Baucus Scores a Big Win for Big Pharma

Washington Independent ^ | 9/24/2009 | Mike Lillis

[Saije]

In a major victory for the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday shot down legislation to provide seniors full coverage through the controversial coverage gap in Medicare’s prescription drug benefit.

The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), would have closed Medicare’s so-called “doughnut hole,” which forces millions of seniors each year to pay full prescription costs after annual expenses have reached a certain threshold. The Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that the proposal would save the government $106 billion over 10 years — enough to close the gap in coverage under Part D with $50 billion left over, according to Nelson.

But Nelson’s proposal also would have gutted an $80 billion agreement cut earlier this year between the pharmaceutical industry and Democratic leaders in the White House and Senate — including Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) — who want Big Pharma’s weight behind their health reform efforts this year. As one term of that bargain, those Democratic leaders vowed to withhold support for a proposal allowing states to negotiate drug prices for the nation’s lowest-income seniors — the very mechanism that would have paid to close the doughnut hole under Nelson’s amendment.

The committee tally was 10 to 13, with three Democrats – Sens. Baucus, Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Tom Carper (Del.) — voting with all panel Republicans against the provision. Both New Jersey and Delaware are home to large pharmaceutical companies.

Weighing in just before the vote, Baucus said that, “although the goal is good,” breaking the deal with the drug industry to pay for it is “inappropriate.”

“We have to find some other time, some other way [to close the doughnut hole],” Baucus said. “The White House did reach an agreement.”

[Saije]

Maybe the Dems are counting on senility or something, senior citizens won't remember any of this come the next election.

[Hildy]

I’m sorry..but there are seniors who can more than afford to pay for medication. I’m sorry, but I don’t understand why seniors have to have EVERYTHING paid for. And I’m married to a Senior and I know how the medicare system works.

[businessprofessor]

I certainly agree. The prescription drug benefit is a massive new subsidy. The rats want a much larger subsidy.

To pass health care and global warming legislation, the rats will provide massive bribes to major groups who oppose them. The expanded drug benefit is a bribe to get seniors on their side. Seniors understand the massive amount of welfare they receive. Democrats intend to take away some of their welfare. However, the Democrats only want to take away the welfare in the part of Medicare that seems somewhat functional (Advantage plans).

[NTHockey]

This is EXACTLY the mentality that keeps Conservatives from uniting. We take a small issue and use personal differences to magnify them. Instead, look at SS, Medicare, etc. and work to end them and the illegal taxation. Keep in mind that SS was NEVER intended to pay anything. When it was instituted, the retirement age was set at 65. The life expectancy was 58.2 years!

Wife and I are both seniors, I’m still working and I have no healthcare except Medicare. We are not rich i.e., <6 figures, counting SS. I have no disagreement with doing away with any of these Ponzi schemes. Just give me back the money that was stolen.

[WOBBLY BOB]