SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kid Rock who wrote (96071)2/16/2005 11:51:38 PM
From: epicure  Respond to of 108807
 
It didn't sound like that. It sounded like you wanted her to have facts, but you didn't want her to be able to check them. When you say "can you substantiate or explain this"- that sounds like you want facts. I guess if you don't want to be confusing you could say "and how do you feel about this...?"

The other stuff you've included in your post is really off the topic for me. I was only commenting on the strange request that Grainne not google. Not interested in anything else. Thanks



To: Kid Rock who wrote (96071)2/17/2005 3:48:40 PM
From: Grainne  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
I don't have time right now to googlesearch re Bush being bought and paid for by big drug companies, but I will later.

I think you are giving googling a bad name, though. When you say, for example, that you could justify human cannibalism by googling, that statement is not exactly accurate. There are many scientific articles to be obtained by googling that substantiate early human cannibalism based on archaeological evidence.

This emphatically does not JUSTIFY (your word) human cannibalism. Substantiating the accuracy of evidence is completely different from using the evidence to justify behavior. That is an illogical leap you are making.

I would also note that primitive peoples may have been cannibals for several reasons. Superstitious groups, unburdened by modern science, believed in some instances they were gaining power by eating parts of their tribe members' bodies. They may have been eating friends and neighbors who died of natural causes, not murdering them for consumption, and honoring them in a ritualistic way at the same time.

In South America recent evidence shows that parents in one group probably ate the brains of their dead children. Not because they were savage, but as an act of love, to keep their children with them always. So cannibalism itself is a mixed bag. Looking at intent really muddies the waters and one certainly cannot conclude it is always savage brutality at work.



To: Kid Rock who wrote (96071)2/17/2005 4:05:59 PM
From: Grainne  Respond to of 108807
 
I suppose we could start with this. How many articles do you want me to provide?

Big Pharma

By Bruce Levine

More than one journalist has uncovered corrupt connections between the Bush Family, psychiatry, and Eli Lilly & Company, the giant pharmaceutical corporation. While previous Lillygates have been more colorful, Lilly’s soaking state Medicaid programs with Zyprexa—its blockbuster, antipsychotic drug—may pack the greatest financial wallop. Worldwide in 2003, Zyprexa grossed $4.28 billion, accounting for slightly more than one-third of Lilly’s total sales. In the United States in 2003, Zyprexa grossed $2.63 billion, 70 percent of that attributable to government agencies, mostly Medicaid.

Historically, the exposure of any single Lilly machination—though sometimes disrupting it—has not weakened the Bush-psychiatry-Lilly relationship. In the last decade, some of the more widely reported Eli Lilly intrigues include:

Influencing the Homeland Security Act to protect itself from lawsuits
Accessing confidential patient records for a Prozac sample mailing
Rigging the Wesbecker Prozac-violence trial
A sample of those who have been on the Eli Lilly payroll includes:

Former President George Herbert Walker Bush (one-time member of the Eli Lilly board of directors)
Former CEO of Enron, Ken Lay (one-time member of the Eli Lilly board of directors)
George W. Bush’s former director of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels (a former Eli Lilly vice president)
George W. Bush’s Homeland Security Advisory Council member, Sidney Taurel (current CEO of Eli Lilly)
The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (a recipient of Eli Lilly funding)
In 2002, British and Japanese regulatory agencies warned that Zyprexa may be linked to diabetes, but even after the FDA issued a similar warning in 2003, Lilly’s Zyprexa train was not derailed, as Zyprexa posted a 16 percent gain over 2002. The growth of Zyprexa has become especially vital to Lilly because Prozac—Lilly’s best-known product, which once annually grossed over $2 billion—having lost its patent protection, continues its rapid decline, down to $645.1 million in 2003.

At the same time regulatory agencies were warning of Zyprexa’s possible linkage to diabetes, Lilly’s second most lucrative product line was its diabetes treatment drugs (including Actos, Humulin, and Humalog), which collectively grossed $2.51 billion in 2003. Lilly’s profits on diabetes drugs and the possible linkage between diabetes and Zyprexa is not, however, the most recent Lillygate that Gardiner Harris broke about Zyprexa in the New York Times on December 18, 2003.

Zyprexa costs approximately twice as much as similar drugs and Harris reported that state Medicaid programs—going in the red in part because of Zyprexa— are attempting to exclude it in favor of similar, less expensive drugs. Harris focused on the Kentucky Medicaid program, which had a $230 million deficit in 2002, with Zyprexa being its single largest drug expense at $36 million. When Kentucky’s Medicaid program attempted to exclude it from its list of preferred medications, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) fought back. The nonprofit NAMI—ostensibly a consumer organization—bused protesters to hearings, placed full-page ads in newspapers, and sent faxes to state officials. What NAMI did not say at the time was that the buses, ads, and faxes were paid for by Eli Lilly.

Ken Silverstein, in Mother Jones in 1999, reported that NAMI took $11.7 million from drug companies over a three and a half year period from 1996 through 1999, with the largest donor being Eli Lilly, which provided $2.87 million. Eli Lilly’s funding also included loaning NAMI a Lilly executive, who worked at NAMI headquarters, but whose salary was paid for by Lilly. Though NAMI’s linkage to Lilly is a scandal to psychiatric survivors—whose journal MindFreedom published copies of Big Pharma checks to NAMI—the story didn’t have the widespread shock value that would elevate it to Lillygate status.

In 2002, Eli Lilly flexed its muscles at the highest level of the U.S. government in an audacious Lillygate. The event was the signing of the Homeland Security Act, praised by President George W. Bush as a “heroic action” that demonstrated “the resolve of this great nation to defend our freedom, our security and our way of life.” Soon after the Act was signed, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert discovered what had been slipped into the Act at the last minute and on November 25, 2002, he wrote, “Buried in this massive bill, snuck into it in the dark of night by persons unknown…was a provision that—incredibly—will protect Eli Lilly and a few other big pharmaceutical outfits from lawsuits by parents who believe their children were harmed by thimerosal.”

Thimerosal is a preservative that contains mercury and is used by Eli Lilly and others in vaccines. In 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service urged vaccine makers to stop using mercury-based preservatives. In 2001 the Institute of Medicine concluded that the link between autism and thimerosal was “biologically plausible.” By 2002, thim- erosal lawsuits against Eli Lilly were progressing through the courts. The punchline of this Lillygate is that, in June 2002, President George W. Bush had appointed Eli Lilly’s CEO, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on his Homeland Security Advisory Council. Ultimately, even some Republican senators became embarrassed by this Lillygate and, by early 2003, moderate Republicans and Democrats agreed to repeal this particular provision in the Homeland Security Act.

In early 2003, “60 Minutes II” aired a segment on Lillygate and Prozac. With Prozac’s patent having run out, Eli Lilly began marketing a new drug, Prozac Weekly. Lilly sales representatives in Florida gained access to “confidential” patient information records and, unsolicited, mailed out free samples of Prozac Weekly. How did Eli Lilly get its hands on these medical records? Regulations proposed under Clinton and later implemented under Bush contained a provision that gave health-care providers the right to sell a person’s confidential medical information to marketing firms and drug companies. Despite many protests against this proposal, President Bush told Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to allow the new rules to go into effect.

Perhps the most cinematic of all Lillygates culminated in 1997. The story began in 1989 when Joseph Wesbecker—one month after he began taking Prozac—opened fire with his AK-47 at his former place of employment, killing 8 and wounding 12 before taking his own life. British journalist John Cornwell covered the Louisville, Kentucky trial for the London Sunday Times Magazine, ultimately writing a book about it. Cornwell’s The Power to Harm (1996) is not only about a disgruntled employee becoming violent after taking Prozac, but is also about Eli Lilly’s power to corrupt the judicial system.

Victims of Joseph Wesbecker sued Eli Lilly, claiming that Prozac had pushed Wesbecker over the edge. The trial took place in 1994, but received scant attention as the public was transfixed by the O.J. Simpson spectacle. While Eli Lilly had been settling many Prozac violence cases behind closed doors (more than 150 Prozac lawsuits had been filed by the end of 1994), it was looking for a showcase trial that it could win. Although a 1991 FDA “blue ribbon panel” investigating the association between Prozac and violence had voted not to require Prozac to have a violence warning label, by 1994 word was getting around that five of the nine FDA panel doctors had ties to Big Pharma—two of them serving as lead investigators for Lilly-funded Prozac studies. Thus, with the FDA panel now known to be tainted, Lilly believed that Wesbecker’s history was such that Prozac would not be seen as the cause of his mayhem.

A crucial component of the victims’ attorneys’ strategy was for the jury to hear about Eli Lilly’s history of reckless disregard. Victims’ attorneys especially wanted the jury to hear about Lilly’s anti- inflamatory drug Oraflex, introduced in 1982 but taken off the market three months later. A U.S. Justice Department investigation linked Oraflex to the deaths of more than 100 patients and concluded that Lilly had misled the FDA. Lilly was charged with 25 counts related to mislabeling side effects and pled guilty—but in 1985, the Reagan-Bush Justice Department saw fit to fine them a mere $25,000.

In the Wesbecker trial, Lilly attorneys argued that the Oraflex information would be prejudicial and Judge John Potter initially agreed that the jury shouldn’t hear it. However, when Lilly attorneys used witnesses to make a case for Eli Lilly’s superb system of collecting and analyzing side effects, Judge Potter said that Lilly had opened the door to evidence to the contrary and ruled that the Oraflex information would now be permitted. To Judge Potter’s amazement, victims’ attorneys never presented the Oraflex evidence and Eli Lilly won the case. Later, it was discovered that—in a manipulation Cornwell described as “unprecedented in any Western court”—Eli Lilly cut a secret deal with victims’ attorneys to pay them and their clients not to introduce the Oraflex evidence. However, Judge Potter smelled a rat and fought for an investigation. In 1997, Eli Lilly quietly agreed to the verdict being changed from a Lilly victory to “dismissed as settled.”

Looking back further to 1992, Alexander Cockburn, in both the Nation and the New Statesman, was one of the first to connect the dots between the Bush family and Eli Lilly. After George Herbert Walker Bush left his CIA director post in 1977 and before becoming vice president under Ronald Reagan in 1980, he was on Eli Lilly’s board of directors. As vice president, Bush failed to disclose his Lilly stock and lobbied hard on behalf of Big Pharma—especially Eli Lilly. For example, Bush sought special tax breaks from the IRS for Lilly and other pharmaceutical corporations that were manufacturing in Puerto Rico.

Cockburn also reported on Mitch Daniels, then a vice president at Eli Lilly, who in 1991 co-chaired a fundraiser that collected $600,000 for the Bush-Quayle campaign. This is the same Mitch Daniels who in 2001 became George W. Bush’s Director of Management and Budget. In June 2003, soon after Daniels departed from that job, he ran for governor of Indiana (home to Eli Lilly headquarters). In a piece in the Washington Post called “Delusional on the Deficit,” Senator Ernest Hollings wrote, “When Daniels left two weeks ago to run for governor of Indiana, he told the Post that the government is ‘fiscally in fine shape.’ Good grief! During his 29-month tenure, he turned a so-called $5.6 trillion, 10-year budget surplus into a $4 trillion deficit—a mere $10 trillion downswing in just two years. If this is good fiscal policy, thank heavens Daniels is gone.”

There is one Eli Lilly piece of history so bizarre that if told to many psychiatrists, one just might get diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and medicated with Zyrprexa. Former State Department officer John Marks in The Search for the “Manchurian Candidate”: The CIA and Mind Control, The Secret History of the Behavioral Sciences (1979)—along with the Washington Post (1985) and the New York Times (1988)—reported an amazing story about the CIA and psychiatry. A lead player was psychiatrist D. Ewen Cameron, president of the American Psychiatric Association in 1953. Cameron was curious to discover more powerful ways to break down patient resistance. Using electroshock, LSD, and sensory deprivation, he was able to produce severe delirium. Patients often lost their sense of identity, forgetting their own names and even how to eat. The CIA, eager to learn more about Cameron’s brainwashing techniques, funded him under a project code-named MKULTRA. According to Marks, Cameron was part of a small army of the CIA’s LSD-experimenting psychiatrists. Where did the CIA get its LSD? Marks reports that the CIA had been previously supplied by the Swiss pharmaceutical corporation Sandoz, but was uncomfortable relying on a foreign company and so, in 1953, the CIA asked Eli Lilly to make them up a batch of LSD, which Lilly subsequently donated to the CIA.

The most important story about Eli Lilly is that Lilly’s two current blockbuster psychiatric drugs—Zyprexa and Prozac—are, in scientific terms, of little value. It is also about how Lilly and the rest of Big Pharma have corrupted psychiatry, resulting in the increasing medicalization of unhappiness. This diseasing of our malaise has diverted us from examining the social sources for our unhappiness—and implementing societal solutions.

Much of the scientific community now acknowledges that the advantage of Prozac and Prozac-like drugs over a sugar-pill placebo is slight—or as Prevention and Treatment in 2002 defined it, “clinically negligible.” When Prozac is compared to an active placebo (one with side effects), then Prozac is shown to have, in scientific terms, zero value. Moreover, many doctors and researchers now warn us about the dangers of Prozac. Psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen’s Prozac Backlash (2000) documented “neurological disorders including disfiguring facial and whole body tics indicating potential brain damage...agitation, muscle spasms, and parkinsonism,” and he stated that debilitating withdrawal occurs in 50 percent of patients who abruptly come off Prozac and Prozac-like drugs.

Just as Prozac and other SSRI drugs are no longer seen by many scientists as an improvement in safety and effectiveness over the previous class of antidepressants, psychiatry’s highly touted Zyprexa (and other “atypical antipsychotics”) turns out to be no great advance over the older problematic anti-ps ychotics such as Haldol. Journalist Robert Whitaker, in Mad in America (2002), details how Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa research was biased against the inexpensive Haldol and how claims of improved safety of Zyprexa are difficult to justify. Whitaker reports that in drug trials used by FDA reviewers, 22 percent of Zyprexa patients had “serious” adverse effects as compared to 18 percent of the Haldol patients.

The United States and other nations that have bought psychiatry’s and Big Pharma’s explanations and treatments turn out to have worse results with those diagnosed as psychotic than those nations who are less enthusiastic about drugs and who care more about community. In 1992, the World Health Organization (WHO), in a repeat of earlier findings, found that so-called underdeveloped nations, which emphasize community support rather than medications, have better results with those diagnosed as psychotic than nations, which stress drug treatments. In nations such as the United States, where 61 percent of those diagnosed as psychotic were maintained on antipsychotic medications, only 37 percent had full remission. While in India, Nigeria, and Colombia, where only 16 percent of patients diagnosed as psychotic were maintained on antipsychotic medications, approximately 63 percent of patients had full remission.

While scientists are not certain about the reasons for these WHO findings, two possible explanations are: (1) psychiatric drugs, even for the most disturbed among us, are not the greatest long-term solution; (2) community support, crucial to our mental health, does not lend itself to commercialization. Thus, in areas such as mental health, radically commercialized societies such as the United States are backward societies.

Though some mental health professionals insist that atypical antipsychotics such as Zyprexa are a great advance, I’ve met few Zyprexa users who agree. A few years ago, a well-read man with a professorial manner in his early 60s, diagnosed by several other doctors as paranoid schizophrenic, came to see me. He had, at various times, taken several types of antipsychotic drugs and told me, laughing loudly between each sentence, “I’m crazy on drugs and crazy off drugs. Haldol helped me sleep and Zyprexa helped me sleep, but I hated the Haldol and when I was on Zyprexa, I couldn’t take a shit for three weeks. Now I don’t take any drugs and I can’t sleep and I am a big pain-in-the ass, but I can remember better what I read.” A few weeks later he told me, “It’s all friendly fascism. Yes, friendly fascism. Was it you who told me—or was it I who told you—that fascism is about the complete integration of industry and government under a centralized authority? Friendly fascism, right? I suppose I say ‘friendly fascism’ too much, but you’re not Ashcroft and neither am I, right? Don’t you agree that it’s all friendly fascism?” Then he flashed a giant smile and said one more time, “Friendly fascism, right, Bruce?”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Levine, PhD, is a psychologist and author of Commonsense Rebellion: Taking Back Your Life from Drugs, Shrinks, Corporations and a World Gone Crazy (New York-London: Continuum, 2003).



zmagsite.zmag.org



To: Kid Rock who wrote (96071)2/17/2005 6:18:02 PM
From: Grainne  Respond to of 108807
 
AFFORDABLE DRUGS FOR THE WORLD VETOED BY U.S.

US Wrecks Cheap Drugs Deal Larry Elliott and Charlotte Denny The Guardian UK
Saturday December 21, 2002

Cheney's intervention blocks pact to help poor countries after pharmaceutical firms lobby
White House.

Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, last night blocked a global
deal to provide cheap drugs to poor countries, following intense
lobbying of the White House by America's pharmaceutical giants.
Faced with furious opposition from all the other 140 members of
the World Trade Organization, the US refused to relax global
patent laws which keep the price of drugs beyond reach of most
developing countries.
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Is it any wonder that 43 million and rising in the US cannot afford health care insurance and the government doesn't give a damn]
Talks at the WTO's Geneva headquarters collapsed last night after
the White House ruled out a deal which would have permitted a
full range of life-saving drugs to be imported into Africa, Asia
and Latin America at cut-price costs.
"The United States has announced it cannot join the consensus,"
the Brazilian negotiator, Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, said.
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Money rules the US Government's ways at home and on the world's stage, as well.]
Sources in Geneva said last night that the negotiating strategy
had come straight from the White House, with Mr. Cheney seizing
the reins from America's trade negotiator, Robert Zoellick.
Mr Zoellick helped broker a deal on affordable drugs at the WTO's
meeting last year in Doha under which developing countries were
promised they would be able to override patent laws in the
interest of public health.
However, America's drug industry has fought tooth and nail to
impose the narrowest possible interpretation of the Doha
declaration, and wants to restrict the deal to drugs to combat
HIV/Aids, malaria, TB and a shortlist of other diseases unique to
Africa.
Trade envoys said that the negotiations were likely to resume
next month, but last night's failure could push the entire Doha
agreement, which covers everything from cutting farm subsidies to
introducing more competition into services, to the brink of
collapse.
Earlier in the day America's drug industry had expressed
confidence that its lobbying of the Bush administration would pay
off.
"I don't have any indication that the US is changing its position
on that at all," Shannon Herzfeld of PhRMA, the organization
representing leading US pharmaceutical companies, told Inside US
Trade, the specialist trade magazine.
The industry argues that it spends billions a year on drug
research and that if copycat companies can override their patents
and manufacture drugs at bargain prices, research will dry up.
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: This is always their claim; that they spend so very much on research for the good of humanity, when, in fact, most of their R & D money is spent on ads, and the seduction of physicians, especially medical academics]
However, aid agencies lobbying on behalf of poor countries
pointed out that the cut-price drugs will only be sold in
countries which cannot afford to buy them at first-world prices.
They accused the White House of being in the pocket of big US
drug corporations.
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: It couldn't be more true: The White House, the whole of the US federal government, is in the pocket of big US drug corporations.]
"The joke in Geneva this morning is that they couldn't make a
decision because the CEOs of Merck and Pfizer were still in bed,"
said Jamie Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology,
a US lobby group. "George Bush is arguing that diseases his own
children receive treatment for are off limits to poor children in
poor countries."
Aside from HIV/Aids, drug companies do almost no research into
the diseases on the US shortlist. It excludes diseases like
cancer, asthma and pneumonia which are killers in the developing
as well as the developed world.
"The drug industry is saying that any disease that is profitable
to big pharmaceutical companies won't be included," said Mr. Love.
A deal on cheap drugs is seen as essential to keep developing
countries engaged in the trade round, which was started at the
behest of the US and the EU just over a year ago.

adhdfraud.org



To: Kid Rock who wrote (96071)2/17/2005 6:45:17 PM
From: Grainne  Respond to of 108807
 
Too bad the prediction at the beginning of this article that Bush would lose the election turned out not to be true! Still, it documents the Bush bought and paid for by the big pharmaceutical companies truth, so I will share it with you:

The Bush Prescription: Part 1 of a Series

August 08, 2004

By: Evelyn Pringle
Independent Media TV

Material by:
Evelyn Pringle

Material from:
Bush's Medicare Scam May Cost Him The Election

In December 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, was passed. Bush signed the bill into law at the White House in a room filled with senior citizens who honestly believed that they were finally going to get help with the escalating costs of prescription drugs. Less than a year later, they realize they were duped, and that they are still victims of the high-price whims of the drug industry.
The health care advocacy group, Families USA, recently went on what it called a ''Medicare Roadshow" to learn what seniors knew about the drug bill. “What we've learned from this experience is, the more seniors learn about the new Medicare law, the more unhappy they are," said Executive Director Pollack.

One of the biggest errors of the Bush presidency will turn out to be underestimating the intelligence of senior citizens. They know a scam when they see one. Rep Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, says he has met with many seniors and that, "there is an intuitive understanding that this bill was written by the drug and insurance industries."

Seniors make up 13% of the population, which means 13% percent of the most active block of voters in the country will be voting against Bush. The ill-conceived Medicare scam may just cost Bush the election.

What's Wrong With The Bill?

The bill was supposed to make drugs more affordable for seniors, but numerous studies indicate that it has done just the opposite.

The actual so-called benefit from the bill will not go into effect until 2006, so in the meantime, Bush came up with the idea for a prescription drug discount card program intended to reduce prescription drug costs for senior citizens between now and then. To that end, Bush selected roughly 70 private companies to administer the program and provide discount drug cards to seniors, at a fee of up to $30, for use at their pharmacies.

In reality, the drug card program has actually contributed to the problem of high drug costs because, (1) it specifically bars Medicare from negotiating for better prices on behalf of its 40 million members; (2) it prohibits importation and consumer access to lower cost drugs from other countries; (3) companies can change the drugs they offer or the prices they charge whenever they please, but seniors can only change cards once a year; and (4) all cards are not accepted at all pharmacies.

Most of the companies that Bush selected are either large insurance companies or prescription benefit managers (PBMs), and not surprising, most are top Republican campaign contributors. Many lawmakers, from both sides of the isle, say the card program will benefit the drug and insurance industries far more than the elderly.

In 2003, to ensure the passage of the industry's preferred version of the legislation, drug companies, HMOs, their trade associations and industry-funded advocacy groups spent nearly $140 million, and deployed over 900 lobbyists to do their bidding in Washington.

Topping the list of lobbyist spending by interested card providers, was industry giant Merck, at $8 million. But other companies were close behind. Blue Cross also dropped close to $8 million; Aetna spent $2.9 million; Wellpoint Health Networks coughed up $1.5 million; Pacificare put up $1.42 million; and United Healthcare dumped $1.2 million.

In addition, the industry gave more than $3 million in political contributions to the 11 elected officials largely credited with crafting the bill (9 Republicans).

But nobody raked in more campaign cash than Bush. To date, 21 industry executives and lobbyists have achieved “Ranger” or “Pioneer” status, which means they have raised at least $200,000 or $100,000, respectively, during the 2000 or 2004 campaigns. These 21 Rangers and Pioneers have collected at least $3.4 million for Bush.

According to the Public Citizen report entitled "The Medicare Drug War," this group include 5 executives from brand-name drug companies, 6 officials from HMOs, the CEO of a pharmacy services company that runs a PBM, the head of a direct-mail pharmacy, and 8 Washington lobbyists who represent drug companies and HMOs.

Its no wonder that Republican Senator John McCain, has described the new prescription drug bill as a “a living, breathing testimonial to the political influence of the pharmaceutical companies."

Ron Pollack, leader of the health care advocacy group, Families USA, says there is no need for a card program, that Medicare should be allowed to bargain for lower prices like the VA does. "Other than political pressure from the drug lobby, there is no sensible reason why Congress and the president refused to take this far more effective step," he said.

Senator Edward Kennedy agrees, "A genuine discount program would provide a single discount card for Medicare, and the [HHS] secretary ... would negotiate large savings and fair prices for senior citizens, just as the secretary of Veterans Affairs does for veterans. We need to end this shell game and find honest solutions to the crisis of excessive costs of prescription drugs," he says.

The industry also scored big by getting a bill passed that bars seniors from importing prescription drugs from other countries. That's why busloads of seniors are forced to take trips to Canada every month to buy prescription drugs that cost 40% less than in the US.

This year alone experts at Boston University estimate that Americans could save $59.7 billion by paying Canadian prices, and yet, Republicans and Bush refused to include a provision that would have provided seniors with this much needed assistance.

Another major problem with the bill is that once they chose a card provider, seniors are locked into that card for a whole year, while the companies can change the drugs offered, and their prices, whenever they want. Democrats tried to include a provision in the law that would have at least stopped companies from raising prices more often than once a month.

However, typical of the caring guy that he is, Bush got his allies in Congress to defeat the provision because in his words, "price stability is not a requirement of the drug benefit." Well that may be, but I think a little price stability might be nice for those seniors on fixed incomes.

Without the provision, Pollack believes that companies will get seniors to buy their cards, by offering great savings on certain drugs, and then cut the discount, or worse yet, stop offering the drugs altogether. "The potential for bait-and-switch is enormous," he said.

How Did Bush Ever Come Up With The Idea For Card Program?

Trust me, Bush is definitely not the brain behind this complicated scheme.

His good friend, David Halbert, the CEO of AdvancePCS, one of the companies that Bush approved to administer the program, is the guy responsible for coming up with key portions of the legislation.

3 On Dec 11, 2003, only two days after Bush signed the new Medicare bill into law, he came forward and released the details about this great discount drug card program, right at about the same time that the Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report detailing the longstanding political and financial relationship between Bush and David Halbert.

CAP called attention to the fact that Halbert was allowed to help craft the very part of the bill that would have seniors buy discount drug cards from his company, Advance.

The next day, on December 12, the Boston Globe published an article that warned that a Texas company owned by Halbert, a campaign contributor and former business associate of Bush, would profit if Medicare endorsed the drug card program.

Other media sources noted the connection between the Medicare legislation, Bush and Halbert as far back as July 18, 2001, only 6 months after Bush took office. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that, "AdvancePCS has been working with the White House to create a nationwide private discount card program ...David Halbert, AdvancePCS' chief executive, said the Bush administration contacted his company about 2 months ago." When Bush announced the original plan, "Halbert stood next to the president in the Rose Garden" and he said "it was quite an experience."

We're not talking here about a new friendship. Halbert even helped boost Bush into politics. In 1994, when he was running for governor and needed cash, Bush turned to Halbert and he came through. According to the CAP, Halbert and his family members gave Bush $14,500.

Their ties go all the way back to Bush's days in the oil industry. According to an August 8, 2002 article in the Star- Telegram, "before starting what would become AdvancePCS, Halbert helped clean up a deal with Harken Energy (Bush's failed oil company) that had prompted an SEC investigation of Bush."

Shortly after the SEC investigation ended, Halbert asked Bush to invest money in his then new company, Advance Paradigm. Bush made a small investment in the company, and walked away with a six-figure bonanza a few years later in 1998 when he sold his stock.

Of course as we now know, by 1998 Bush had decided to run for the presidency and it would not have looked too good if he openly held on to shares in a drug company in the light of the plans that him and Halbert had concocted in the event that Bush ended up winning.

So, it should come as no surprise that all of the predications about the 2 cronies came true. Advance was approved to administer the cards and David Halbert is set to make a bundle.

David Sirota, author of the Progress Report, says, "The president needs to explain why he allowed his longtime Texas crony and benefactor to help write key pieces of Medicare legislation that guarantees nothing for seniors but billions for his friend's business," he said. "The White House is supposed to be the people's house, not the drug industry's corporate headquarters," Sirota added.

As usual, Bush refuses to address the issue. When reporters raised questions about the connection between Bush and Halbert, White House Spokesman Trent Duffy, said ''I'm not going to be able to say anything about specific conversations the White House had in crafting this legislation.''

How Did This Bill Ever Get Passed?

Initially AARP, the nation's largest lobbying group for seniors, threw its 35 million member support behind the bill and described it as "a historic breakthrough and important milestone in the nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens."

However, since the bill was passed, AARP's decision to support the bill has led to damning repercussions. According to AARP CEO, Bill Novelli, "15,000 members have told the organization to cancel their membership because of the endorsement."

AARP has since acknowledged that the rising drug costs have wiped out any savings that may have resulted from the discount card plan. It conducted a study that showed that the prices of many brand name drugs commonly used by seniors rose sharply in the first few months of 2004, immediately following the enactment of the bill.

In fact, the study found that the overall annual rate of increase rose to 7.2% for the 12 months preceding March 2004. Which indicates that the industry already knew about the card program and was raising prices in 2003 in anticipation of it being implemented.

According to reports by both Families USA and AARP, the price hikes offset any savings on drugs bought with the cards. A report by the Wall Street Journal says companies raised prices on the most popular drugs "nearly 3.5 times faster on average than overall inflation." And it gets worse. In 2003, the price of 14 brand-name drugs that are most commonly used by seniors, increased by more than 5 times the rate of inflation.

Senator Kennedy summed up the drug card scam correctly. "For many medicines, price increases in just the last 12 months have already wiped out any savings that these cards may provide," he said, "the Bush Medicare bill is a sweetheart deal for big drug companies and a raw deal for senior citizens."

Bush Finds Ways To Con Congress Into Passing The Bill

The political plots behind the passage of the prescription drug legislation will likely be written about in history books in years to come. First off, Republican congressional leaders violated House rules by extending the voting period on the bill by 3 hours after the initial vote count came up short.

Then Rep Nick Smith (R- MI) disclosed that Republicans had attempted to sway his vote, with threats and bribery attempts, which included a promise of a $100,000 donation for his son's political campaign.

Next, Bush waged a $9 million deceptive TV ad campaign in attempt to sell the legislation to seniors (handled by the same media firm managing Bush's reelection campaign), and spent another $3 million for print, radio and Spanish speaking ads.

Then, shortly after the bill was passed, it became known that the administration had intentionally lied to members of Congress by quoting a $395 billion price tax for the bill, when it had known for 5 months that it would cost well over $500 billion.

It then came out that Bush's top negotiator on the bill, CMS Administrator Tom Scully, had threatened to fire the government's top expert on Medicare costs, Richard Foster, if he revealed the true cost of the bill to members of Congress, before they was voted it.

A March 23, 2004 Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, quotes Foster as saying that the higher projection was known before the House and Senate votes but that Scully told him, "We can't let that get out."

During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing, Foster said that as early as June, 2003, he had shared his analysis that the legislation would exceed its target spending goal with Bush administration officials.

According to the NYTs, Foster's analysis revealed that the legislation "would cost 25% to 50% more than the Bush administration's estimates." And that Foster said, "The range of our estimates was $500 billion to $600 billion all the way through the process."

Foster's figures would have definitely threatened the passage of the bill because 13 Republicans had vowed to vote against it if the cost went over $400 billion. Even at the lower cost, the bill initially only passed the House by 1 vote. A later House- Senate compromise passed by only five votes. Had members of Congress known the truth, the bill would have been doomed.

But why would Scully do this? Intentionally withhold information from Congress and tax payers regarding the cost of legislation ready to be voted on involving 100 billion dollars?

Well it helps to know that within a days of the bill being passed, Scully told reporters that he had been negotiating future employment with 3 lobbying firms and 2 investment companies. An investigation by the watchdog group Public Citizen, revealed that those 5 firms either represented, or have major stakes in 41 of the companies that would be affected by the new law.

So where does Scully work now? In the end, he accepted employment with 2 of the companies, the lobbying firm Alston & Bird and the private investment firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe. Since Scully joined the company, Alston & Bird has signed up over a dozen new health care clients, including industry giants Abbott Laboratories and Aventis Pharmaceuticals.

As it turns out, Foster was right. Estimates from the Office of Management and Budget released after the bill was passed showed that it would cost $534 billion, $134 billion more than the amount presented to Congress before they voted on the measure.

All of this was bad enough, but the icing on the cake came when the GAO recently announced that it had determined that Bush broke federal law by running the phony TV ads that concealed the fact that the news footage segments featured actors who were pretending to be reporters, and who were paid with federal funds to read scripts written by the administration.

The GAO concluded that the segments were "not strictly factual news stories," that they contained "notable omissions and weaknesses" about Medicare changes, and that running the ads constituted a "misuse of appropriated funds" in violation of federal law. So in a nutshell, Bush spent more than $12 million tax dollars to con the elderly.

What a guy. Bush may be the son of Barbara's every dream, but he's got to be every grandmother's nightmare.

How Were These Companies Chosen?

What qualifications were needed? That question requires a one word answer - money.

In order to protect the profits of the already most profitable business in the US, the drug industry made more than $44 million in political contributions since 1999, with 78% to Republicans and 22% to Democrats.

It also spent millions of dollars more hiring a multitude of lobbyists that outnumber the members in Congress; and funneled millions more to "front groups" that do the industry's bidding under more politically-palatable sounding names such as, "Citizens for a Better Medicare" and "United Seniors Association."

And of course the loyal guy that he is, Bush rewarded his top contributors. The top 7 executives and lobbyists from approved companies have raised, or pledged to raise, $100,000 or more for the Bush campaign. They are Wellcare executives Todd Farha and David Hart; Blue Cross executive Michael Hightower; United Health CEO William McGuire; Medco President Alan Lotvin; Express Scripts board member Samuel Skinner; and PacifiCare lobbyist Tom Loeffler.

Of the companies chosen, at least 20 have a history of being involveded in fraud charges, that include bilking Medicare and overcharging consumers. For instance, Best Buddy, David Halbert's company Advance, faced lawsuits last year over market manipulation, and its failure to disclose the extent of its financial ties with drug makers. AARP also sued Advance and accused the company of illicitly diverting seniors from AARP's drug-discount plan, and of actually putting seniors at risk for dangerous drug interactions.

Another Bush approved company, Medco Health Solutions, had to pay $29 million to settle claims by 20 states that it pressured doctors to switch the brands of their patient’s medication to benefit Medco financially. It has also been charged with defrauding the federal employees’ health plan.

In fact, Advance and Medco are both listed as defendants in a current lawsuit with 2 other approved companies, Caremark and Express Scripts. The suit alleges that they engaged in anti-competitive practices that harmed pharmacies, and that they entered into secret deals with drugmakers in return for kickbacks and other undisclosed incentives.

Yet even with its long history of corruption, Bush entrusted Medco to administer drug discount cards to our seniors. Why? $$$ A few weeks after Bush approved the company, Medco President, Alan Lotvin, co-sponsered a $100,000 fundraiser for Bush, according to a report by the Associated Press.

I know, I know. I should quit nitpicking. What are friends for right?

But Medco is not alone in paying huge fines. Many other companies that Bush approved have histories of paying large sums of money to settle fraud claims. According to the 2002 Medicaid Fraud Report, United Healthcare paid $4 million to settle allegations that it charged both Medicaid and Medicare for the same patient services.

In 2003, WellPoint paid over $9 million to settle charges that its Blue Cross subsidiary defrauded Medicare by auditing more claims and cost reports than it actually did.

Another example is Humana Health Plan. Between 1992 and 2000, it paid over $22 million to settle fraud claims that it billed both Medicaid and Medicare for the same services, and had received duplicate payments for the same patients.

Top lobbyists who raise big bucks for Bush also represent companies involved in fraud. Bush Pioneer, Tom Loeffler, is a lobbyist for PacificCare, a company that paid $87.3 million to settle charges of violating the federal False Claims Act in 2002.

The latest industry fraud case just became public on August 6, 2004, when New York City filed a lawsuit against 44 drug companies and their subsidiaries, accusing them of "deceptively inflating the cost of their drugs and defrauding taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars," the NYTs reports. According to the LA Times, almost every major US drug company is listed in the suit. We'll have to wait and see what the gang was up to in that case.

Of course I'm convinced that all of the above legal problems are probably the result of an 8 year period of honest mistakes. So by all means, let's throw open the door to the Medicare fund so that these crooks can get their hands on more of our tax dollars.

The question is how did these corrupt companies ever end up in a position where they can so easily and blatantly exploit our elderly? Only one person can answer that question and Bush ain't talking.

Related topics still to be covered in a series of articles on the Prescription Drug Bill are: (2) Comparing Drug Prices with the Card Program against prices available in other countries, prices negotiated VA style, and prices of internet pharmacies; (3) Who Gets the $550 Billion? (4) The Revolving Door Between the Bush White House and the Industry; (5) Other Negative Consequences of the Bill for Retirees; (6) Other Corrective Bills Currently Pending In Congress; and (7) What Happens In 2006?

By Evelyn Pringle e.pringle@sbcglobal.net

Original Link: independent-media.tv

independent-media.tv



To: Kid Rock who wrote (96071)2/17/2005 6:47:50 PM
From: Grainne  Respond to of 108807
 
Just for fun, the lyrics from Billionaires for Bush, a CD that you can purchase online!

Making Medicare Go Bust

The whole Drug Industry's cheering now!
Here come some pricey pills!
It puts us all in good humor
When the consumer is footing the bills!

Don't think of buying from Canada
Our we will not play nice.
We wrote the new legislation
Forcing the nation to pay the top price!

Oh grandma, start enrolling!
Grandpa, don't be slow!
Yes you'll get medication
If you join our HMO.
There's no more Medicare!
Oh you'll just have to trust us
While we're making Medicare go bust!

Watch all the companies lining up.
We'll get a chance to see
Which firm has got the endurance
For selling insurance, like AARP!

We've got a medical savings plan.
We've got an HMO.
That's how we're gonna get wealthy
Enrolling the healthy and counting our dough!

Oh grandma, start enrolling!
Etc.

We can't disguise our glee!
We're privatizing Medicare — it's history!
And what will take its place will be
A fine example of truly ample
Opportunity!

Oh there's a hefty deductible
On all the drugs you need.
Yes there's copayments for sure.
We're selling your cure
If you're feeding our greed!

Oh grandma, start enrolling!
Etc.

Lyrics by Felonius Ax
(aka Clifford J. Tasner)

billionairesforbush.com



To: Kid Rock who wrote (96071)2/17/2005 6:51:37 PM
From: Grainne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
More, more, more!

Republicans have always defended big business. But they’ve never done it quite like this.
By David J. Sirota
Issue Date: 09.01.04

Print Friendly | Email Article

For most Americans, the last four years have represented a low point in our economic history. But for the big-business interests financing the Bush campaign, these have been high times. In previous eras, and even under previous Republican administrations, corporate America was one of a number of players in the public-policy arena. But under the Bush administration, big business is both the player and the referee, having finally won its decades-long campaign to eliminate the boundary between executive suite and public office. No longer does the private-profit motive compete in the legislative process with public good; profit now owns the process, and the middle class is left to the vultures.

We technically have a representative government, but it is far less like democracy than like WWE wrestling -- entertaining theater with colorful characters, much fanfare, and a few body slams, but ultimately a rigged outcome. Industry no longer needs to lobby hard for regulatory rollbacks, because many of its own lobbyists have been appointed federal regulators. Congress openly admits that business writes many of the most important pieces of legislation. The White House slaps an official seal on memos from corporate executives and labels them “presidential policy initiatives.” The vice president is permitted to own shares of stock in a company for which he coordinates government contracts. And the Oval Office is occupied by a man whose major life experience was not public service but money-losing business deals (that somehow seemed to just make him richer and richer). In short, the government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America.

This hostile takeover is no accident. After the crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964, conservative business interests began a campaign to intimidate, infiltrate, and ultimately take over Washington. As David Brock documents in his new book, The Republican Noise Machine, the chief architects of the right’s new strategy laid out an agenda “whereby conservative business interests would create and underwrite a ‘movement’ to front their agenda.” And, slowly but surely, the campaign worked. This Republican Party–big-business nexus massaged its propaganda during the Nixon years, fertilized it under the Reagan administration in the 1980s, and incubated it into legislative experiments after taking over Congress in the 1990s. The George W. Bush era is simply the full-grown, out-of-control, bastard child of this 30-year orgy that’s been running roughshod over the middle class.

The business takeover of government seems, at first blush, unremarkable -- like something that has been with us for years and is as natural to the order of things as the ocean’s tides. But it is not natural at all. It is new, historically speaking, and blatant even by the standards of recent Republican administrations. To illustrate how far down this road we’ve actually gone, just contrast George W. Bush’s categorical refusal to regulate the market with three of his Republican predecessors. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and expanded the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- all agencies chartered to protect average people. Even while ideologue Ronald Reagan was doing his best to soak the poor, he was forced to increase at least some corporate taxes in his 1986 tax-reform package. And according to the conservative Heritage Foundation, George Bush Senior increased funding for regulatory enforcement by 18 percent.

This administration, by contrast, resists any government intervention or deviation from the big-business agenda, no matter how dire the situation. It is all the culmination of the industry’s master plan: Take over the government and remove it as an obstacle to fleecing the average American. If any legitimate proposals arise to reregulate the market, they are bludgeoned with any red herring available: Health reforms are tarred as “socialized medicine,” tax reforms are attacked as “job killers.” While the fat cats make off like bandits, the rest of us are left, in five crucial areas of economic life, facing the big squeeze.

THE HEALTH-INSURANCE SQUEEZE
Last year, Americans spent 14 percent of all their money -- $1.5 trillion -- on health care (such spending is rising at more than 7 percent a year). And those are the lucky ones: A report by the nonprofit Families USA found that 82 million Americans went without any health insurance at some point in the last two years, an increase of 7 million from the same study a year ago.

For years, real solutions sat on the table, all of them requiring government intervention in the health-care market. Progressives in Congress proposed various single-payer systems, including legislation to extend Congress’s own health-insurance program to the general public. In California, the state Legislature passed a bill forcing employers to provide basic coverage to their workers. Others proposed extending the state-level Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover everyone. Presidential candidate Dick Gephardt suggested a hybrid: using both tax credits and government spending to bridge the gap. Those proposals have solid public support. According to an ABC News poll in October 2003, almost two-thirds of Americans “said they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program” as opposed to the current private, for-profit system.

So why has the president avoided addressing health care in a serious way? Because his health-care-industry donors are winning big from the existing system. A recent study found HMO profits increased 52 percent last year alone, meaning an extra $2.3 billion was pilfered from American consumers. These are the same companies that since 2000 gave at least $13 million to President Bush and key Republicans in Congress, and who have seven former or current executives in the president’s “Pioneer” club (those who gave him $100,000 or more).

Those campaign contributions bought policies that either further pamper health-care executives or actually remove the government from the market entirely. The White House’s major health-care initiative, for instance, is the “Health Care Savings Accounts.” On the surface, the plan seems as innocuous as one of those HMO magazine ads. It is also just as misleading. In reality, the accounts are nothing more than tax incentives for employers and HMOs to terminate their existing coverage, raise deductibles and premiums, and make more money. As one study notes, widespread adoption of the plans could more than triple the annual health-insurance deductibles paid by workers.

And the White House’s Medicare bill was no better. Its signature feature was a multibillion-dollar subsidy for private health-insurance companies to compete with the cheaper, government-administered program. The new law also included a little-noticed provision that allows companies to continue receiving a special tax break even if they reduce their employees’ existing health-care benefits.

THE PRESCRIPTION-DRUG SQUEEZE
Turn on the television for more than five minutes and you will inevitably see an advertisement for a new drug. The ads portray happy seniors living life to the fullest, amped up on whatever pill the company is hawking. But the images are a fallacy: We’re not going to look as good as those TV people when we’re older, and, more importantly, many of us are not going to be able to afford the pills being peddled. While drug companies maintain some of the highest profit margins of any industry in America, drug prices are rising at three times the rate of inflation, and they continue to skyrocket.

Drug executives have the nerve to say their rip-offs must continue in order to fund the research and development of new medicines. These executives, backed by innocent-sounding, industry-supported think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, claim the “free market” must be left untouched because it has led to groundbreaking new drugs. What they don’t say is that at least a third of all research and development is funded by the taxpayers. They also forget to mention that the industry enjoys massive R&D tax breaks that allow it to pay 40 percent less in taxes than the rest of corporate America. These subsidies have led to the development of major name-brand drugs like Taxol, AZT, and Tamoxifen. Our reward for that investment? The highest price in the world for those same drugs at the pharmacy. As the House Government Reform Committee notes, consumers in industrialized countries like Canada, Germany, Italy, and Great Britain all pay at least 30 percent less for brand-name medicines than consumers in America.

Serious solutions to the price crisis that cost little taxpayer money have been around for years. But the drug industry, using lobbyists now appointed to key positions in the Bush administration, has convinced Congress and the White House that it will make less money if any of these solutions is adopted. The claims, of course, are untrue. A recent Boston University study points out that profits lost to lower prices would be made up by an influx of new consumers who previously could not afford to buy medicines.

Even if profits did slightly decrease, these companies would be far from Oliver Twist cases. The industry right now makes more money than it knows what to do with. According to Public Citizen, the drug industry pocketed $39.5 billion in profits in 2002. That was more than half of the total profits of the entire Fortune 500 combined. Even if the pharmaceutical industry saw its 14-percent profit margin cut in half, it would still be more profitable than the auto, computer, and telecommunications industries. Its pleas of poverty are as insulting as Bill Gates buying you lunch at TGI Friday’s and then telling you the meal will put him in the poorhouse.

Instead of mandating serious reform in the pharmaceutical marketplace, the Republicans in Congress have done everything possible to perpetuate the current system for an industry that has given them more than $65 million in the last 10 years. In 1996, the new Republican majority followed the orders of Republican National Committee Chairman and former pharmaceutical lobbyist Haley Barbour, attaching an $18 billion drug-industry tax break to a minimum-wage bill -- without demanding lower prices from the industry in return. In 2000, the GOP leadership gutted House- and Senate-passed provisions that would have permitted seniors to buy cheaper medicines from Canada.

And this year, President Bush gave the drug companies their crown jewel: a Medicare bill that includes a drug benefit, yet specifically prohibits Medicare from negotiating any price discounts. The bill will give the industry a half-trillion dollars to administer the new program, yet without any cost controls, even that sum is not enough to provide comprehensive drug coverage to seniors. In short, the bill created two new entitlements: a marginal one for Grandma and a vast one for the pharmaceutical industry.

THE ENERGY SQUEEZE
With automobiles consuming 40 percent of all the oil America uses, a big part of the energy solution naturally revolves around using less oil in automobiles. In the long term, that means serious investment in alternative energies and mass transit. In the short term, that requires forcing auto companies to make more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Those simple solutions have been attacked and distorted by energy companies, which in the last four years have reaped an additional $50 billion to

$80 billion in new profits from the current situation. Instead of acknowledging the problem, these companies turn Alice-in-Oil-land fantasy into free-market ideology. The oil industry’s executives claim with a straight face that the Earth “will never run out of oil” and call for more tax breaks for oil and gas drilling. That kind of rhetoric is translated into fodder for conservative, industry-backed think tanks that arm lawmakers with “facts.” For instance, the libertarian CATO Institute, which receives grants from Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Unocal, issues reports claiming that “fossil-fuel resources are becoming more abundant, not scarcer.” Similarly, the Chevron-ExxonMobil-Shell–backed Heritage Foundation issues talking points actually saying cars “clean our air.”

These claims, of course, are wholly without merit: As National Geographic this year noted, “Humanity’s way of life is on a collision course with geology [and] the stark fact that the Earth holds a finite supply of oil.” Experts agree that, whether five or 30 years from now, supply “will ultimately top out, then dwindle.” And there is no legitimate science to prove that burning fossil fuels is good for air quality or the environment.

But with the White House headed by two oilmen, industry nonsense substitutes for public policy. Within months of taking office, Vice President Dick Cheney convened a secret task force to solicit oil executives’ help in writing federal energy policy. No matter that Cheney still held stock options and received a salary from the oil behemoth Halliburton, which stood to profit from the policy decisions. What mattered was paying back the industry that gave the Bush campaign almost $2 million.

The resulting legislation was a classic marketplace intervention by the government on behalf of industry -- this time, to pay wealthy oil corporations to do what the government could have mandated for free. Billed as a “comprehensive energy plan,” the energy proposal was nothing more than a series of multibillion-dollar tax breaks for oil and gas companies. Even though the president’s own economic guru admits “the technology exists for sharply reducing and eventually eliminating the use of oil to fuel cars,” the legislation included no fuel-efficiency standards at all. Making matters worse, the president proposed budgets that simultaneously cut funding for alternative fuel and hybrid-engine research while creating a new, $100,000 tax write-off for people who purchase gas-guzzling Hummers.

Even the most serious crises brought no action. During the West Coast energy crisis, when Enron was fleecing at least a billion dollars from consumers and laughing about it, the White House refused to support temporary price caps and pressured allies on Capitol Hill -- including those from the West Coast -- to vote them down.

THE WAGE SQUEEZE
As the Economic Policy Institute reports, average Americans’ paychecks are getting smaller. During the “recovery” we hear so much about, the industries adding jobs pay about 13 percent lower than industries cutting jobs. In other words, people are being thrown out of their higher-wage manufacturing and information-sector jobs and shoved into low-wage restaurant and temp jobs.

Looking to the November election, the president feels he must ignore this reality and try to convince us that everything is hunky-dory. He says “our economy is getting stronger,” and the vice president claims “real incomes and wages are growing.” Yes, it is true, CEO pay is on the rise and corporate profits have risen by 62 percent since the last recovery. But in that same period, wages for workers have decreased by 0.6 percent -- the worst record of any “recovery” since World War II. As The New York Times noted, “The amount of money workers receive in their paychecks is failing to keep up with inflation.”

The president could have pushed the federal government to step in and mandate an increase in the minimum wage from its almost 50-year low, in terms of real inflation-adjusted dollars. Such a move would mean an immediate pay increase for roughly 9.9 million workers. With the poverty level increasing two years in a row for the first time in nearly a decade, he could have argued that we at least need a minimum wage that lifts a family above the federal poverty line. True, no one really expects a conservative president to push to increase the minimum wage. But this president did more than merely oppose an increase; he actually sought out ways to deregulate the labor market and slash pay even further, offering a series of policies that help his corporate benefactors cut their costs. First came legislation to eliminate overtime-pay protections for 8 million workers. Then came efforts to preserve more than a billion in government handouts to companies that export jobs. Then the president’s top economic adviser trumpeted the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to cheap overseas labor markets.

Now, the executive agencies are taking over. According to The Associated Press, the Bush Labor Department began “suggesting ways employers can avoid paying overtime” to their workers. Similarly, The New York Times reports that the Bush Commerce Department is participating in “conferences and workshops that encourage American companies to put operations and jobs in China.” And the Bush Treasury Department has tried to defy federal-court rulings by attempting to legalize “cash balance” pension schemes that reduce retirement incomes that companies promised to their older workers.

THE TAX SQUEEZE
Consider some statistics from the president’s tax policy: By 2010 more than half of all the president’s income-tax cuts will go to the richest 1 percent of the population (those making an average salary of $1 million); by 2006, the average millionaire will receive a tax cut of $52,000, while the average American worker -- earning less than that tax cut, or $36,000 a year -- will get less than $600.

But the story does not stop there. Along with tax cuts for the rich, Bush’s budgets actually raised fees by almost $20 billion, including increased surcharges for veterans to receive health care. At the same time, states were forced to raise taxes by $14 billion to deal with deficits, while experts estimate local property taxes rose an average of more than 10 percent between 2001 and 2003. And because these levies are not graduated like the federal income tax, they hit the middle class particularly hard.

So it is no wonder that at the end of this so-called tax-cutting era, polls show ordinary Americans saying that they have not felt any real tax relief. As The Washington Post notes, economists agree that “Bush’s tax policies have shifted more of the tax burden to the middle class.”

What makes the situation so tragic is that the White House had such a historic opportunity to use the tax code to fight for the middle class, not against it. The recession, along with a massive surplus, gave the president all the political capital he needed. He could have expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, a tax policy widely praised for rewarding work and helping people move out of poverty. He could have embraced a proposal to create regular rebate checks for every American, so that General Electric’s Jack Welch received the same tax rebate as his factory workers on the shop floor. There were even proposals to reform the payroll-tax system, changing it from one that exempts income over a certain level to one that exempts income below a certain level.

But to conservatives, that would have been heresy because it would mean no tax cuts for the wealthy few who fund their political campaigns. It means no tax cuts for large chemical and oil companies, like those enacted when the White House eliminated cleanup taxes on industrial polluters. It means preserving the estate tax, a levy that falls only on the wealthiest 2 percent of America, not eliminating it, as President Bush did. It means admitting a problem exists when the wealth of the top 1 percent doubles at the same time the wealth of the bottom 40 percent gets cut in half. It means reversing the practice of giving a $52,000 tax cut to every millionaire in America while 1.7 million Americans fall below the poverty line.

In short, it means having a dialogue about what conservatives decry as “class warfare” -- issues of rich and poor we all have to deal with but aren’t supposed to talk about because it makes fat cats uncomfortable.

At a high-society dinner during the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush looked out on the audience and joked, “This is an impressive crowd. The ‘haves’ and ‘the have-mores.’ Some people call you the ‘elite.’ I call you my base.”

We should give him credit: It is a rare occasion when a conservative politician admits who calls the shots, even in jest. Most of the time, the right wing’s real motivations are hidden under the populism of a cowboy hat, or in the fine print of books about the free market.

But what is happening in this country is no laughing matter. Average Americans are being screwed as never before, and our government is helping those turning the screwdriver. The result is that George W. Bush has become not just a “war president” on foreign policy but also on domestic policy. Only here at home, he is waging a war on the middle class, and the results have been downright devastating.

David Sirota is a writer for the American Progress Action Fund.



prospect.org



To: Kid Rock who wrote (96071)2/17/2005 6:54:00 PM
From: Grainne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
Take Back America Campaign |www.ourfuture.orgWhat

Bush Says vs. The Facts About His Medicare Drug Planby Roger HickeyCo-Director, Campaign for America's FutureBush Says:We want to help seniors with drug costs.The Facts:The Bush drug plan puts special interests over seniors.On December 8, 2003 President Bush signed a law he claims will provide prescription drugs to seniors. But the Campaign for America's Future and a large coalition ofsenior, labor and civic groups have joined to make the case that the new drug dealgives windfall profits to the drug and insurance industry and provides tax breaks for the rich - without giving a reliable prescription drug benefit or drug price relief to seniors and people with disabilities. President Bush will no doubt talk about his prescription drug bill in his State of the Union speech on January 20. [AP reports Bush will also revive his Social Security privatization proposal.] CAF co-director, Roger Hickey - organizer of major citizencoalitions on Medicare and Social Security - has written this primer about what Bush likely to say, followed by the facts of the matter.Bush Says:This Administration came into office promising a prescription drug benefit for seniors, and we kept that promise.The Facts:For years Republicans opposed a prescription drug benefit.But activist senior citizen organizations, like the Alliance for Retired Americans, organized and pressured politicians, conducting highly-publicized bus trips to Canada and Mexico to buy American-made drugs at lower prices than they could buy here. Democratic politicians took up the cause. And one highly visible political upset —U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow's defeat of Spencer Abraham in Michigan — sent a message to Republicans that they couldn't stand in the way of progress forever. The pharmaceutical industry also opposed a government program to buy drugs forseniors, but when George W. Bush decided to neutralize the issue by promising a prescription drug plan, the drug companies quickly got into the business of designing a drug bill for seniors that they could live with. Their enormous political contributions to Bush and his party gave them easy access to the White House and Congressional drafting sessions. [1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
HMO companies, having failed miserably in their efforts to take over senior health care in the Medicare Plus experiment, decided a Bush drug was also an opportunity to get government subsidies to play again in Medicare and the new drug program.Bush Says: "Some older Americans spend much of their Social Security checks just on their medications. This new law will ease the burden on seniors and will give them the extra help they need."[2]The Facts:Most Medicare beneficiaries will end up paying MORE for their prescriptions.Everyone knows that the prices of prescription drugs have been skyrocketing. The new law, which will spend a good part of $400 billion over 10 years to buy drugs for seniors, should have empowered Medicare to do what any private firm would dowhen it buys a lot of anything, widgets or health care services: go to the drugcompanies and negotiate the lowest possible price. (This is what the VeteransAdministration does, saving billions on drug prices.) Instead, the bill President Bushis so proud of actually explicitly prohibits the federal government from negotiating low prices on behalf of beneficiaries. [3] This is a provision that only a drugcompany lobbyist could have written. Gail Shearer, Health Policy Director at Consumers Union, looked at the impact of Bush's new drug plan on the pharmaceutical expenditures of consumers, making the assumption that the law will do nothing to curb the outrageously high prices charged by the big drug companies. [4]She found that "the benefit design, and the assumption of continued growth inexpenditures combine so that people at most expenditure levels actually face out-of-pocket expenditures in 2007 (when they would have coverage) greater than their out-of-pocket expenditures in 2003 (when they have no drug coverage)." To repeat, she finds that "Most beneficiaries will face higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs after full implementation, despite the benefit." Specifically, she found: The average Medicare beneficiary (without prescription drug coverage) spending$2,318 in 2003 would find that his or her out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs (including: premium, deductible, co-payments, and "doughnut") are higher in 2007, despite the new prescription drug benefit, and would total $2,911 in 2007 (real 2003 dollars). Bush Says:"[T]his legislation is a victory for all of America's seniors."[5]The Facts:The real winners are drug companies and insurance plans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
Drug makers will be the big winners, pocketing a whopping $139 billion in new revenues from the taxpayers, according to the Health Reform Program analysis of the bill.•The drug industry has spent about $650 million on politicians since 1997, fully 80% to Republicans. Many millions more have been spent on sham "senior"groups who take drug company money to run television and print adssupporting the drug and insurance industry positions. [6]In addition to the money that goes to drug companies, $12 billion will go directly toinsurance companies and HMOs to keep them from leaving Medicare.•Since 1997, more than 2.5 million seniors and people with disabilities have been dropped by many of these same insurance companies that will be handed billions under this deal. President Bush isn't even trying to hide the big money behind this bad deal! Together with the Members of Congress who joined him on the stage during the signing ceremony — they have taken $14 million in political contributions from the health care industry!From the Wall Street Journal:"Corporate lobbying groups are emerging as winners, having pushed hard for a bill inorder to shift some of their costs to the government...companies can opt in, taking the proposed tax-free federal subsidy and shifting some costs to the government, or opt out and possibly cut or eliminate their own coverage altogether, a trend that isalready under way.".... "For the drug industry, the legislation is good news...Drug makers believe individual private buyers are less able to push down prices than a centralized government purchaser with a pool of 40 million patients." [7]Bush Says: My drug plan helps those who need it most. The new benefit provides for comprehensive drug coverage for people with low incomes.The Facts:Millions of low-income seniors will be hurt by the Bush bill.From The New York Times:"Millions of Medicare beneficiaries have bought private insurance to fill gaps inMedicare. But a little-noticed provision of the legislation prohibits the sale of anyMedigap policy that would help pay drug costs after Jan. 1, 2006, when the new Medicare drug benefit becomes available." [8]From a USA Today report: "The Congressional Budget Office estimates about 2.7 million seniors could lose benefits that may be more generous than those that will be offered under Medicare."[9]The bill establishes a $6,000 ($9,000 for a couple) "assets test" for those under 135% of established poverty level which will disqualify 2.8 million very low-incomeseniors for assistance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports "Several million of the nation'spoorest elderly and disabled beneficiaries will be made worse off by the new legislation, because they will have to pay more for drugs than they currently payunder Medicaid, will be denied coverage for some drugs they currently receive through Medicaid, or both." [10]The Center's report continues: "Medicaid beneficiaries currently receive prescription drugs free of charge or pay charges that are generally limited to no more than $1 or $2 per prescription per month. Under the new legislation, elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries who qualify for Medicaid and have gross incomes modestly above the poverty line will begin paying charges of $5 per month per brand-nameprescription and $2 per month per generic prescription. (The charges are lower for those below the poverty line.) For those with few prescriptions, these differences may not matter much. For those with many prescriptions, however, the differences can be significant. Of particular concern, these $5 and $2 charges will be increased each year by the percentage that drug costs rise per Medicare beneficiary, which the CongressionalBudget Office projects will be about 10 percent per year. These near-poor elderly and disabled beneficiaries live primarily on fixed incomes that do not rise over time or on small Social Security checks that rise with the general inflation rate, which CBO projects will be about 2.5 percent per year. In other words, the drug co-payment charges these beneficiaries will have to pay will rise about four times faster thantheir incomes. Still more troubling, Medicaid generally covers all drugs that a beneficiary needs. Bycontrast, the new legislation allows the private insurance plans that will deliver the Medicare drug benefit to beneficiaries in Medicare fee-for-service (as well as HMOs and PPOs that provide all Medicare benefits to their enrollees, including the drugbenefit) to limit coverage to two drugs per therapeutic class. This means that many poor elderly and disabled beneficiaries who currently receive drug coverage through Medicaid may lose coverage for the drugs they have been prescribed. [11]Bush Says:The new law protects existing retiree coverage.The Facts:It doesn't do much to prevent companies from dumping their drug plans for their retired employees."The Congressional Budget Office estimates about 2.7 million seniors could lose benefits that may be more generous than those that will be offered under Medicare."[12]The Alliance for Retired Americans reports: The law provides a subsidy to sponsors ofqualifying private employer retiree health plans, but that amount is 28% of"allowable retiree costs" in excess of "cost threshold" up to amount of "cost limit."For 2006, the individual cost threshold is $250 and cost limit is $5,000. Allowable retiree costs exclude administrative costs, net of rebates, charge backs, discounts, etc. The law only requires the plan to provide drug coverage that is "at leastactuarially equivalent to the standard prescription plan" which means many
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
companies could, and probably will, reduce current coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 2.7 million retirees who currently receive drug coverage through a former employer will lose those benefits. [13]Bush Says:The benefit will be simple. "Seniors happy with the current Medicare system should be able to keep their coverage just the way it is."[14]The Facts:This bill creates a VERY complicated, confusing system.Let's take a look at what faces those who choose to participate in the newprescription "benefit": •Recipients will be charged at least $420 per year in new premiums, have topay a $250 deductible, a part of your drug costs up to $2,250, all of your drug costs from $2,251 to $5,100, and then a smaller portion of drug costs after that. •Once all of this is added up, the average person on Medicare will end uppaying more out-of-pocket for their prescriptions after the new law goes into effect than they pay today, according to Consumer's Union.•What does all of that look like in real time for real people? Here's what a year of coverage under the drug deal (including premiums) looks like for a Medicare beneficiary with $6,200 in annual drug costs — an average of $515 per month: o January: she pays around $350 o February - April: she pays around $165 per month o May - October: she pays around $530 per month (COVERAGE GAP LASTS 6 MONTHS!) o November - December: she pays around $60 per month(catastrophic) AND THEN IT STARTS ALL OVER AGAIN! •Because of the skyrocketing cost of drugs, many seniors may find themselves navigating a new and confusing roller coaster to get help with their prescriptions. [15]Bush Says: "We must work toward a system in which all Americans choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help theyneed. . . We must put doctors and nurses and patients back in charge of American medicine."[16]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
The Facts:This bill Subsidizes HMOs to take over Medicare.Most people who have dealt with HMOs know that patients lose choice of their doctors, and find bureaucrats and insurance clerks in charge of treatment decisions. But President Bush and his backers used this drug bill to inject HMOs into Medicare -even after the failure of the Medicare Plus experiment with HMOs. •The drug deal starts Medicare privatization, subsidizes HMOs, means tests beneficiaries, and is designed to starve Medicare of necessary funds, making Newt Gingrich's goal that Medicare "wither on the vine," a reality. •HMOs get billions of taxpayer dollars in "incentives" to sell the health care coverage that Medicare provides now. This false "competition" will wind up luring the healthy and wealthy out of Medicare and will threaten the program's stability.•About a fifth of people on Medicare will find themselves in areas with higher Medicare costs as a result. From the Alliance for Retired Americans:This law really undermines the traditional Medicare program by forcing it to compete,beginning in 2010, with private HMO insurance plans. Supporters tout this as "only a demonstration project," but it is the beginning of the privatization of Medicare. Private insurance companies will have the option to "cherry-pick" enrollees, that isthey will accept healthier seniors, leaving sicker seniors in the traditional program.Unlike the traditional program, private insurers do not guarantee premiums, can drop patients and change coverage. The law also establishes a "means test" for the Medicare program under which higher income seniors will pay higher premiums for Part B, ranging from 40-220%. In order to get such drug coverage you must either leave the traditional Medicare program and join a Medicare Advantage plan (this replaces the failingMedicare+Choice program that replaced the failed Medicare HMO program) or buy a stand alone policy from a private "Plan Sponsor." The private "Plan Sponsor" is either an insurance company licensed in the state or a company that meets the solvency standards established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).[17]The Bush program also includes bogus "cost saving" measures that will starveMedicare of necessary funds. Despite the fact that the deal would force Medicare to pay skyrocketing drug costs and stops Medicare from lowering those costs it also includes caps on Medicare spending, squeezing Medicare from both ends. The new law requires the President to cut Medicare spending (including benefit cuts) whenever the government projects that, seven years into the future, costsmight go above an arbitrary threshold. Bush Says:The money in this bill goes to prescription drugs for seniors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
The Facts:Hidden in this bill are more tax breaks for the rich.As one might expect from a bill written by conservatives, the Bush Medicare billcontains another tax cut for rich people! This new $6.8 billion tax break has nothing to do with prescriptions — it allows wealthy Americans to shelter income in high-deductible health savings accounts that most Americans can't afford. Plus this tax break is only for Americans under 65 years old, eliminating the overwhelming majority of Medicare beneficiaries. In HSAs Won't Cure Medicare's Ills, Urban Institute health economists Leonard E.Burman and Linda J. Blumberg write: "This proposed set-up would primarily benefit those with high incomes for at least two reasons. First, the tax deduction is worth most to them. A $4,500 HSA contribution, the maximum permitted in the House legislation, would generate a tax deduction worth $1,575 per year to a household in the top income tax bracket. The value of the tax benefit would be less than half asmuch for a moderate-income family — much less if it could not afford to contribute much to the account. Second, high-income people can afford the risk of a high deductible. $2,000 in unreimbursed medical costs is a huge burden for someone earning $30,000 per year, but chump change for someone earning $300,000. Employers may kick in part of the deductible out of their premium savings, but those savings are expected to be dwarfed by the deductible. Thus, modest-income families in these high-deductible plans may be tempted to skip preventive care or delay medical tests and services when illness strikes.Tax cuts for rich people were never a cure-all, but this particular proposal is pure snake oil. Health savings accounts have nothing to do with Medicare and they are the wrong prescription for the uninsured. [18]•So what could $6.8 billion get for seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare? 165.3 million prescriptions of Lipitor or 72 million prescriptions of Plavix at the price the Veteran's Administration pays for prescriptions.[1] BUYING A LAW: Big Pharma's Big Money and the Bush Medicare Plan, byDavid Donnally, Public Campaign, January 2004 [2] George W. Bush at Medicare Bill signing ceremony, December 8, 2003[3] From the new drug bill language: "NONINTERFERENCE - In order to promote competition under parts C and D, the Administrator, in carrying out the duties required under this section, may not, to the extent possible, interfere in any way with negotiations between eligible entities, MedicareAdvantage organizations, hospitals, physicians, other entities or individuals furnishing items and services under this title (including contractors for such items and services), and drug manufacturers, wholesalers, or other suppliers of covered drugs. S. 1, Sec. 301."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
[4] Medicare Prescription Drugs: Too High a Price For Modest Benefit, by GailShearer, Director, Health Policy Analysis, Washington Office Consumers Union,November 17, 2003 [5] George W. Bush at Medicare Bill signing ceremony, December 8, 2003[6] BUYING A LAW: Big Pharma's Big Money and the Bush Medicare Plan, byDavid Donnally, Public Campaign, January 2004 [7] A Guide to Who Wins and Loses in Medicare Bill, Wall Street Journal(updated November 18, 2003 1:09 a.m.) [8] "New Medicare Plan For Drug Benefits Prohibits Insurance," by Robert Pear, NewYork Times, December 7, 2003 [9] "Benefits start in '06, but help available sooner," by Andrea Stone, USA TODAY, December 25, 2003 [10] The AARP Ads And the New Medicare Prescription Drug Law, by EdwinPark and Robert Greenstein, Center of Budget and Policy Priorities Report, December 11, 2003 [11] ibid. [12] "Benefits start in '06, but help available sooner," by Andrea Stone, USA TODAY, December 25, 2003 [13] "What older Americans should know about the Medicare law", Alliance for Retired Americans [14] Text: Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, Washington Post, January28, 2003 [15] Campaign for America's Future: President Bush Puts Special Interests over Seniors[16] Text: Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, Washington Post, January28, 2003 [17] "What older Americans should know about the Medicare law", Alliance for Retired Americans [18] HSAs Won't Cure Medicare's Ills, by Leonard E. Burman and Linda J. Blumberg, November 21, 2003

216.239.63.104