Never Mind Saving Money For Seniors, Government Can't Lower Prescription Costs ... It Would Not Be Fair To Big Pharma!

One of the things about our government's deal with big pharma is the fact that it disallows the negotiating of fair prices for drugs. This became even worse for seniors when in 2003, as part of the Medicare prescription drug program, the "donut hole" was created, wherein at a certain point for seniors, they reach a maximum amount that is paid for by the government. Then they have to pay for their prescription drugs out of their own pocket until they reach the end of the "donut hole" and the government will pick up the payments again. This, as reported for years, has resulted in seniors having to pay more for their prescription drugs in this new program, then they had to pay before this program was enacted and was alleged to save money for seniors in the long run. No, it did not, but what it did do is line the pockets of big pharma at (as usual) the expense of those least likely to afford the huge pay-off, senior citizens.

Now, during the health care reform negotiations, a provision to change the 2003 plan, putting the seniors from Medicaid and back into Medicare, which will then allow for the negotiation of lower prescription drug prices, one illustrious Democratic Senator feels this change would be unfair ... to big pharma! H/T to Crooks and Liars.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) proposed ending what some Democrats have called a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry – and he picked up strong support from his party.

[snip]

As part of the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, more than 6 million low-income seniors were shifted from Medicaid, which allowed the government to negotiate a deep discount for drugs, to the Medicare program, which did not. This has resulted in the government paying about 30 percent more for drugs, according to an analysis by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca.).

Nelson’s amendment would shift these beneficiaries back to the Medicaid program, resulting in $86 billion in savings that could be used to close the donut hole for senior citizens.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said the Finance Committee should honor the deal with the drug industry. To suddenly double their obligation from $80 billion to more than $160 billion would not be “fair,” he said.

(shaking head, hitting it on keyboard). There was more furious discussions over this, which included a comment from Senator Grassley (R-Iowa):

This prompted one of several heated responses from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who defended the Medicare program, which was passed under his watch, and deflected responsibility for the pharmaceutical deal.

“If this is a bad deal, then you ought be embarrassed with the president for sitting down with these folks,” Grassley said.

As the article explains further down, Grassley had his timeline re: presidential sit down mistaken. But, hey, what's new about that? Republicans, since Obama became president, have taken the liberty of mostly spouting lies about everything and anything, however minuscule it is concerning.

It just plain pisses me off that representatives in our government, that are elected by the people to serve the people's interests, find that it is unfair to corporate interests to actually produce a plan that would save money for their constituents. They are more worried that their corporate sponsors will have their billion dollar yearly profits trimmed down a bit, but have no moral compass whatsoever concerning the unfairness to the grandmas and grandpas that go broke thanks to the "donut hole." (Let's not forget the hypocrisy of the Republican talking points and fake concerns about the non-existent "death panels" in the health care reform package).

Where is the real change we Americans voted for in the last election? When is our government going to finally buck the stranglehold on it by corporations? When is democracy finally going to replace capitalism as the operating government policy? When, goddamnit?