Lost But Now He Is Found, Poor Drunk Uncle Omar Obama

Corruption and Lies seem to be a tradition in the Obama family.

Every family has a “Black Sheep,” someone who embarrasses the family by getting drunk and in trouble. It’s possible some of us have relatives who are illegal aliens on the public dole and have repeatedly defied deportation orders: thankfully, not many of us fit into that category. However, not many drunk relatives tell arresting officers to call the White House, presumably before they do something stupid.

“Omar” or Onyango Obama is the long lost brother Kenyan half-brother of President Obama’s father. The same Uncle Omar mentioned by Bill Ayers in the best selling autobiography “Dreams From My Father”, the life story of President Obama as portrayed by the unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers. Although he was mentioned in the book, our president is wishing his drunken uncle would behave himself or live in the shadows.

Drunk Uncle Omar Obama was driving drunk after leaving the Chicken Bone Saloon and barely missed hitting a squad car. When he was pulled over, he demanded that he be allowed to call the White House in a belligerent manner. The cops didn’t find the drunk name dropper all that impressive; a drunk illegal alien with a long rap sheet had run down and killed a 23 year old Milford, Mass. man, two weeks earlier.

Open-borders and Open Society advocates of George Soros philosophy consider drunken Obamas to be “harmless”. However, drunken Uncle Omar has defied two court orders to leave the country. He also owes thousands in back taxes and has a fraudulent Social Security Card and has evaded authorities for 50 years.

The court policy that allows the drunk criminals like Omar Obama to simply stay in the country is the “voluntary departure” system that allows illegal aliens to evade the police and deportation for years. Omar lost his first deportation hearing in 1989, he lost a second time with the Board of Immigration Appeals in 1992.

Uncle Omar joined the ranks of an estimated 400,000 to 700,000 illegal aliens who give the law a one finger salute and look upon disregarding America’s Immigration Laws as a right or entitlement.

Drunk Uncle Omar will now be represented by the same Ohio law firm that fought the deportation of President Obama’s indigent welfare collecting aunt, Aunt Zeituni Onyango. Zeituni landed in the US in 2000 on a temporary visa and sought asylum in 2004. She was denied asylum and refused to leave. She hid with relatives in public housing for years before winning a second bid to stay in the US, a country she seems to despise.

Both parties play games with the immigration issues to win votes from the ever growing illegal demographic. Yes, illegals seem to be able to vote, have driver licenses, and Social Security numbers. Especially those who are here illegally and are related to our president.

Aunt Zeituni Onyango, Ward Of The State, Perpetual Welfare Recipient, President's Aunt, Former Illegal Alien

President Bush told Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stop deportations until after the 2008 election, when Aunt Zeituni was caught and identified as an Illegal Alien in October of 2008. Thank you former President Bush.

The question remains, how many more of these Obama welfare recipients are we going to be asked to support for the rest of their natural lives in a state of permanent Welfare and Public Housing. Our former inept and clueless President, Jimmy Carter, only had one embarrassing relative, Brother Billy, the one who inspired Billy Beer and became a cultural icon and a standing joke. At least, Billy was humorous; Zeituni and Omar are far from humorous.

We might remember the case of Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, a Palestinian bomb builder by trade; he immigrated to the US illegally (considered legal by Napolitano and Obama) in 1996 through Canada. He claimed political asylum from alleged persecution by Israelis, was released on a $5,000 bond posted by another illegal, then skipped his asylum hearing. His lawyer dropped his asylum claim and a federal judge issued a laughable “voluntary departure order”. Obviously, illegal aliens who enter the country illegally or not interested in leaving the country voluntarily. He later joined a New York City group that was formulating a bombing plot and was arrested after his roommate tipped off local police. And once again we have another example of the DHS being on the ball and defending our country.

“Always remember. Never forget.” Words, just words.

A citizen is rebuffed by a judge for trying to unravel the nefarious facts concerning the president’s dubious Social Security Number.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA____________________________________)ORLY TAITZ, ))Plaintiff, ))v. )) Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL)MICHAEL ASTRUE, )COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL )SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ))Defendant. )____________________________________)MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [21]. Upon considerationof defendant’s motion, plaintiff’s opposition [31], the reply thereto [32], the entire record herein,and the applicable law, the Court will grant summary judgment in defendant’s favor for thereasons set forth below.
I.

BACKGROUND
Ever persistent, plaintiff has once again come before this Court in an effort to uncover“the biggest cover up in the history of this nation.” Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. 20 [31]. Shebelieves that the President is using a “fraudulently obtained” social security number and that theSocial Security Administration—among other agencies—is involved in a scheme to “cover[] upsocial security fraud, IRS fraud, elections fraud and possibly treason” committed by thePresident.
Id.
at 5–6, 13. As her numerous filings with the Court demonstrate, plaintiff will stopat nothing to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is nother lucky day.

On June 28^th in Rockville, Maryland, breast cancer patients and their families will protest a Food and Drug Administration hearing designed to deny patients access to the late-stage drug Avastin.

Organized by Terry Kalley, the husband of a breast cancer patient who is alive today because of the drug, patients will demand the FDA stop its effort to ration the drug. They deserve our support.

Last year, the FDA for the first time considered the cost of a drug in their approval process moving forward in an effort to “de-label” the drug. Such a move would allow patients access to the drug only if they could afford the hefty price tag. Women with breast cancer who rely on private insurance and Medicare would see the drug dropped from coverage. This is tantamount to a death sentence to thousands of women.

Kalley, a small businessman from Michigan, has taken on the fight in order to save his wife. He formed an organization called Freedom to Access to Medicines to fight for his wife and other patients.

Kalley is outraged by not only the FDA’s actions but the callous nature of the bureaucrats who seem to stop at nothing to “bend the health care cost curve down.” Kalley wrote “In an obvious move of desperation to appease an unhappy public, the agency announced yesterday that it will offer anyone with a stake in Avastin a chance to speak during the hearing – but only during a two-hour time block. Considering that 17,500 patients are taking the drug and tens of thousands of family members recognize its value, this hardly seems like enough time. Even if the FDA limits comments to patients, each woman would have less than half a second to tell her story. To paraphrase Helen Reddy‘s 1971 feminist anthem, “I am woman, hear me meow.”

Don’t be fooled by claims that this issue on Avastin is about drug safety. If it were about safety, the FDA would be moving to take the drug off the market. They are not. Kalley notes that “Medicare and private insurance companies often refuse to reimburse for off-label drugs. Because Avastin can cost between $56,000 and $96,000 annually, this is life-and-death stuff for many MBC sufferers. While wealthy patients will keep buying their Avastin, the FDA‘s message to those who can’t afford a country-club membership is “Drop dead.” This maddening position also is ironic, given the Obama administration’s putative commitment to fighting for the poor and middle class, rather than defending the rich.”

Do not allow the Obama Administration to start rationing drugs. Stand up with Kalley, his family and the thousands of breast cancer patients by friending them on Facebook or better yet, joining them in Maryland in late June. This is an issue of life and death. For more information, you can email Kalley at terry.fameds@gmail.com.

It’s not often that citizens are able to get the government to listen, but in the case of breast cancer patients, we can only hope. That’s because of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed to deny breast cancer patients access to the late-stage cancer drug Avastin. Safety of the drug is not the issue. The FDA is proposing to allow access to the drugs if someone has the ability to pay for it but those who rely on insurance and Medicare to cover the costs would be out of luck. The FDA action would allow Medicare and private insurers to wipe the books clean on breast cancer patients who rely on the drug. It’s becoming clear that cost was the major driver of the decision and if the decision is allowed to stand, will have huge impact on the future of health care in the United States.

Fearing that treatment choices and options will be limited by the FDA decision, a dozen groups like Susan B. Komen and Cancer101 petitioned the FDA to reverse their decision. Today, the FDA announced it would give the maker of the drug Roche an opportunity to defend itself at a hearing in June.

The Avastin case is a dangerous precedent but one that is inevitable when the government’s objective is to “reduce the cost of health care.” When was the last time the government was able to reduce the price of anything? Competition and market forces reduce the price of goods and services. Government can’t do it. Rather than reducing the cost, the government will just decide not to pay the cost.

The only tool the government has to achieve this goal is rationing. In Great Britain’s government -run health care system, they have established a rule for covering the cost of a drug or treatment. It has to cost under $49,000 and extend life for 12 months. A dollar more or a day less, and patients are left to his or her own devices.

Is it any surprise that the head of the largest health care regulatory agency in England is proposing to chance to law to allow assisted suicide?

American health care was a model to the world for decades. But thanks to ObamaCare we are heading in another direction.

A few Democrats are seeing the light:

Democrats, having defeated a Republican attempt to block proposed Medicare cuts, now face an even bigger headache: concern among members of their own party over the program’s future funding.

President Barack Obama wants to cut spending on the federal insurance plan for the elderly to help fund his health-care overhaul. Part of that proposal would cut more than $100 billion from Medicare Advantage, through which the government hires private insurers such as Humana Inc. to deliver Medicare benefits to 11 million seniors, including extras like reduced co-payments and even gym memberships.

Should Congress scale back the program, “We’re not going to be able to say ‘if you like what you have, you can keep it,’” said Senator Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat. “And that basic commitment that a lot of us around here have made will be called into question.”

Obama is seeking Medicare cuts that total hundreds of billions of dollars in his bid to finance the overhaul of the health-care system, estimated in a Senate bill to cost $848 billion. The resistance he’s getting underscores the difficulty of paying for the overhaul without increasing the budget deficit, a condition Obama set.

McCain calls Reid and his cohorts out a few days ago:

“A remarkable flip-flop”

Doug Ross notes how the left and the MSM wailed in horror at Bush’s proposal to cut 36 billion in Medicare:

The DNC press release of that era shrieked in horror and its cries were gleefully picked up by the legacy media.

Cuts to Medicare Threaten Indiana Seniors. In addition, the Bush budget cuts Medicare by $36 billion over the next five years, resulting in $530,913,830 in cuts to hospitals, nursing homes, and home health providers serving seniors and people with disabilities in Indiana.

Note how Democrats are b***hing about $530 million.

But my favorite news of the day, and news that just proves how really immoral these jackasses are, is this news on the Medicare cuts:

Senators Charles Schumer of New York, Bill Nelson of Florida and Ron Wyden of Oregon are among those who secured special provisions shielding constituents from cuts.

I wonder how they secured those deals eh?

This is a perfect example of the Obama era of politics.

UPDATE

Gotta love Ace:

I feel kind of pathetic that the only way a fact is established to exist is if a Democrat says so; obviously I can’t quote Boehner or McCain or whoever. They don’t count. They are self-discredited simply due to the fact they’re the wrong party.

Ah yeah….hopey changey: (h/t Hugh Hewitt)

Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama’s White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by taking on his push for health-care overhaul.

One is AKPD Message and Media, the Chicago-based firm headed by David Axelrod until he left last Dec. 31 to serve as a senior adviser to the president. Axelrod was Obama’s top campaign strategist and is now helping sell the health-care plan. The other firm is Washington-based GMMB Campaign Group, where partner Jim Margolis was also an Obama strategist.

This year, AKPD and GMMB received $12 million in advertising business from Healthy Economy Now, a coalition that includes the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, that is seeking to build support for a health-care overhaul, said the coalition’s spokesman, Jeremy Van Ess.

~~~

Axelrod was president and sole shareholder of AKPD from 1985 until he sold his interest after Obama’s victory, government records show. The firm owes Axelrod $2 million, which it’s due to pay in installments beginning Dec. 31. Axelrod’s son, Michael, still works there. He didn’t return a phone call. The firm’s Web site continues to feature David Axelrod’s work on the Obama campaign.

Ok, so let me get this straight. Axelrod’s former firm is receiving lots of money from “Healthy Economy Now” which is a coalition that includes PhRMA, AARP, SEIU and all the other players that are defining Obama’s health care Socialist plans AND Axelrod is still owed 2 million bucks from the firm.

Hmmmmm….ya think Axelrod had any hand in negotiating any little piece of the deals these groups made with his former firm…especially since the money his firm gets from these groups help to pay his severance package?

Remember the left went bats&%t crazy over Cheney’s Halliburton ties….this eclipses those ties.

But I’m guessing the left won’t go so crazy over THIS story. I wonder why?

More here.

Deputy Assistant Under-Minister of Truth Linda Douglass tried her best to dodge the questions from Wolf Blitzer regarding the 150 million dollars PhARMA is agreeing to pay for advertising to support ObamaCare socialism:

BLITZER: Did PhRMA, in exchange, make a promise of $150 million to pay for advertising to help the president’s plan go forward?

DOUGLASS: What — what you have, Wolf, is this deal that is $80 billion. And we are very pleased, obviously, that — that the pharmaceutical industry agrees with us, that there’s an urgent need for comprehensive health insurance reform that’s going to protect Americans from unfair rules, from rising costs. They agree with that. They’ve agreed with it from the beginning. That’s why they came to us and we worked out this agreement with the pharmaceutical industry. And they’re supporting health reform legislation. And that is good for the country.

BLITZER: So is part of the deal that they would support this legislation, go forward with $150 million in advertising?

DOUGLASS: You know, Wolf, part of the agreement here is that we’re all going to work together to bring comprehensive health reform. I mean, clearly, the pharmaceutical industry said we are going to support comprehensive health reform. And that’s what they’re doing.

Which is a yes.

150 million dollars….more then McCain spent for his White House bid…..from an industry that not too long ago was vilified by Obama and the left.

And why would PhARMA make this kind of deal with Obama? Why, to stop the Socialism. Yeah, you heard me right:

Ken Johnson, adviser to Billy Tauzin (PhRAMA’s chief lobbyist), and the senior vice-president for PhARMA, said this to NRO on Friday:

What we’re trying to do is move the debate closer to the center. That said, we need health-care reform but should not sacrifice medical progress or set us on a path towards a single-payer health-care system.

So, they will spend millions to get ObamaCare pushed through that will most definitely lead to a single-payer system….all to stop single-payer system?

The Wall Street Journal has long advocated free-market principles [and argued] that we have started down that slippery slope towards a single-payer system. Our argument is that we’re heading that way anyway, if we don’t work to rein in health-care costs.

Whoakay….

Meanwhile PhARMA is already disagreeing with Obama and company:

Congress has backed drugmakers who want to hold on to their data exclusivity for 12 years before letting other companies develop similar versions of their products. On Tuesday, the president called for drug companies to reduce that span to seven years. He has an ally in the AARP, the nation’s largest seniors group.

The drug manufacturers, however, say companies should have a longer time to keep their product exclusive since they spent so much money on bringing the drug to market in the first place.

“On average it’s about $1.2 billion a company spends to get a biologic on the market. And that’s well before the cost of actually building a facility, to manufacture the biologic, which often times run anywhere from a quarter billion to half a billion dollars to get on the market,” said Lori Reilly, vice president of policy for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association.

They have no idea….no friggin idea….that they are signing their industry away. Once you get in bed with big government you can expect the takeover to happen immediately.

Rich Lowry:

…even if the deal holds, PhRMA will be at the mercy of a government system that will tend to squeeze out even those private players who have obligingly assisted in creating the predicate for their own destruction.

But hey…..this is the new White House….

and it’s called Socialism.

You know the messiah is tumbling back to earth when HuffPo puts up a investigative post about the collusion between Obama and big Pharma:

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.”

Representatives from both the White House and PhRMA, shown the outline, adamantly denied that it reflected reality. PhRMA senior vice president Ken Johnson said that the outline “is simply not accurate.” “This memo isn’t accurate and does not reflect the agreement with the drug companies,” said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.

Recall this NYT’s article:

The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.

Now we know why.

They sold out for the support of PhARMA. That evil big business Obama railed against (singling out the drug companies on more then one occasion) throughout 2008 is in bed with him and his cronies.

What kind of excuses will the left make up to explain this now?

Meanwhile:

In a survey of 1,000 adults taken Tuesday, 34% say the sometimes heated protests at sessions held by members of Congress have made them more sympathetic to the protesters’ views; 21% say they are less sympathetic.

Independents by 2-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now.

The findings are bad news for President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, who have scrambled to respond to town halls marked by aggressive questions and noisy demonstrations by those opposed to plans to overhaul the health care system

I thought I’d have some fun with the DNC Rabid Attack Ad:

Amazing that the DNC believes their ad to be a winning strategy: Let’s characterize and flippantly dismiss concerned Americans on both sides of the political aisle as nothing more than torches-and-pitchforks-style rabble-rousers. Brilliant.

Thanks to skye for use of her photos and apologizes to Dana Loesch for pillaging her photos like the uncouth, ill-mannered mobster, that I am.

The ones who are “scripted” and “astroturfed” are the Democratic leaders out there following their “playbook”. Any “community organizing” on the part of the vast rightwing conspiracy of an honest-to-goodness- grassroots movement should be described more like Miracle-Gro than the manure-fractured outrage which the term “astroturfing” suggests.

How dare they condescend and dismiss the concerns of real ordinary Americans! The reason why some of these “mob” citizens resort to anger and “shouting down” is because they already tried listening and reasoning with their congressional leader, and all they are getting back in return are DNC-talking points and pre-scripted answers. The Dem leaders aren’t engaged in debate and conversation but following their own Pelosified marching orders; they aren’t talking to their constituents, but at them.

Meet the mob.

Someone should make one of those “I’m with stupid ->” style t-shirts, but saying “I’m with the mob” with arrows pointing every which direction. Oh, and bring along some (cardboard/fake) torches and pitchforks.

There are many issues where Obama and McCain supporters live on opposite ends of the spectrum. But there is at least one where most of the populus… and if you read their campaign promises, the DNC and GOP candidate themselves… were on the same page. And that is on the price of prescription drugs in the US.

For the young and healthy, prices of medications seem low priority. For a nation of boomers, coming into their golden years, this is a looming… if not already omnipresent…. reality already.

The top three profit industries in America are pharmaceuticals, investment banking and oil/energy. Contrary to popular belief, the pharma industry held the #1 position thru most years historically, with oil coming in third. Needless to say investment banking will be losing that lofty status in the wake of our current economic status.

Even the most sensible citizen should be able to acknowledge that profit is integral to expansion of the business. And in the case of pharmas, that would mean the R&D/patent/development process necessary for new product… not an inexpensive path in itself.

So the argument seems simple on the surface… why is it so expensive to buy pharmas in the US compared to the rest of the world? And can we achieve competitive prices without risking R&D and development of new and better product?

I’ve been taking a crash course in pharmaceuticals, research, and drug manufacturers… and our recent Congressional history affecting the prices to the end consumer. What I found was surprising… and should turn out to be perhaps the second issue (the bailout being the first…) uniting the nation’s population, regardless of party affiliation…. provided they are well informed on the history of reform, and the nuances between each party’s suggested “cure”.

What I’ll also expect to hear is the typical blaming of the other party. Unfortunately, from what I can see … both in financial support, and deliberate thwarting of legislation… there is ample culpability to be borne by both sides. So allow me to pass on what I’ve learned… and then let ‘er rip in the comments.

In 2003, Bush championed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, sponsored by Dennis Hastert and 20 GOP co-sponsors. The bill passed the House, mostly along party lines. It was subsequently sent to the Senate, where it was approved by unanimous consent.

Then came reconciling the differences between the Senate and House versions: resulting in a Dec 8th, 2003 enactment of the bill, with final House votes as the Yeas and Nays: 220 – 215, and a Senate vote of 54 Ayes, 44 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting.

I only found two floor speeches involving the dissention at that time. Sen. Akaka (HI-D) wanted to make sure that generic drugs could be brought to the market in a timely fashion, stated the bill’s language prevented Hawaii from obtaining its DSH allotment as long as the QUEST program remains in place.. Sen. Daschle (SD-D) focused on drugs used to create meth were a danger in his rural state.

What I see missing from the debates then is what our commenter, Larry Weisenthal, and founder of the Weisenthal Cancer Group in Southern California, speaks of today… and that is the ability of the DHS Secy to negotiate the price of drugs directly with the pharmas.

A huge component of the runaway health care costs are prescription drug costs. And it’s getting worse. The average new cancer drug costs between $5,000 and $11,000 PER MONTH!

The greatest special interest buy off in history was when Big Pharma got inserted into the Medicare Prescription Drug law a PROHIBITION against Medicare negotiating with the drug companies regarding drug costs. In one fell swoop, government (1) gave Big Pharma a pricing monopoly and (2) guaranteed payment from the government. This was a sweetheart deal worth hundreds of billions of dollars. No other sell out to non-military special interests in history ever came close.

What Larry refers to here is referenced as Part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

The reason Part D is absent from the debate is because of dualing partisan legislative attempts to address it separately in the same time period.

Sen. Arlen Specter (PA-R) has made multiple attempts to introduce clean bills addressing the DHS Secy’s power of negotiation, including S2766 in July 2004, S.813 in April 2005, and in Jan 2007 as S. 273. All appear to have met with the same results… read twice, and sent to the Committee on Finance.

SUMMARY: Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act with respect to prescription drug plans to repeal the prohibition against: (1) interference by the Secretary of Health and Human Services with negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and prescription drug plan sponsors; and (2) the Secretary’s requiring a particular formulary or instituting a price structure for the reimbursement of covered Medicare part D (Voluntary Prescription Drug Benefit Program) drugs. Grants the Secretary authority similar to that of other Federal entities that purchase prescription drugs in bulk to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D drugs.

Meanwhile, the DNC were busy working on their own cures. Rep. John Larson (CT-D) introduced HR 3299 in Oct 2003 with 19 of his peers. This bill also died in the subcommittee.

Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act – Requires each participating manufacturer of a covered outpatient drug to make such drugs available for purchase by any qualified Federal health care provider, by each pharmacy, and by each provider of services, physician, practitioner, and supplier under the Medicare program at a price that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, negotiates with the manufacturer. Provides that the amount of a covered outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer shall make available for purchase is equal to the sum of the aggregate amounts of the covered outpatient drug dispensed by pharmacies to Medicare beneficiaries plus those dispensed through qualified Federal health care providers.

Requires that, in conducting negotiations with participating manufacturers, the Secretary take into account the goal of promoting the development of breakthrough drugs.

Requires the United States to exclude from Government contracting and subcontracting, for a period of time, a manufacturer of drugs or biologicals that does not comply with this Act.

Directs the Secretary to establish a mechanism (such as an ombudsman) for the resolution of disputes between Medicare beneficiaries and prescription drug resellers and drug manufacturers in order to protect such beneficiaries and to ensure that: (1) prescription drug resellers are not artifically increasing prices charged to Medicare beneficiaries (above those negotiated under this Act) in places (such as rural areas) where there is less competition; and (2) such resellers are not colluding on prices in areas with more potential significant competition.

The DNC version carries more legislative caveats than the more direct Specter versions: determining a formula as to how the price is set, creating a financial blacklist for some drug manufacturers that are not seen as cooperative, and increasing departmental personnel to act as dispute mediators and investigate what they may see as price fixing within the industry.

Larson tried again in May 2005 with HR 2685, … this time with only three DNC co-sponsors.

These previous attempts garnished little media fanfare in their day since neither got out of committees. Mid-terms ushered in a more substantial majority for the DNC. In Jan 2007, Rep. John Dingell’s bill, HR 4, with it’s 198 all Democrat co-sponsors, pushed thru committees and to the floor for a vote on the Part D negotiation issues.

The Summary reads virtually identical to Larson’s previously introduced bills mentioned above, carrying the same caveats, and expansion of government departments.

HR 4 passed with 100% DNC support, and 88% GOP opposing.

Almost simultaneously, Sen. Harry Reid (NV-D) was introducing S.3, with 17 peer co-sponsors. Tho the summary reads “clean”, the bill text (the hotlink provided) shows similar caveats as the House bill INRE subsidies, aggregate price negotiation, plus added caveats about privacy of disclosure of such with some exemptions.

This bill failed a cloture motion, preventing consideration of the bill, in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals were 55 Ayes, 42 Nays, 3 Present/Not Voting

Or, put more simply, the GOP led a filibuster, and the DNC Senate majority – along with GOP Senators Sens. Norm Coleman (MN), Susan Collins (ME), Chuck Hagel (NE), Gordon Smith (OR), Arlen Specter (PA) and Olympia Snowe (ME) – could not muster the required 60 votes needed.

Now in the heat of a ramping up, bitter partisan battle for control of the Oval Office, the finger pointing and accusations start flying…. with the GOP being portrayed as evil doers, bent on keeping prescription drugs unnaturally high. Yet, in reality, both parties want to address the problem, but see different ways of doing so.

What’s the bone of contention? According to Jeff Patch in an April 2007 Politico article, GOPer held among their concerns the appearance of price fixing, would would end up with an across the board price mark up for all companies. Also, since the thrust of the legislation is intended to lower federal costs for drugs, the GOP cited a Congressional Budget Office analysis of S.3 that concluded the legislation’s impact on federal spending would be “negligible”.

CBO estimates that developing the prioritized list of comparative effectiveness studies and preparing the reports would cost $2 million in fiscal year 2008 and less than $500,000 annually in subsequent years, assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts. Other provisions would have a negligible effect on spending.

S. 3 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Under the bill, states could request and receive prescription drug data from the Secretary, provided that they limit disclosure and implement plans to safeguard the data. Any costs of safeguarding that data would be incurred voluntarily.

More from the Politico report:

Republicans also discounted Democrats’ arguments that the Veterans Administration has successfully used similar tactics, because it has limited choices on many drugs and some veterans have subsequently opted for the Medicare program instead.

William Pierce, a vice president at APCO Worldwide and former HHS spokesman, said the bill gave no incentive to negotiate prices.

~~~

Sarah Berk, the executive director of Health Care America, said her advocacy organization pushes for a private-public solution to the health care system and that seniors’ choice of medication would be limited if the bill became law and the secretary swayed prices.

“Seniors are saving more money than anticipated, and it’s costing taxpayers billions less,” she said.

Another Berk quote from a Miami Herald opine piece, (excerpted from the Kaiser Network organization:

Sarah Berk, Miami Herald: “Medicare Part D is a success, yet for its own political gain the new Democratic leadership in Congress seems intent on risking seniors’ access to prescription drugs and expanded medical benefits” by promising to remove restrictions on government drug price negotiations, Berk, executive director of Health Care America, writes in a Herald opinion piece. Supporters of these efforts “contend their bill prohibits the government from limiting drug choices … but there are only two ways the government can achieve the lower prices they envision: dictate exact prices or limit choices,” Berk writes (Berk, Miami Herald, 2/2).

So again, the consumer and health care providers find themselves on the short end of the stick as an embattled Congress – tho in agreement on the problem – cannot find a conclusion that actually will achieve the desired results.

While Americans in need, and health care providers wait out what we can only hope will be a sensible solution to prescription drug providers… and not adding fuel to an already blazing fire… what should be addressed is the pharma industry’s profit structure. Will any attempt to negotiate drug prices inhibit future development?

All indication I find is that Larry Weisenthal comment (linked above) has some merit:

Now, what about pharmaceutical R&D if drug prices go down? This is the big scare tactic bogeyman. That’s all it is. Pharma spends a tiny fraction of its budget on R&D, relative to marketing. It’s like those Apple commercials about Microsoft and VISTA. Big amount of money for advertising. Tiny amount for “fixing VISTA.”

The USA single handedly supports the global pharmaceutical industry (much of which is headquartered in Europe, by the way, e.g. Roche, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, etc.). With true competition, Americans will pay less and Europeans will pay more. And probably, we’ll see a little less advertising. But pharma has to do R&D, or it will die.

There is no doubt that the R&D and patent process is expensive. But of the profits, how big is that expense, and how much is genuinely borne by the pharma company, unsubsidized? Oddly enough, I found an interesting perspective in their defense from the blog, Patent Baristas, by patent attorney, Barista Stephen Albainy-Jenei.

Barista points out that US consumers pay 2-3 times the cost as those in other nations. And while specifically critiquing an April 2007 article in the New Standard, he says:

The article points out that Genentech reported total product sales for the first quarter of 2006 increased 39 percent, to $1.64 billion, while sales of their colon-cancer drug Avastin increased 96 percent, raking in $398 million. Currently, colorectal cancer patients pay about $46,640 for a ten-month treatment regimen of Avastin.

The article tries to make a connection that drug prices are maintained at high levels due to the political leverage of pharmaceutical companies in Washington. Admittedly, a 2005 study found that the pharmaceutical and health-product industries spent $87 million on campaign contributions to federal candidates between 1998 and 2005. Probably not just as a goodwill gesture.

It seems, though, that it is more than just a lack of political will in Congress to stand up to the drug companies and enforce rules that require the drugs to be priced fairly. Clearly, it’s difficult for the government to argue fair prices after a drug is proven to be beneficial and establishes its value on the market. You end up asking how much is it worth to keep a person alive?

It is true that about half the biomedical research in the US is supported by government, or non profits, but the bulk of the research involved in actually carrying drugs through the clinical testing process needed to gain FDA approval is carried on by the pharmaceutical industry and financed through patent protection. As he points out, altho the costs of R&D may represent a small percentage of the pharma industry’s budget, the advertising and marketing of their products – plus their administration costs – is a huge chunk.

Which then brings us to not only Larry’s statement above that there will be “less advertising”, but to the basic argument looming in America about the legitimacy of “windfall profits”… a charge the DNC has not yet applied to the pharma industry, and reserved only for “big oil” thus far. Or put more simply, does the government have the right to dictate profits for the private sector?

Barista offers a logical, and free market solution.

How can the pharmaceutical industry respond to the building wave of support for government intervention? Drug companies need to decide to make some changes by trimming their prices, or at least make them more equitable, and put more of their money into R&D. That would go a long way in smoothing over the unrest among consumers.

As a free market consequence, as drugs come off patent protection, the competition hits and costs are eased.

As the “con” to Barista above, we have a conversation on the MotherJones blog news site with excerpts of an interview with Dr. Marcia Angell, author of the book, The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.

Dr. Angell says much the same as Barista… that the majority of expenditures is not the R&D, but the marketing and advertising. The difference between the two opinions is Barista asks the quintessential question always applied to “big oil”…. should the government dictate profits? Ms. Angell approaches it from the progressive/socialist angle… yes, those profits should be dictated.

What to do about pharmaceutical prices? It turns out it will be the same as the oil industry… government intervention to attempt to control prices for honest intents… and possibly disasterous outcomes.

BTW… I doubt you’ll want to go the “follow the money” route… Tho most surface analysis showed heavier support for the GOP overall, the devil is actually in the details. i.e. in the House, the bigger financial support went to Dems, and GOP in the Senate. And with the change of power in mid terms came the flip flop on where most of the money goes now….

And truthfully, after pouring thru OpenSecrets records of pharma PACs and lobbying, it is less party oriented, and more targeted to specific Congressional members. That should be sufficient warning to the partisans and Obama faithful… you may not want to see the numbers.