Allow Lower Drug Prices

Bush threatens a VETO

Published on January 13, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics

Democrats want to allow lower drug prices

The Medicare prescription drug bill that Bush and the GOP controlled Congress passed prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices for the American taxpayers. Think of that—a law that prevents the free market from operating and it was passed by the GOP controlled Congress and signed by a Republican President.

At the same time the Veterans Administration does use their buying power to negotiate LOWER drug prices then Medicare even though the amount of drugs purchased by the veterans Administration is FAR LOWER then Medicare.

Now the Democrats are in the process of correcting this flaw in the MEDICARE Prescription Drug Act to lower the prices of drugs for 46 Million retired Americans. Now word from the White House is that Bush is considering a VETO of the new proposal to require Medicare to use their purchasing power to LOWER the cost of prescription drugs for both Retired Americans and the tax payers who pay Medicare taxes. WHY?

If Bush vetoes this new law, it is time to override his veto and put this president in his place. If any member of Congress, Republican, Democrat or independent fails to vote to override a Bush Veto of this measure they need to be removed from office the next time they come up for reelection. A Bush Veto of as bill that would lower drug prices is simple unjustifiable and can not be allowed to stand! It is time to act in the best interest of Americans not the Drug Companies.

Comments (Page 1)

Larry Kuperman

on Jan 13, 2007

One account of the proposed bill, which has been passed by US House of Representatives, can be found on-line at the Boston Globe site here: Link

Some quotes in support of COL Gene's position are as follows:

"The American public overwhelmingly supports giving Medicare the power to bargain with manufacturers on behalf of beneficiaries for lower drug prices," said William Novelli, chief executive of AARP.

"This will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy, and savings for all taxpayers," said Representative John Dingell , Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

State Senator Mark C. Montigny , Democrat of New Bedford and former head of a national state legislators healthcare group, said, "The Medicare drug law was the most blatant abuse and corruption of the public policy process I've seen in 14 years. Today's vote is a major step in the right direction."

Bush said he would veto the measure if it passes the Senate, and the 255-to-170 vote in the House could not override a veto. Democrats had promised to make lowering drug prices a priority once they gained a majority in Congress.

Marketwatch (Dow Jones on line) also covered the story, you can check that out here: Link

The take of that article is somewhat different, citing " House Republicans pointed to a review by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that found the House proposal wouldn't result in lower prices.
"CBO estimates that [the bill] would have a negligible effect on federal spending, because we anticipate that the secretary would be unable to negotiate prices across the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by private drug plans under current law," acting CBO director Donald Marron wrote in a letter Wednesday to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., the author of the bill."

An interesting aside is an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Big Pharma, Flush With Cash, Is Looking Acquisitive." That article references how the major pharmaceutical companies, with huge amounts of cash on hand, are looking to acquire other companies. As the number of drug companies diminishes, so does competition. Their are less providers competing, which means less competition, which raises prices.

An interesting article at Oligopoly Watch pointed this out last year. "Pfizer and Merck, two of the three largest pharma companies look to be hurting bad, as their blockbuster arthritis medicines are falling hard. Merck's Vioxx is already off the market, while Pfizer's sales of similar drugs Celebrex and Bextra are way down. Worse yet, lawsuits are looming from heart-attack victims who may have died using the drugs. Furthermore, the companies have few big drugs in the pipeline to take their place.

So what's a big drug company to do? According to a Wall Street Journal article ("Big Pharma, Flush With Cash, is looking Acquisitive", 2/16/2005), those companies along with #2 GlaxoSmithKline may try to grow themselves out of problems. These companies have plenty of cash and, according to the article, "their favored targets could be smaller companies with successful drugs in sought-after therapeutic areas.""

Another article appears at SourceWatch about Big Pharma and their political PACS: Link

"Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also known as PhRMA, is one of the largest and most influential lobbying organizations in Washington. Representing 48 pharmaceutical companies, PhRMA has 20 registered lobbyists on staff and has contracted with dozens of lobby and PR firms -- including Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, DCI Group, The Dutko Group [1], Edelman and Bonner & Associates -- to promote its members' interests. PhRMA has a record of hiding its lobbying and PR activities, often by paying other organizations, such as United Seniors Association (USA) or the Consumer Alliance, to advocate industry-friendly policies."

The more that one looks into Big Pharma, the scarier they get.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 13, 2007

I'll be blunt. As much money as our government needlessly puts into R&D for drugs, Mecicare/Medicaid shouldn't be paying ONE THIN DIME for consumers on government assistance to receive the drugs. They "gave at the office" so to speak.

COL, this is one area where your absolute hatred of Bush blinds you to the other people in the government who are culpable. According to you, Bush should have the power to turn back the tide (New Orleans), stop 600 MPH passenger jets (9/11), simultaneously cover over 4,000 miles (combined) of unprotected border space (immigration) and now use Jedi mind tricks on 535 members of Congress. Whatever legitimate point you might have had gets lost in your hatred.

COL Gene

on Jan 13, 2007

Gideon

I do not hate Bush the man but I hate what he has done to this country. He has in so many areas harmed us or has failed to address urgent issues that need resolution. My dislike for the Bush policies does not alter the fact that his policies are harming the VAST majority of Americans. If he were to Veto a bill to allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices he harms every retired person in this country and my feeling about him does not alter that fact! Your attempt to mitigate the harm the Bush policies have created by attacking me does not lessen the negative results of this administration. The lack of an energy policy. The ineffective education policy. The disastrous trade policy. The federal deficit. Iraq and our foreign policy. His refusal to enforce our laws and protect our border and ports. The distain almost every nation has of the U.S. today. The political discord within our country. None of these has anything g to do with how I feel about Bush. Every one is the result of the Bush policies!

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 13, 2007

None of these has anything g to do with how I feel about Bush. Every one is the result of the Bush policies!

Not Bush's alone, Col. That's my point. The man simply does not have as much power as you are implying.

If you want to make change (and I believe you do), you should start by acknowledging the problems we have are not simply defined by saying "Bush sucks". We need to deal with the issues on MANY different levels.

Daiwa

on Jan 13, 2007

The feds are gonna have a hard time beating WalMart at this game.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 13, 2007

The feds are gonna have a hard time beating WalMart at this game.

Daiwa,

Which brings up the point. Why is it that when the feds do it, it's a good thing, when private industry does it, it's a bad thing?

COL Gene

on Jan 15, 2007

Gideon

My wife has cancer and I bet that some of her drugs that cost as much as $2,000 per prescription will not be AVAILABLE AT WAL MART FOR $4 OR $8 DOILLARS. There are MANY drugs that seniors will need help to purchase. The issue is WHY would ANY President oppose negotiating the lowest possible price for prescription drugs? Can you give me an intelligent answer to that question?

Island Dog

on Jan 15, 2007

My dislike for the Bush policies does not alter the fact that his policies are harming the VAST majority of Americans.

You need to stop claiming Bush is harming the majority of people in America. That is a false claim.

COL Gene

on Jan 15, 2007

IslandDog

Who in America is not being harmed by:

The deficit and the soaring interest taxpayers must pay
The trade deficit
Lack of Energy Policy and high energy costs
Failure to stop Illegal immigration
Failure to protect our ports and borders
Failure to find solution to Social Security and Medicare Funding problems
The Deaths, injuries and 1/2 Trillion dollars we have spent in Iraq
The loss of manufacturing jobs
48 million Americans without health coverage
Decline in the Average Weekly Wage AFTER Inflation

EVERY one of the above has either been made worse by the Bush policies over the past 6 years or has FAILED to improve.

Yes Americans are being harmed by Bush at least the bottom 90%!!!!!

drmiler

on Jan 15, 2007

Lack of Energy Policy and high energy costs

Crock of crap! Gas is @ $2.05 a gallon. Want to try again?

COL Gene

on Jan 15, 2007

drmiler

I am paying $2.32 a gallon. Home heating bills are MUCH higher then in 2001. Bush has acknowledged our dependence on Foreign Oil is a MAJOR Problem, and then does nothing to fax the problem he acknowledges!

What about all the other things I listed?

drmiler

on Jan 15, 2007

am paying $2.32 a gallon. Home heating bills are MUCH higher then in 2001. Bush has acknowledged our dependence on Foreign Oil is a MAJOR Problem, and then does nothing to fax the problem he acknowledges

Which is a far cry from what you were paying 6 months ago. And I don't know "where" you get your home heating fuel....but mine has dropped in its price. So like I said a "crock of crap"!

You want GW to fix the oil dependance? Then tell the democraps to allow us to build some new refineries and let us start drilling at home.

Island Dog

on Jan 15, 2007

Who in America is not being harmed by:

Myself for one...I can add more names if you want.

The deficit and the soaring interest taxpayers must pay - The deficit does not "harm" you and I would be most Americans don't even know what the deficit is.

Lack of Energy Policy and high energy costs - Energy costs are minimal. We have already shown the heating costs were not a big deal this winter. It was another scare tactic.

Failure to stop Illegal immigration - This shows your obsessoin right here. What did a democratic administration do about immigration? Nothing. If Bush was to send troops to the border right now you would be the first to complain about it.

The loss of manufacturing jobs - We have already gone through this and you were shown to be wrong. Unemployment is very low in this country.

48 million Americans without health coverage - Every American can have health coverage, they just want the government to pay for it. It's not the responsibility of Bush or the federal government to provide health care.

Yes Americans are being harmed by Bush at least the bottom 90%!!!!!

This is just where the exaggeration comes in. Most Americans lives have no changed because of Bush. If someone is "harmed" it's usually the fault of themselves. The government is not the caretaker of your life col. Understand that!

Island Dog

on Jan 15, 2007

American paychecks are rising again at a pace not seen since the 1990s.

The pay increase amounts to 4 percent on average over the past 12 months, and it comes at a very helpful time for millions of households.

For three years, pay increases haven't kept pace with the rising cost of living. Then came this year's housing slowdown, which has further squeezed family finances.

Those setbacks, however, are now being offset by rising income. Four percent may not sound like much, but you have to look back to 1997 to find a calendar year with a gain that big.

Equally significant, tamer energy prices mean that the "real" wage gains, after inflation, are above 3 percent for the past 12 months. That, too, hasn't happened since the 1990s, even though the economy has been expanding over the past five years.

COL Gene

on Jan 15, 2007

islandDog

The deficit and the soaring interest taxpayers must pay - The deficit does not "harm" you and I would be most Americans don't even know what the deficit is.

You do not pay taxes? The interest on the growing debt is being paid by anyone that pays taxes. It is approaching $500 Billion EVERY YEAR! In 1980 before Reagan and Bush created their deficits we paid $80 Billion per year in interest on the debt!

Lack of Energy Policy and high energy costs - Energy costs are minimal. We have already shown the heating costs were not a big deal this winter. It was another scare tactic.

Higher Energy impacts every person and every Business. In addition because we are depended of areas that produce the oil it creates Foreign Policy Issues. Even Bush admits
Our dependence is a major problem!

Failure to stop Illegal immigration - This shows your obsession right here. What did a democratic administration do about immigration? If Bush was to send troops to the border right now you would be the first to complain about it.

It is Bush who has failed to ENFORCE our Immigration Laws not the Democrats. The last I looked Bush is a Republican. He wants to give illegal’s resident status.

The loss of manufacturing jobs - We have already gone through this and you were shown to be wrong. Unemployment is very low in this country.

The loss of manufacturing jobs is a MAJOR problem and the jobs that are being created pay much less with fewer benefits then the jobs that were lost. Tell the people that have
Lost their jobs in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New England (garment Industry) they do not have a problem. WE are still short 1 million jobs from 2001.

48 million Americans without health coverage - Every American can have health coverage; they just want the government to pay for it. It's not the responsibility of Bush or the federal government to provide health care

You are full of BS. More then 2 Million MORE people lost their health care since Bush Took Office. Many employers have eliminated coverage and the low income workers can not afford coverage. Over half of Wal Mart employees are paid so little they qualify for Medicaid!

You are too dumb to recognize just how much Bush and the GOP Policies have harmed this country!

The Census Bureau has reported the Average Weekly Wage AFTER INFLATION is not up but down!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!