« Surgeon General Nominee Is On Burger King's Payroll | Main | Quote Of The Day - Obamacare Stocking Stuffers Edition »

Obama Sells Out To Big Pharma: Where Is The Halliburton Style Outrage?

That the Obama administration has sold out to Big Pharma in the power grab that it is masquerading as health care reform should surprise no one except the liberal Left that bought into the Hope and Change shake down machine. This from The Huffington Post, a blog whose writers have relentlessly beaten the drum of Halliburton corruption during the Iraq War:

A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.

The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.


Do you remember the outrage about no bid contracts being let to Halliburton's KBR unit? The Left went absolutely nuts in their Cheney rage. I eagerly await the outrage from the left about this sell out of immensely larger proportions. And let there be no doubt that there are more lives at risk in the proposed ObamaCare legislation than there were in the invasion of Iraq. The president's problem is that most of the electorate has come to grips with that fact.

Note: Reading the comments it is apparent that I omitted a very important detail. In the Chicago Style bargain struck between the White House and Big Pharma, the drug companies promised a $150,000,000 ad campaign to promote ObamaCare. So, it must be asked again: what if Halliburton had promised the Bush administration $150,000,000 of free pro Iraq War ads in exchange for no bid contracts?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36527.

Comments (58)

Chicago corruption on displ... (Below threshold)
914_62:

Chicago corruption on display for all to see.

Worst president ever!

It's not a corrupt sell out... (Below threshold)
jim m:

It's not a corrupt sell out when The One does it. It's a principled negotiation to achieve his domestic policy objectives.

The fact that he's selling out one part of his constituency in favor of multi-billion dollar industry interests is beside the point. The act that we cannot see the difference is merely evidence of his superior intellect and nuanced understanding.

Yep, good ol' Chicago style... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Yep, good ol' Chicago style....and hey Prez, we'll toss in $150 million for your dis-information information campaign.

FYI, William Daley, of the ... (Below threshold)
Hermie:

FYI, William Daley, of the Chicago Democratic Machine, sits on the Board of Abbott Laboratories, one of the world's biggest pharmacutical companies.

You misunderstand. It's no... (Below threshold)
jim m:

You misunderstand. It's not disinformation. Obama is simply speaking with a Chicago accent. He was saying "Dis Information". In Chicago the TH is pronounced as D. Dese, Dem, Dose, Dere, Dis.

Really quite innocent.

how convenient, and frankly... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

how convenient, and frankly blatantly disingenuous, of you to end the quote right when it comes to the part of what the White House got in return.

A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.

The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."

$80 billion in reduced costs to taxpayers.

Let me repeat that - $80 Billion in reduced costs to taxpayers.

And you know it matters, Hugh - that's why you left it out. it destroys your "smokey back-room deal" BS right out of the water.

Tsk tsk.

It's quid pro quo - a trade. It's called negotiation.

Yep - as a liberal I'm outraged that the Obama administration has negotiated a deal that saves taxpayers $80 billion. How dare they do that?

Oh, it's their job.

Never mind.
Vic

"Yep - as a liberal I'm out... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Yep - as a liberal I'm outraged that the Obama administration has negotiated a deal that saves taxpayers $80 billion. How dare they do that?"

So Barry's "promise" of "no secret deals behind closed doors" is okay with you, Vic? How about those same companies shelling out $150 million for Barry's "political purposes?". That okay as well?

Or are you used to Your Savior breaking promises so often now that it doesn't matter?

Vic, $80B is like pissing i... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Vic, $80B is like pissing in the Ocean. It doesn't make a difference when you're talking about the $2.2T that are spent on Health Care each year.

And That is up to $80B. Are we to expect that to be like the $100M that Obama promised to cut from the White House budget, but failed to do in the 90 day time-line he promised?

Zero Dollars happens to be included in "Up to $80B"

Hermie, what is your implic... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

Hermie, what is your implication of Mayor Daley being on the Board of Directors of Abbott Laboratories? Do you mean to impugn Mayor Daley, Abbott Laboratories, or both?
just askin'

I'm Sorry that's $80B over ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I'm Sorry that's $80B over ten years so that would be out of $22T not $2.2T

Congrats Obama won a promise for between 0.0% and 0.3% cut in costs.

Color me unimpressed.

Time out while Vic goes and... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Time out while Vic goes and drinks some more kook aid.

The most transparent presid... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

The most transparent president ever.

You can see right through him.

Meanwhile if we take the ge... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Meanwhile if we take the generally accepted estimate that health care is approximately 1/6 of the economy and the the purpose of Obama's plan is to reduce costs then we can expect that growth in this part of the economy would optimally be held to zero.

Given that Health Care has been outpacing the economy, growing between 4 and 6% per year, you are then eliminating 17% to 20% of future economic growth. You could see what would have been a 2% growth rate dropped to a 1.66% to 1.6% growth rate.

All hail Obama, the economic genius that will save our economy by freezing growth.

Heck, who are we fooling. ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Heck, who are we fooling. If you want to add on a government bureaucracy that will suck up 20-30% of the costs (it did in the cars for clunkers program) then you are going to see an economic disaster as you see 17% of the economy shrunk to 12% with the difference going to government overhead.

FYI, Hermie, Abbott Laborat... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

FYI, Hermie, Abbott Laboratories closed down a 1,000 employee plant in Daley's and Obama's Chicago just before the election, sending the jobs to Ireland. Abbott is a global company, with less than half of its business coming from the U.S.A. It has been moving the stockholder's money out of America to where the growth of healthcare is located for some years, and to where the governments let's them keep more of the earned profits. Obama's efforts to push America to a single-payer system that will destroy the American healthcare system, eliminate capitalism in one-seven of the economy, and grow a new intrusive bureaucracy of leeches on the taxpayer. That will affect that Abbott Laboratories less and less, as it leaves and leaves. Also, notice that the head of Abbott is not on the list of industry visitors to The White House. Wonder why that is?

Why is anyone treating this... (Below threshold)
Tailgunner:

Why is anyone treating this worthless deal seriously?

Obama will p*ss on someone's leg, look him in the eye and convince him it's raining.

Obama's words are not worth the teleprompter they're written on.

Obama is a liar. That's all he is...that's all he does.

Lies...all lies. Anyone who trusts anything this man says, does or writes is a fool.

Also, notice that the... (Below threshold)
HughS:

Also, notice that the head of Abbott is not on the list of industry visitors to The White House. Wonder why that is?

Gee, how did you know that?

Roger that, Tailgunner. BT... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

Roger that, Tailgunner. BTW, Hermie, Wallace Calvin Abbott, founder of Abbott Laboratories, was a Republican. Abbott has repeatedly been designated "the most Republican pharma company", based on corporate donations. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Not all companies have the same culture, ethics, or values. Abbott's values are: pioneering, achieving, caring, and enduring. I have the stock in my mutual funds. It has paid 342 consecutive quarterly dividends. Get some.

That's why the libs aren't ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

That's why the libs aren't bothered by his apparent duplicity. They know that he will use the deal with the pharma lobby to get the political leverage he needs and then once he gets his bill he will promptly throw the pharma lobby under the bus.

He has no loyalty other than to the accumulation of his own power. He will use them and throw them away just like Rev Wright, his grandma etc.

His word means nothing. His promises aren't good beyond sound of his voice. Once the sound waves fade the promise has expired.

It's always easy to cut pro... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

It's always easy to cut projected costs.

Vic,Got any cherry... (Below threshold)
914_62:

Vic,

Got any cherry kook aid left? Obama saves taxpayers 80 Billion by putting 3,000,000 taxpayers out of work and putting us 11 Trill in debt.

I think you better try the lime kook aid instead.

Not one single word in Hugh... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

Not one single word in Hugh's post about the $80 billion saved for American taxpayer as part of the deal.

It's obvious what the mission of the blog is, that's becoming more clear every day.

But it's easy to understand why you so-called conservatives really don't care about tax savings any more. Under the Bush administration the economy was raped, and now a leading conservative economist has come out and is saying that under McCain would be in exactly the same economic straits that we're in with Obama.

Misplaced Rage by Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett helped develop supply-side economics while on the staff of Rep. Jack Kemp in the 1980s.

Leading conservative economist Bruce Bartlett writes that the Obama-hating town-hall mobs have it wrong--the person they should be angry with left the White House seven months ago.

---

Where is the evidence that everything would be better if Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product and the level of employment would be pretty much the same today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since Barack Obama's inauguration.

Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect.

In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO's estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer's budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year's currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush's policies, not Obama's.

I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn't made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush's incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily.

You guys have really do have that whole "have no credibility and deserve no respect" thing down to fine science. It's why no other blogs link and trackback to Wizbang posts. They'd be embarrassed to have this biased made-up reporting linked on their website.

$80 billion in savings means nothing. Move along, nothing to see here.

You guys aren't conservatives - that's the difference. You're social conservatives. And social conservatives will not resuscitate the GOP. It's the social conservative movement that sank the GOP in the first place.

Prattle On - maybe if you add enough stars to this post and click enough votes against that comment the world will change - not.

I long for the return of the Reagan conservatives. At least there was integrity and honesty. I might not agree with all of their platforms, but they were honest and you could trust what they were telling you. I met Bill Buckley - shook his hand and had a nice chat with him. There was an honest conservative.

It's becoming harder and harder to read some of the posts on this blog without having to first check to see how they've twisted the truth. Leaving out the $80 billion in savings and pretending this issue is the same as no-bid contracts to Halliburton is just plain wrong.

Vic

duh, HughS, I's lurnt to re... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

duh, HughS, I's lurnt to reed, ant I red dat a FOI law syt on de WhY Hows forzd de releese o da visyturs liss. U shud tri it. Do u gud.

duh, HughS, I's lurnt... (Below threshold)
HughS:

duh, HughS, I's lurnt to reed, ant I red dat a FOI law syt on de WhY Hows forzd de releese o da visyturs liss. U shud tri it. Do u gud.

Good for you smart guy. Link it and then move on to the yahoo message board where you can talk up the stock more.

Hey Vic, Bush isn't in the ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Hey Vic, Bush isn't in the White House now, or did you forget? Probably also forgot that your Party has been in control of Congress and SPENDING since 2006. Just thought I'd point those items out to you.

When you going to respond about Your Savior making "secret deals" when he said he WOULD NOT?

Vic - Read the pos... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Vic -

Read the posts.

1) it's "Up to $80B" over 10 years.

2) Health care is 17% of a $13T economy. That's $2.2T per year or $22T over 10 years.

3)$80B works out to be 0.3% cost savings. and that is the max savings under the deal and the "up to" means that the savings could legitimately be $0.

4) Any plan necessarily means an expansion of the bureaucracy.

5) Cash for Clunkers paid for an estimated 159,000 cars with the first $1B. At the max payout of $4500 that leaves $285M spent on government overhead in just 5 days. That's 28.5% of the program spent on government overhead.

6) Only an idiot would expect that a 0.3% savings will pay for the nearly 30% overhead that a government program will absorb.

You can draw your own inferences regarding #6.

Vic you are an idiot.... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Vic you are an idiot.

Hugh tries to save face wit... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

Hugh tries to save face with an update.

So, it must be asked again: what if Halliburton had promised the Bush administration $150,000,000 of free pro Iraq War ads in exchange for no bid contracts?

This isn't anything like a 'no bid contract' - it's an $80 billion savings to taxpayers.

Vic

Geez, touchy, aren't we, Hu... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

Geez, touchy, aren't we, HughS. Someone tries to slide a little slime on a company in which I've invested, done my research, and you prefer I just let the Daley makes Abbott Laboratories toxic comment stand? If you don't want posts and comments challenged, close your comments to visitors. Here's your link, old news:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/41570

"it's an $80 billion saving... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"it's an $80 billion savings to taxpayers. "

No it's not like a no-bid contract.

It's like a fig leaf to cover the $150M bribe that Obama just took.

The Pharma companies reduce... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

The Pharma companies reduce their costs to consumers by $80 Billion AND have to lay out $150 million more -- and that's' just like no-bid contracts?

Looks to me like the Pharmas are out $80.15 Billion!

What did they get in return? A promise that we won't beat the crap out of them some more and squeeze more money out of them!

That's just like a no-bid contract?

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe he really wrote that.

Vic

There's nothing wrong or un... (Below threshold)
jim m:

There's nothing wrong or unseemly with Daley being on the board of Abbott. It's common practice in all significant companies and Abbott's board is probably quite large. It would not be surprising if Daley was a marginal participant in their meetings.

Frankly, it would be more surprising if Abbott's board contained no political figures of note.

Vic, Your broadbrush... (Below threshold)

Vic,
Your broadbrushing of Wizbang, because you
have a problem with some of the posts
you're reading, is not justified.
And, if you have such a terrible problem with
Wizbang do yourself a personal favor and quit
accessing the site.

Vic - $80B is a dr... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Vic -

$80B is a drop in the bucket and they are getting important concessions from Obama to end the possibility of importation of drugs, and they are foreclosing on modifications to Medicare parts B AND D.

Freezing the state of play in those areas is probably worth far more than $80B or do you propose that pharma companies can't do basic accounting math?

So they agree to a minor cut in profits in one part of their operation in return for a promise for no cuts in a major part of their operation and elimination of a threat to their whole operation (importation).

In return Obama gets a $150M bribe that he can use to pay for his power grab for 17% of the economy.

Don't be too hard on Vic. ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Don't be too hard on Vic. It's hard to hold your head up when The One is found to have feet of clay, and not beyond taking cash on the side to further his POLITICAL agenda.

Hey Vic! $80 BILLION over 10 years is $8 BILLION max per year. And remember that deal was "up to". How many baby boomers you figure will enter the Medicare drug market in that 10 year period? I'll bet the drug companies have the numbers down to a gnats ass and figure $8B a year would be chump change compared to what they are going to rake in. No skin off their nose. The "DEAL" is NO MORE than $8 BILLION. But then, the drug companies are going to have to trust Barry, aren't they? What if Congress says NO! Nancy and Harry are already talking about squeezing more concessions. What happens then? Barry going to sign a deal that violates his "secret agreement"? Barry going to "lean" on Nancy and Harry? Wasn't it Barry who said he'd sign no legislation with pork in it? And immediately signed a pork laden piece of crap called a "Stimulus Bill"? Or did you think Bush came back, got into the White House and signed it?

"Your broadbrushing of W... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

"Your broadbrushing of Wizbang, because you
have a problem with some of the posts
you're reading, is not justified."

Agreed. I tried to walk that back by saying "It's becoming harder and harder to read some of the posts on this blog without having to first check to see how they've twisted the truth."

Some of the posts are honest - the ones that are all opinion and no spin principally, but lately many of the posts that have dealt with news items have done a really poor job of getting it right. Take a look at the number of updates made on several recent posts in an effort to deflect honest, valid criticism and to correct factual misrepresentations, Maggie, and you'll see what I mean.

It's good that in some cases corrections are being made, but only after some a-hole liberal like me gets all in their face about it.

It shouldn't take spittle to get the facts right. There shouldn't be lies in the first place. There's shouldn't be gross misrepresentations like Hugh leaving out an $80 billion detail in the deal by clipping his quote a paragraph early.

I'm going to shut up now, I've said enough on this topic. Your criticism is taken to heart.

Vic

Also a lot of those project... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Also a lot of those projected cost savings were based on 1) increasing the medicaid rebate by 8% and 2) selling drugs to patients in the "donut hole" in medicare part D at a 50% discount.

A couple of thoughts: since the price to medicaid is negotiated changes in the rebate rate are not as important as the total outlay. The rebate rate can be offset by increasing the formulary price.

Selling to patient's in the donut hole again could easily be offset by simply increasing prices. in fact the guarantee that Medicare part D will not be altered means that this deal gives the pharmaceuticals a powerful incentive to raise prices forcing patient costs up so that their cost runs them into the top tier where medicare will reimburse at 95% of the cost.

Savings based on percent changes in rebates etc are phantom changes. The bottom line incentive is for prices to increase since savings are in % discounts and there is a guarantee that competition will be limited and the total reimbursement structure will not be altered.

holy crap... what kind of w... (Below threshold)
Kenneth:

holy crap... what kind of world do we live in where $80 billion is dismissed like chump change. how much money do you think Big Pharma makes? or would you like your beloved private industries to cough up even more money to the evil federal government? Please, pick your priorities and have the integrity to stick to them.

Besides, one reason no one is getting upset about this deal is because Congress already did and refused to honor the deal. After all, Congress is making the health care bill, not Obama, and they get to make the deals. Really, you are getting upset at the man for something he is not doing.

Kenneth - Yes $80 B is a lo... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Kenneth - Yes $80 B is a lot of cash. However, when the promise is real savings out of $22T it doesn't mean much.

0.3% doesn't sound so impressive.

Additionally, since the savings are projected as percentages off of future cost the savings is in reality meaningless and unmeasurable.

Costs could still rise far in excess of the $80B and this deal would not prevent actual dollars spent from going up far more than $80B.

Again it was all window dressing for he $150M payment for pro-Obamacare advertising.

Saving "projected costs" is... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Saving "projected costs" is like telling someone you'll discount the sticker price and act like it's a favor when you never expected to get the sticker price to begin with. "Projected Costs" are, in general, overstated in negotiations. Obama didn't gain anything for taxpayers and neither did the drug companies give up anything, except the $150 million.

I'm sure we'll it all replayed on CSPAN.

Ah, Vic... you clueless put... (Below threshold)
Hamish:

Ah, Vic... you clueless putz.

That's not fair. Cluelessness such as you are exhibiting simply can't be simple idiocy. It takes a deliberate choice to be so clueless.

The deal itself, as others noted, isn't the real scandal here.

It's that it was done in secret.

Further, as others noted, this secret deal was conducted by a president who promised us new levels of openness, of honesty, of fairness -- and works out a deal like this.

Perhaps, if conducted openly (even to the point of simply saying "we're working with the pharmaceutical companies to get them on board"), a better deal could have been reached.
Or perhaps not. We'll never know now.

Further, were those advertising dollars identified as part of a deal? A "this message brought to you by Big Pharma as part of a shakedown by the Obama Administration" might have distracted from the message, but been a tad more honest.

It might also be enlightening to see who got pieces of that $80 million in advertising bucks. Might some have gone to ASK Associates, David Axelrod's PR firm? To certain newspapers or TV networks that could use the financial support right now? Or some other cronies of the Obama administration?

These are just a few of the questions that this whole mess raises. Pity you're so firmly committed to blind loyalty, and have a decided non-interest in hearing the answers.

Thank you Hamish et al.... (Below threshold)
epador:

Thank you Hamish et al.

vio's shiney object is a piece of turd again.

Vic-Not to mention t... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Vic-
Not to mention the fact that $25B of the $80B is for cost savings for patients in the "Donut Hole" of Medicare part D. These patients bear the full cost of the drugs and get no reimbursement.

So the government saves absolutely $0 with this provision.

So nearly 1/3 of Obama's big savings are not going to be realized by the government. While we appreciate his magnanimous gesture, the implication was that the government was going to be realizing those savings. That $25B isn't realized by Medicare, but rather by the people Medicare fails (and my previous comments regarding the effectiveness of % discounts still apply).

But then again, since he believes that the government owns all the money of every citizen perhaps he was being correct in his statements.

Yeah, shiny objects all rig... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

Yeah, shiny objects all right. That's apparently all it takes to impress you guys. Hugh picks out a shiny object - doesn't tell you about the $80 billion other side of the deal, and leaves out stuff like this (quoting from the story he linked to but obviously didn't read):

Stories in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times last week indicated that the administration was confirming that such a deal had been made.

Wait a minute! It's a BIG SECRET!!! Hugh said so. What do you mean the White House confirmed it twice last week.

As to the memo itself - you know, "the smoking glub" - if you read the story Hugh linked ot but didn't read you'll find this:

PhRMA's Johnson cast doubts on the provenance of the outline. "The memo, as described, is simply not accurate," he said in a statement. "Anyone could have written it. Unless it comes from our board of directors, it's not worth the paper it's written on. Clearly, someone is trying to short circuit our efforts to try and make health care reform a reality this year. That's not going to happen. Too much is at stake for both patients and the U.S. economy. Our new ads supporting health care reform are starting this week, and we are redoubling our efforts to drive awareness of why this issue is so important to America's future."

Johnson added that "no outside lobbyists -- not a single one -- were ever involved in our discussions with the Senate Finance Committee or the White House so someone is blowing smoke."

But the lobbyist who was given the outline defended its authenticity. And although the White House now says that drug price negotiations and reimportation were not actually discussed in the talks with PhRMA, the lobbyist said: "Well, that's bull -- that's baloney. That was part of the deal, for them not to push that."

Get that? It's an obvious attempt to short circuit reform efforts being done by a Pharmaceutics Lobbyist.

A lobbyist fabricated this. As stated above ""no outside lobbyists -- not a single one -- were ever involved in our discussions with the Senate Finance Committee or the White House so someone is blowing smoke."

Yet the source on the memo is an unnamed lobbyist.

And you guys bought this "shiny object" hook, line and sinker because (insert joke about fish brains here).

Vic

Vic,How come you h... (Below threshold)
Deke:

Vic,

How come you have refused to answer and refute Jim's numbers and statements to you? I, for one, have been reading the debate with an open mind. The simple fact is he's blown you and your arguments out of the water and has done it based on facts and evidence not hyperbole.

You have chosen to ignore this and focus on personal attacks to obviscate your losing argument. If you want credibility you should prove him wrong, I have a feeling you can't.

Cudos to Jim on winning the debate and debunking the smoke and mirrors of this provision. By the way I'm not a right wing "nutcase", conservative yes, but def. not a person who supports someone with an R after his name.

Deke

Hugh's post is about Obama ... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

Hugh's post is about Obama "selling out" to the Pharmaceutical industry, despite those folks who are tying to rewrite the post for Hugh and make it about "secrecry".

"You have chosen to ignore [Jim] and focus on personal attacks to obviscate your losing argument. If you want credibility you should prove him wrong, I have a feeling you can't."

I'm glad you're in touch with your feelings, and frankly credibility in your eyes is not my concern. I don't play school yard games with trolls.

Have a nice day.
Vic

Oh Vic? It's not about a '... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Oh Vic? It's not about a 'secret' deal? Is that because your Savior previously said he would not make 'secret' deals? I'm sure you can get him out of that one Vic. After all, it's gotten to the point HYPOCRISY doesn't even cause you folks to flinch any longer.

SHOVE IT UP YOUR FUCKING ASS!

Vic,No offense, bu... (Below threshold)
SER Author Profile Page:

Vic,

No offense, but here (this site) you are the troll.

Vic -I'm not a schoo... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Vic -
I'm not a school yard troll. I have not stooped to ad hominem attacks and have focused on arguing the issue and the data.

I have offered reasoned arguments that you could have addressed but chose not to.

Instead you have ignored that and trumpeted how great this deal would have been. Unfortunately, like the administration you have found that merely amping up the volume doesn't win the debate.

Vic, you're hanging yoursel... (Below threshold)
Hamish:

Vic, you're hanging yourself.

You quoted it:

Stories in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times last week indicated that the administration was confirming that such a deal had been made.

Note the verb tense I emphasized. The deal was done BEFORE the public heard about it. That means it was negotiated and agreed upon IN SECRET.

Damn, another idiot who makes mantis that much more valued around here...

Your Malfeasant Media (MM) ... (Below threshold)
Constitution First:

Your Malfeasant Media (MM) hard at work.

It takes an awful lot of effort to cover an a$$ that big.

Hugh's post is about Oba... (Below threshold)
Deke:

Hugh's post is about Obama "selling out" to the Pharmaceutical industry, despite those folks who are tying to rewrite the post for Hugh and make it about "secrecry".

Actually Vic, Jim doesn't debate you on the merits of whether or not it's "secret" he debunks the fact you continually point out that there is a potential 80B savings over 10 years and that Hugh did not include that in his article in order to make the administration look bad. As has been pointed out that is a potential 80B out of a certain 22 Trillion. If you are a true free thinker and not a partisan hack then you would agree that time and time again it has been proven that government is almost always inefficient at managing things, thus the chances of us seeing anything even near this 3% savings is truly not likely, again the key term here is potential.

I don't care who is in charge the garnering of power in the political class is the ultimate goal and one would have to be truly blind to not see this for what it is. To blindly support the Senate while the burden is continued to be borne by the Plebian class is a sure reciepe for a fall.

I'm glad you're in touch with your feelings, and frankly credibility in your eyes is not my concern. I don't play school yard games with trolls.

Unfort., credibility is what makes an effective argument. Your sinking to school yard name calling over a faceless internet hammers home the fact that you have sought the refuge of the Straw Man. Credibility on the issue is Obama's major problem now, he and his supporters, you included I assume, have failed to justify why taking over 16% of the U.S. economy is needed. People armed with the facts will continue to hammer home the points until it becomes a losing proposition for this administration and current congress but in the meantime we can continue to be entertained by you and other like minded ppl.

Deke

I'm glad you're i... (Below threshold)
I'm glad you're in touch with your feelings, and frankly credibility in your eyes is not my concern. I don't play school yard games with trolls.

Have a nice day.
Vic

Now that there is funny, and ironic....

Jim in 49: "I'm not a sc... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

Jim in 49: "I'm not a school yard troll. I have not stooped to ad hominem attacks and have focused on arguing the issue and the data. "

I never said you did. My reference to school-yard troll was in reply to Deke's immature taunts that I was afraid to reply to your rebuttal. Frankly, I don't read many of the comments that reply to mine, and hadn't read yours (sorry, I intended to include that in my earlier reply).

I may read a few comments and if one sparks a reply I'll go ahead and reply without reading the rest of the comments. I'm here commenting on the post and will occasionally read and reply to someone in the comment threads, but my interest is to give my opinion on the article - I'm not really not that interested in ad nauseum debates with anonymous people - especially given the atmosphere that sometimes exists in the more contentious comment threads - although I understand that others are into that and I say more power to them. Have fun.

So if you or anyone else replies to a comment I've made don't take offense if I don't reply in return.

I'm sure you made good points - obviously Deke liked them. Good on you mate. I suspect if put to a vote the majority of this blog's readers here would say "you won" -- good for you.

Vic

HamishStories i... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

Hamish

Stories in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times last week indicated that the administration was confirming that such a deal had been made.

"Note the verb tense I emphasized. The deal was done BEFORE the public heard about it. That means it was negotiated and agreed upon IN SECRET."


It's impossible to confirm a deal that hasn't been made, now isn't it?

And I understand the concern about secrecy, and I understand why the administration would chose to do this in secrecy given the atmosphere surrounding this issues.

And I understand the administration has readily admitted to negotiating this deal in secrecy.

And I understand why one of the deal points was to not announce this deal.

I simply don't have a problem with it, and think the comparison of this deal with a no-bid Halliburton contract is moronic. A no-bid contract is an expenditure of tax money in an unwise manner, this deal is a savings to the citizens (although some want argue about the significance of the savings).

That's my take on it. The comparison to a Halliburton no-bid contract is att-hatish.

Vic

VIS - "Yep - as a liber... (Below threshold)
Marc:

VIS - "Yep - as a liberal I'm outraged that the Obama administration has negotiated a deal that saves taxpayers $80 billion. How dare they do that?"

How do you know that amount is "saved?"

Guess you missed the part about the WH agreeing to "oppose importation."

Gee, whatever could that mean?

Maybe, just maybe limiting the importation of cheaper drugs and possibly med equipment, from sources outside the U.S. could mean far more than $80 billion to Big Pharma?

To think Big Pharma and some insurance companies would willingly give up so much cash without a way to regain what has been lost in nonsensical, at best.

Prove me wrong nitwit.

ViODon't forget, y... (Below threshold)

ViO

Don't forget, you are anonymous too.

Vic, you're free to place y... (Below threshold)
Hamish:

Vic, you're free to place your blind trust in Obama -- to shut your eyes and just believe that the full details have been worked out, that there were no interesting details buried in Obama's deal (such as, say, that a portion of that advertising money will go towards David Axelrod's ASK Associates for some suitable astroturfing, just to toss out one possibility).

You have every right to be a blind, trusting idiot. But you'll pardon us if we object to your insisting that the rest of us close our eyes, too, and ignore the stench of corruption that wafts from so much of the Obama administration.

I especially admired the observation someone made recently about the ObamaCare plan -- "funded by a treasury secretary who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by an obese surgeon general (who works for Burger King), signed into law by a smoker, and paid for by a country that's broke."

Sure sounds like a winner to me!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy