Howard Dean: This is real reform

.... he doesn't have a dog in the fight (any more than do the rest of us.) And he certainly knows about the matter at hand.

It's not PERFECT ..... but it's PROGRESS.

These aren't perfect, but they are great bills.

Dean with Lawrence and the main thing is "get that enrollment up by 2010 so Americans can see that the repugs are lying."

"Real Reform", "Very Pleased" "Very Good Start"..I like Dean..he's more pragmatic, in fact I love him.

Dean really cares for his country.

Sheshhhh. Some people on the left lost their collective mind.

thought of this and knew it would come out soon.

Thanks Pro Sense!

..... to listen to the guest of the moment on MSNBC's shows. Not only do I stop and watch Howard, I usually rewind and watch him again.

IF the rumors of feuding between he and Rahm are true, he has every reason to bash the WH's efforts (such as they are) .... and he never does. If ANYONE could demand that the WH do more it would be him. If he's ever done so, I've certainly never heard him.

Guess he's just another cheerleader. ;)

political heroes of my life. Gore, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, Obama, Biden~:patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot:

Dean is real team player for the team he supports..he loves his country, it's not about him like some of these grandstanders.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6880388

davidswanson (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-29-09 07:02 AM
Original message
Healthcare Hoax from Hell
Lies, damn lies, and promises from Democrats. An amendment allowing states to create state-level single-payer healthcare has been stripped out of the House healthcare bill, after having passed in committee back in July by a vote of 27 to 19. And rumor has it that a vote on national single-payer that was promised in July in exchange for skipping a committee vote on it will now be denied.

First, the state single-payer amendment.

Back in July, the House Committee on Education and Labor did something right, something that could have made all the difference in the world to millions of Americans. Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced in the committee an amendment that would have effectively allowed states to improve on our healthcare system if they chose to, allowed them to create state-level single-payer healthcare. There are bills to do this in several state legislatures already. Such a bill has passed and been vetoed in California twice, where a change in governor is imminent.

President Obama told the committee chairman, George Miller, to oppose Kucinich's amendment, and he did so, leading off the voting with a resounding "No." But the Democrats voted 14 to 14 with one member passing and two failing to vote. And the Republicans voted 13 to 5 with one member failing to vote. That added up to 27 yes votes and 19 no votes. Some Republicans may have voted yes simply because the chairman voted no, but they said they were voting yes for states' rights. And that would be a sensible, decent, and constitutional position. Why shouldn't states be permitted to do better, as well as worse, than Washington, even if the insurance companies bring in less blood money?

Canada got its healthcare system in one province first. If California or Pennsylvania joins the civilized world and treats healthcare as a right, and eliminates the waste and bureaucracy of the health insurance companies, our whole nation may just be forced to come along, or watch half the population migrate to California and Pennsylvania.

Ah, but it's not to be. Unless Americans behave as a civilized people and raise holy hell over this immediately. Sadly, a huge chunk of Americans opposes being provided with healthcare, and another huge chunk is drunk with a teenage crush on the guy who no doubt told Pelosi to strip out the amendment.

In the healthcare advocacy world, a big group has focused on the godforsaken bastard policy known as "public option" which at best will offer a token mitigating element in some states for a disastrous healthcare policy imposed on all states. But the states that choose to do right by their residents will not be able to choose a real solution like single-payer, not without a drawn-out legal battle with the insurance companies over the federal laws that Kucinich's amendment would have waived.

Another big group of healthcare advocates has been so obsessed with getting national single-payer immediately, rather than state-by-state, that they've barely lifted a finger for the Kucinich amendment, which I predicted in July would be stripped out.

Which brings us to the Weiner Amendment. The deal cut with Congressman Anthony Weiner was cut in committee. It's on video. Chairman Henry Waxman told Weiner that Pelosi would allow a floor vote if he skipped a committee vote. Weiner agreed. Weiner may have been lied to. But whether his amendment gets a vote or not, it has served as a big glaring distraction from the Kucinich Amendment.

A conversation I had with Congresswoman Betty Sutton is typical. She told me that the Kucinich Amendment was no big deal and shouldn't be paid any attention to. She said she wanted everyone to focus on the Weiner Amendment on which she planned to vote yes. Asked if there was any chance the Weiner Amendment would pass, she replied of course not.

From Congresswoman Sutton's point of view, a bill that will fail is far more important than a life-saving measure in a bill that might pass, because she planned to vote right on the former and brag about it to her constituents. "See, I tried. I really tried." But if Sutton's state, Ohio, passes the bill currently making its way through the state legislature and establishes single-payer for all Ohioans, the death panels, aka health insurance companies, will sue. And without the Kucinich Amendment they will win or at least hold things up for several years and several thousand deaths.

Will Sutton or any other members of Congress fight for either of these amendments? Will any of them call out Pelosi? Forcing the Kucinich amendment back into the bill and forcing a floor vote on the Weiner amendment are admirable immediate goals (as of now Pelosi will be allowing no floor amendments of any sort), but healthcare is very complex with the devil in the details, and the details are being written by devils, blood-soaked devils. The central demand of members of Congress must be: Vote No. The reason they should have to listen must be: We will occupy your offices and prevent you from working unless you commit to voting No, but if you commit to voting No and vote No, we will consider possibly not throwing your sorry ass in the street in next year's elections.

##

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6884040

I'm Jane, and I'm a breast cancer survivor



Jane writes:


October 29, 2009



There was much celebration on Capitol Hill today with the announcement of the new House health care bill. For myself, as a three time breast cancer survivor, there was tremendous sadness and disappointment in the Speaker.

Nancy Pelosi made a choice with regard to the lifesaving biologic drugs I took when I was in chemotherapy that will cost many of my fellow breast cancer survivors everything they own, and quite possibly their lives.




Jane goes on to describe the specific plights of a breast cancer survivor, a rheumatoid arthritis patient and a Crohn’s patient, who are required to pay exorbitant amounts for their biologic drugs to treat their conditions, at times reaching into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.



Jane continues:



But thanks to Representatives Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton, there will be no generic versions of these drugs. At least not for 12 years, if the House health care bill announced today passes. And because of an “evergreening” clause that grants drug companies a continued monopoly if they make slight changes to the drug (like creating a once-a-day dose where the original product was three times per day), they will never become generics. Instead of the Waxman-Deal amendment that granted much more reasonable terms to biologic patent holders, Speaker Pelosi chose the Eshoo-Barton amendment. And we could all be paying for that choice for the rest of our lives.

Breast cancer boards are filled with women who have been turned down by their insurance companies for Herceptin because they only cover generic drugs, or because they only pay a portion of the $48,000 a year (or more) that the drug costs.

.....

This is deeply, deeply wrong. It’s immoral for Congress to give endless monopolies to pharmaceutical companies on these cutting edge drugs in this bill. If an AIDS vaccine is found, it too will be a biologic.

These drug manufacturers argue that the cost of developing biologics is so expensive that they need the extra patent time to recoup their investment, or they won’t have any incentive to develop them. Hogwash. A study done by Drs. Joe DiMasi and Hank Grabowski, who are funded by PhRMA, concluded that the cost for developing biologics is $1.3 billion, as opposed to $1.2 billion for conventional drugs.

And as for incentive for development? As bleicher of Blue Mass Group notes, granting endless monopolies for slight changes encourages companies NOT to innovate:


(T)]hey will have far less reason or incentive to invest in patentable new cures, and will have every reason to invest in low risk, incremental development of existing products to reap (without taking risk) the same profitable rewards. In the short term, some of our local companies may like this protection of their products, but over the long term, as we fail to incent investment in new discovery research, our biotechnology edge will decline and the rest of the world will pass us by as they invent the next generation of products.


There is nothing good about this legislation, unless you’re Roche, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough or any of the other giant pharmaceutical companies reaping huge profits off these blockbuster drugs of the future. About a quarter of new drugs, and half of important new drugs are biologics. This is nothing short of an attempt to sew up the future at the expense of you and your children.

So POP is joining to together with students like Laura Musselwhite and others in the AMSA for a Halloween “treat, not trick” demonstration this Friday at four locations around the country. I’ll be there with medical students in Washington DC at the Russell Senate office building as they arrive fully costumed in their white coats and give out “treats,” urging Senators not to “trick” the nation’s patients with a bad ‘biologic’ medicines proposal.

Please join us:

DATE: FRIDAY, OCT. 30

Washington, DC: Russell Senate Office Bldg, Constitution & Delaware at 3:00 pm

Baltimore, MD: Barbara Mikulski’s office, 1629 Thames St. at 2:30 pm

Raleigh, NC: Senator Kay Hagan’s office, 310 New Bern Ave @ 1:30 pm

Palo Alto, CA: Anna Eshoo’s office, 698 Emerson St, Palo Alto at 2:00 pm

These students are fighting for us, fighting for our future. Please join me in supporting them, and their commitment to being healers who want to give their patients the very best care that they can. They don’t want their hands tied by this bill. I have been helping them organize and they are just so wonderful.

Even if you’re not in close to one of the events, you can help out by joining the POP Facebook Group, Tweeting about the events and donating to POP.

And please call your member of Congress and tell them that this is a terrible bill that will sentence breast cancer survivors and others to financial ruin and death. For the sake of everyone in need of health care in the future, please tell them to vote “no” on this cruel piece of legislation crafted to maximize drug company profits at the cost of human lives.




Related thread:

Jane Hamsher: Are You Or Someone You Know Paying $50,000 A Year For Drugs?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And stealing stuff from Edwards of all people, allrighty then.

Anyway, I wonder how long until Dean is considered a traitor too.

name I automatically associate it with pure unadulterated hate..that's going to be oozing for 8 years.

makes me feel that we're moving in the right direction.

my skepticism so easily.

I must wait to see what FINALLY gets passed by congress...to be signed by the President...and THEN decide if I think
it is worthwhile.
Even then I may have to wait and see how it is implemented before making a judgment.
I guess I have become terminally cynical.

.... when he said, "whoa! Am I actually disagreeing with Howard Dean!!!"

must feel weird

:shrug:

I agree with the good Dr. as usual.

he has advocated for the 12 year data exclusivity amendment that is finally getting some attention.

Just posted the links in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6886323&mesg_id=6887863

Related to this thread...

Jane Hamsher: House Health Care Bill: A Death Sentence For My Fellow Breast Cancer Survivors

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6884040&mesg_id=6884040


"...The quest for influence is not always obvious.

Howard Dean, the former Democratic Party chairman, wrote an opinion piece this month in The Hill, an influential Capitol Hill newspaper, arguing that fewer than 12 years of monopoly rights for biotech companies’ products “would prematurely rob innovators of their intellectual property and . . . destroy incentives to develop new cures.’’

Dean failed to note in his editorial that he is an adviser to McKenna, Long & Aldridge, a global law firm that is advising the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the influential trade group...

But Dean said his editorial was part of McKenna’s rapid-fire response to an unexpected, eleventh-hour Senate health committee proposal (which biotech firms ultimately fought off).

“It was a huge scramble, all hands on deck,’’ Dean said..."

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/14/senate-help-amendment-on-data-exclusivity/

"Sen. Tom Harkin: Keep in mind what we’re talking about here. We’re not talking about patents. Everybody gets a 20 year patent… What we’re talking about here is data, data exclusivity… How do you get that data? You get it through FDA supervised trials… Where do they do those clinical trials? Academic health centers. Who supports academic health centers? Our taxpayers… When should that data be released so that another company out there, some other entrepreneurs, can look at the data and say… I’ll bet if we changed this and did this, we might come up with a new formulation that might actually help something else. They’re still going to have to go through their clinical trials… At least they’ll be able to look at the data. If you don’t do that that means that the company can sit on that data for 12 years. Then they let the data out. Clinical trials will take another 7 years or more, so you’re going to have at least a whole 20 year run in there… before anyone can ever surface with anything even comparable to what that drug or that biologic is.

****

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Let’s find out why year after year the drug companies make hugh profits, look at why the drug companies have never once, to the best of my knowledge, have never lost a political debate here in Congress… (medicine) doesn’t do anybody any good if they can’t afford it. I think for year after year we’ve been paying a lot of attention to our friends in PhRMA, who are spending, I don’t know what they spend in lobbying and campaign contributions, a whole lot of money. Maybe it’s time that we start worrying about the people who have to pay for this medicine.

****

Sen. Sherrod Brown: You know what we’ve not talked about, Mr. Chairman? We’re not talking about how much these biologics are costing patients. Let me give you some numbers. (examples)… 48 thousand dollars… 20 thousand dollars …100 thousand dollars. You know what the average wage in my state is? 46 thousand dollars… If we do this giveaway to the drug industry, this giveaway to the biologic companies, it means profits are up for them, it means executive salaries are up for them, it means we can all feel good, but let’s think about the patients, let’s think of the patient with breast cancer who has got to spend 1000 dollars a week… the patient with colon cancer who’s got to spend 2000 dollars a week… What kind of progress is that, Mr. Chairman?"

Just open Medicare to voluntary enrollment.

Agreed - much as it pains me to disagree with Dr. Dean, this bill is mostly crap. Instead of a public option, we got a "consumer option" as Pelosi put it. :eyes: Once again, Americans are thought of as nothing but consumers, not living, breathing human beings with a need for genuine reform that doesn't include a GD blood sucking middle man.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/24/dean-public-option/

"If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform. If they’re not, we will be back fighting about it for another 20 years before somebody tries again."


http://www.standwithdrdean.com/faq

"What does “universally available” mean?

A universally available public option would be open to anyone regardless of gender, race, religion, income or employer.


What does “public option” mean?

A pubic option would allow anyone and everyone to choose a healthcare plan provided by the government like Medicare is today..."

First Obama throws us under the bus and has now used his mind altering powers to get Howard Dean to agree that this is real reform.

Oh Howard you're so weak.


Ok, seriously, if anyone knows anything about this issue it's the good Dr. Dean and if he says it's real reform then I'll take his word for it over those suddenly finding fault with Dr. Dean.

just a start.

We must make the Republicans and the opposing Dems pay for all the bullshit and delay involved with these bills, and try to get them repaired and improved as much as possible.

This has been a real lesson in how American Government really works, sad but true.

mark

Continued pressure on the Senate is needed to not slip backwards.

"donated" to mambers of congress-to influence our fine legislators. We must fight back hard as we can with whatever means we have.

mark

It gives me some confidence that we are headed in the right direction.

I don't think he would come out with a statement like this if it wasn't what he truly believed.

suppose he has to make a buck.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/howard-dean----now-a-shil_b_241465.html
Howard Dean -- Now a Shill for BIO



The July 20, 2009 issue of BioCentury has an extensive report on the "Biosimilar fire Drill." It discusses in detail the lobbying by the Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO, bio.org) to defeat efforts by President Obama, OMB, the FTC, Representative Waxman, Senator Brown, AARP, Public Citizen, PIRG, Consumers Union, KEI, Essential Action, UAEM and others, to reform regulation of biologic medicines, so there is more generic competition. (For earlier discussions of the bill, go here or here).

What is unusual and surprising is the key role of Howard Dean to back an anti-consumer BIO backed measure in the health reform bill. Excerpts from the BioCentury report are available here.

One interesting bit is how Howard Dean describes his work for BIO: "long-term and short-term strategic advice to BIO. I do not lobby." But he is paid to work on Biosimilars for BIO, he wrote an oped in The Hill on the topic, and he is talking to members of Congress about the measure. What exactly would it take to make Howard Dean a lobbyist? A special badge from the Wizard of Oz?


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/howard-dean----now-a-shil_b_241465.html

For months the Obama haters have been telling those who support him that he should have Dean on his team, that Dean knows the issue better then anyone.

Now that a bill is out there and Dean agrees with it, suddenly Dean is just a shill.

Tell me, do you or the rest of the haters ever get dizzy with your spinning and changing of opinions?

Because the bill isn't what YOU want and because Dean agrees that it's a good bill doesn't make Dean a shill.

It makes Dean no different then what was thought of him in prior months when Obama supporters were being told no one knows more about health care and what needs to be done with it then Dean himself.

But alas, he doesn't agree with you so you find a hit piece at Huffpo calling him a shill and by golly, it must be true.

they can't handle it.

article.

Some quotes when this was introduced in committee...

U.S. Senate HELP Committee
July 13, 2009

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/14/senate-help-amendment-on-data-exclusivity/

"Consideration of the Enzi/Hatch/Hagan amendment on establishing a data exclusivity period of 12 years for biotech innovation

Sen. Orin Hatch: I don’t know a biotech company that isn’t for this bill, for this 12 year data exclusivity.

****

Sen. Kay Hagan: These individuals are out there looking for venture capital to obviously help them get these drugs to market… In order for our country to maintain this innovation and this research we need 12 years of data exclusivity.

****

Sen. Judd Gregg: Money flows into biologics research because capital moves there to make money. That’s the way a market system works.

****

Sen. Tom Harkin: Keep in mind what we’re talking about here. We’re not talking about patents. Everybody gets a 20 year patent… What we’re talking about here is data, data exclusivity… How do you get that data? You get it through FDA supervised trials… Where do they do those clinical trials? Academic health centers. Who supports academic health centers? Our taxpayers… When should that data be released so that another company out there, some other entrepreneurs, can look at the data and say… I’ll bet if we changed this and did this, we might come up with a new formulation that might actually help something else. They’re still going to have to go through their clinical trials… At least they’ll be able to look at the data. If you don’t do that that means that the company can sit on that data for 12 years. Then they let the data out. Clinical trials will take another 7 years or more, so you’re going to have at least a whole 20 year run in there… before anyone can ever surface with anything even comparable to what that drug or that biologic is..."

opened lots of doors for him.


Are you saying he is no longer employed by this company? I read also he is a speaker for this company this weekend.

between those who advocate for a particular piece of legislation, the firms they work for and what companies and industties they represent.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/howard-dean-claims-actual_b_243038.html

"...See the transcript of his response here. I have always liked Howard Dean. I supported his candidacy in 2004, I thought he did a great job as head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and I was sorely disappointed he was not tapped as head of HHS by President Obama. He is a good salesman for health care reform. But none of that excuses what he is doing now.

Dean understands next to nothing about the legislation he is pushing. In the transcript, he talks as if this is a debate over the length of patent protection, and makes it sound as if he was defending a 14 year patent term against some brain dead members of Congress that wanted a zero year term for patents.

Patents are already 20 years (or longer) in the United States (and every country* that is a member of the WTO). The debate is about something completely different -- a non-patent regulatory monopoly that is both independent of and broader than patent protection. Pharmaceutical drugs now get five years of this special regulatory monopoly protection before generic drugs can be introduced in the market. PhRMA and BIO are seeking a special 14 years before a generic biologic medicine can rely upon evidence that the medicine is safe and effective. The Obama administration, the FTC, Representative Waxman, the AARP, the ALF-CIO, Consumers Union, Public Citizen, Essential Action, KEI, UAEM, and many other groups are trying to keep the term of the regulatory monopoly at five years -- the same as for other medicines.

As reported in detail in the BioCentury report, Howard Dean was brought in by BIO to get Democrat votes:

In his e-mail to board members, (BIO President & CEO) Greenwood did not fail to include Dean in his praise. "Our team at BIO, the D.C. offices of our members, our consultants (now including former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) did a magnificent job," he wrote. "Governor Dean was very helpful to us" as BIO scrambled to respond to the Kennedy amendment, he told BioCentury. "As a physician clearly focused on healthcare, a Democrat leader and clearly to left of center, his efforts were impactful."

and i understand where hes coming from and what hes saying..

but what HE and THEY dont understand is that people are hurting and suffering NOW because of this.. its great that the door is being pushed open, but that doesnt help people suffering NOW.

the country NEEDS this public option NOW.

ive recently become another victim of the health care system in this country..

ive been without a steady job since march of this year(when i was laid off from a factory that made parts for caterpiller)....

there is one doctor in my town that offers a reasonable price on an office visit if you do not have insurance (49 bucks) but he had been out of town for a few days and wasnt going to back until the following monday...
i started feeling ill on Wednesday nite and by thursday morning had a temp of 103. i started to self medicate , you know.. the usual tylenol for the fever and anything else i could find for the coughing and nausea that insued...
the tylenol seemed to do it job and i was able to get my temp back to around 100, something i thought was acceptable and tolerable until i could go see my cheap(and crappy) doctor after the weekend..
unfortunately for me my illness had other plans...
my temp shot up to 104.7 and fever reducers had stopped having any effect... i didnt know what to, every few minutes my temp was gaining a .1 and as a child i had frequently had serious high temperature that brought on seizures... so i was scared to death to be honest.

i did the only think i thought i could do and decided to go to the emergency room.
after my 5 hour visit(about an hour to get past the waiting room and about 3 hours before i actually saw someone...who turned out to not even be a doctor and helped me none ultimately..which is another long story on how i hadta threaten filing a complaint to the administration)and a few nites at home getting some rest...i finally got my bill in the mail.

$829 for a 5 hour visit to an emergency room where a nurse practitioner gave me an antibiotic and told me to stay up all night coughing up stuff because he 'was from another school of thought' and didnt 'believe rest really helped' or that cough suppressants 'actually worked'.

im jobless most of the time (minus a few odd jobs im able to get) and already have to many bills to pay... and now i have this... and for what? nothing. i was still sick, and on top of that given a useless anti-biotic for a viral infection. gee, thanks.

our health care system in this country is a joke.

this doesn't go far enough