kali, as I see it, the pharmaceutical industry agreed to cut 80 billion from Medicare prescription drug costs over 10 years. Nothing, really, when you consider that the industry generates over 300 billion in US sales and their products barely improve upon themselves, year after year. Most often, they change one molecule in a drug, give it a new name, and market it as the "next advance". It isn't an advance at all. It's a profit protector. It's the old drug which lost patent protection and faced competition from generics. Many times, they'll cut a deal with insurance companies--so you can't get coverage for generics, only the brand name.

It' a scam.

That and the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that pharmaceutical companies, in collusion with medical journals, tend to withhold, or not publish research that shows the lack of efficacy of certain drugs--so only the "good" research, gets published. And it is not even independent research. It is their own research.

There are people that are so much more well versed on all this than I am and I hope they contribute to the comments here.

Granted, at least the pharmaceutical industry agreed to some cost cuts. The insurance industry agreed to none. NONE.

But still, should the White House be cutting deals with such a contemptible fraudulent industry?

One that rides roughshod over the health and well-being of Americans every day?

Isn't cutting a deal with these people like negotiating with terrorists?

Realistically, what the "deal" gave up was the excess over $80 billion in savings that could have been achieved by retaining a drug-negotiation clause in the proposed legislation. I don't know how much that extra savings would have been - perhaps another $50-$100 billion over ten years (after all, even negotiations won't eliminate the most pernicious practices underlying extortionate drug pricing) - but the Administration is making a political calculation.

Without a public option, the ability of reform to achieve savings would be compromised well beyond those figures. That option is under seige, and Obama needs as many allies, and as few enemies, as he can manage to salvage it in some meaningful form. That is the nature of political reality.

I do, however, have to disagree with Obey's contention above that the public option is the only serious reform measure left. In my view, it is a desirable measure, but less important than other insurance reforms that are still retained in the proposed bills. Foremost among these are the requirements for insurers to accept all applicants, avoid highly discriminatory charges based on health status or age, and to offer plans that must always include a package of essential benefits. Achieving those would be a huge advance over what we have now, and that achievement, which is hard for reform opponents to criticize, is very likely to materialize.

Last night, I attended a meeting to plan strategy for promoting healthcare reform during the coming contentious weeks. Many other attendees participated enthusiastically, but I was disheartened by the presence of many others who said they would go along, but were disillusioned by Obama's failure to preserve the most valuable features of reform legislation.

Here, I will state my view of this, but less tactfully than I did last night, because most people here know we want to be candid with each other, and also that my view is just one of many.

What I tried to tell them last night was that their disillusionment was the product of ignorance. There are many elements of healthcare reform that proposed bills hardly touch on - reform of fee for service, comparative or evidence-based medicine, etc. - but that has been true from the beginning, and will have to proceed on a more gradual pace once a strong reform package is implemented.

Of the features of the proposed bill, a public opion (or non-profit cooperatives as an alternative) is being debated. Something - probably less than ideal - will probably pass, but in my view, this is far less critical than what remains in the legislation. The truly remarkable aspect of what remains is a transformation of how insurance is practiced. No longer will insurers make profits through cherry picking only healthy subscribers. They will now have to accept all comers. They will no longer be able to charge discriminatory rates on the basis of health status or medical history. They will no longer to be able to put a cap on annual or lifetime coverage. They will no longer be able to engage in policy recissions in the absence of proven fraud.

It is the above offenses, which will now be forbidden, that are the poisonous aspects of current health insurance. I believe Obama, in keeping his focus on what is most important, while still pushing for other valuable items such as a public option, is destined to be celebrated for one of the more remarkable achievements recorded for any president in the first year of his term of office.

I truly hope he receives all the support he needs and which he deserves, and with unrestrained enthusiasm. I realize others are disappointed in one or another element of current events, but I hope they will keep their disappointment in perspective in light of the major accomplishments that await, unless we forfeit the opportunity.

I want to start off by saying that your posts exhibit passion as it relates to this particular issue. I also want to offer that you certainly inspire focused discussions on healthcare on a regular basis.

With that being said, I would like to ask if you have any other issues that are of importance to you? I recall your posts, beginning in February 2009, arguing how many people were dying per day under the Obama administration due to lack of healthcare. I also recall you briefly broaching the subject of how many people were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan under the Obama adminsistration.

Additionally, I'm just curious, has the Obama Administration done anything policy-wise that has found favor with you? Has anyone else, more specifically, members of congress? I'm certainly not inquiring as to blind allegiance here, but I'm generally skeptical of folks of either political stripe who are so persistant in sounding off about what's going wrong, but never care to engage in a discussion about what's going right.

It's really gotten predictable to the point where I don't even need to click on the linked title of to get the take away of your posts--Obama(+)sellout(+)corporate shill(+)bigpharma appeaser(-)thou shalt not get "true" health care but before Kali Star's puritanical views(=)we're all gonna die yesterday. THE END.