WaPo: Hey, did you know Obama’s statements had expiration dates?
posted at 11:36 am on December 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Guess who just discovered the Jim Geraghty Axiom? Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reports that Barack Obama reversed his get-tough-with-Big-Pharma routine when it came to actually, er, getting tough with Big Pharma. How did Obama’s allies on Capitol Hill feel about it? “Awkward”:
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to take on the drug industry by allowing Americans to import cheaper prescription medicine. “We’ll tell the pharmaceutical companies ‘thanks, but no, thanks’ for the overpriced drugs — drugs that cost twice as much here as they do in Europe and Canada,” he said back then.
On Tuesday, the matter came to the Senate floor — and President Obama forgot the “no, thanks” part. Siding with the pharmaceutical lobby, the administration successfully fought against the very idea Obama had championed.
“It’s got to be a little awkward,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).
How bad did it get? John McCain wound up as the voice of populism:
He also said during his presidential campaign that he wanted to “let Medicare negotiate for lower prices” for drugs. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, when he was in Congress, also championed reimportation. Yet now, after their successful battle against it, the two are expected to fight off a similar legislative effort to allow Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices.
Even before the vote came, it had become clear that President Obama’s aides had the votes to kill the proposal Senator Obama once co-sponsored. This, said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), “contributes to the enormous cynicism on the part of the American people about the way we do business here.” To Dorgan, he pledged: “I will be by his side as we go back and back and back again on this issue until justice and fairness is done and we defeat the special interests of the pharmaceutical industry which have taken over the White House and will take over this vote.”
Milbank and Democrats would have an easier task in counting the promises Obama keeps. Thus far, he’s managed to mostly keep his word on Afghanistan, and, um … now, give me a minute …
There are good reasons for this reversal. First, the administration already got $80 billion in concessions from the pharmaceutical industry and their support for ObamaCare, although Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid may put both in jeopardy by reneging on the White House’s deal. Second, the Canadian prices are artificially low, the result of Canadian intervention. The pharmaceuticals make up the difference in the US, which allows them to pursue a lot of R&D that only has about a 10% success rate. Forcing them to sell at artificially low prices will mean a lot less R&D, much less capital to pursue new cures, and the stagnation of health care rather than progress.
Of course, it would have been better for Obama to inform himself better before issuing foolish campaign promises that he would later have to reverse. But that would have meant less populist pap, and probably would have put Hillary Clinton in the White House.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Perhaps we could send Dana a copy of Culture Of Corruption?
Doorgunner on December 16, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Why does President Obama hate old people?
BadgerHawk on December 16, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Geraghty’s Axiom strikes again.
Abby Adams on December 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Everything that man says has an expiration date.
JimK on December 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Does anyone still believe this guy?
d1carter on December 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Wait, we’re supposed to believe that when a politician lies, he feels ‘awkward’ about it?
Tonus on December 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM
McCain is a pirate. The reason drugs are cheaper in Canada, is that Canada demanded “Big Pharma” either give them a discount and get 80% of their price, or Canada would void their patents and they would get nothing. That extortion of American economic interests is something the US government should be trying to break up, not exploit.
Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 11:40 AM
OK in what kind of bizarro world does this happen? I mean seriously even as a Senator voting present mostly, he did actually co-sponsor this, and now he and his staff killed it? He must be getting a $hit ton of money from someone for this.
Johnnyreb on December 16, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Other than the fun of watching “progressives” squirm and/or rationalize, I hope Obama doesn’t fake enough of a perception that he’s moving to the center to convince voters. I’ve already put the 2010 election in my own little hopeychangey shopping basket.
Drained Brain on December 16, 2009 at 11:43 AM
15 GOP Senators voted for Americans to have a FREE MARKET and FREE TRADE on their RXS
this is the ONLY thing in the POS health care bill that would save Americans money
the commercials for the GOP in 10/12 write themselves
a loss of some Dems will make it easier for Obama to traingulate
Obama was the status quo candidate
ginaswo on December 16, 2009 at 11:44 AM
afraid so…it boggles the mind, but they are out there…
cmsinaz on December 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Remember when Cliton was in office? You could tell he was lying whenever you saw his lips move. This clown is the same — nothing he says has meaning in the real world.
Jaibones on December 16, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Somehow, that doesn’t sound nearly as scary as it did 13 months ago.
LASue on December 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM
He’s only lying when his lips are moving.
kingsjester on December 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM
The unintended consequences of reimportation are most likely either:
(A) The drug companies start charging Canada and other countries more since the US no longer subsidzes the costs of drugs.
(B) Less new drugs.
WashJeff on December 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Meaningless.
They’ll still continue to pretend he’s the most honest, open, straight-forward politician the universe has ever known.
NOTHING is allowed to stick to Obama. They’ve spent far too much time and ink propping him up.
Good Lt on December 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM
I don’t know about that. It depends on the meaning of keep. For example how do you chalk up promises of economic recovery when Larry Summers is out there declaring a recession at an end and Christina Romer saying that we were far from being out of the recession. How do you chalk up closing GITMO when essentially he’s just moved it north in order to take a worthless pork project of a prison off the hands of the Illinois Democrats who built it? How do you chalk up Afghanistan where he adds troops at the sametime he announces a timeline for surrender?
highhopes on December 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Maybe he thinks he can just decree that there will be new and better drugs in the future.
forest on December 16, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Don’t worry. Once Obama renegotiates NAFTA this will all be taken care of.
O wait…
Joe Caps on December 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Joe Caps on December 16, 2009 at 11:50 AM
That’s not a good reason for making it difficult for people to get their drugs overseas. If Canada and Mexico want to make it artificially cheap in those countries, why not let Americans take advantage of that? Let Big Pharma figure out how to deal with that price disparity, because that’s not the problem of either the American Taxpayer or the American Consumer (yes, I know it’s just two hats on the same group).
NorthernCross on December 16, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Who needs drugs when the messiah can but heal us with one touch of his hand?
Badger40 on December 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Let me be perfectly
clearopaqueangryed on December 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Because “Big Pharma” is not Mom & Pop workshops doing what they love, they’re corporations accountable to shareholders, some of whom are also corporations or proxy managers with a fiduciary duty to refrain from backing losers out of sentiment. If you make sure Pharma takes a hit, trusting them to make good somehow–which is exactly what Ayn Rand called “looting”– then investing in Big Pharma not only becomes unsound, but could be actionable breach of fiduciary duty. And then the money goes into something more stable, like pig manure disposal. And then there’s no adequate supply of pharmaceuticals at any price, unless you feel like another TARP.
Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM
You know, once a drug’s patent is up, you can usually by a generic, so the prices drop closer to the cost of production. Basically, research has to be recouped in the first seven years of production.
Count to 10 on December 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM
If Canada wants to subsidize us, go for it. Frankly, if I am Canadian, I would be pissed if America does this. The logical thing for the drug companies to do at that point is to say, “Hey, no more discount for you Canada!”
WashJeff on December 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM
I for one never believed anything the empty suit ever had to say and anyone with at least one functioning synapse could tell THE ONE was full of shiite from the start.
Only the truly moronic and/or blind Obama-bots believe every word he speaks!
Liberty or Death on December 16, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Why stop at drugs? Everything is cheaper in poor countries. Let’s import milk from India, it’ll be less than $4 a gallon we pay now.
Oh we can’t do that because milk from India wouldn’t be regulated by the FDA? But importing drugs from foreign countries with no FDA oversight….let’s roll.
angryed on December 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Additionally, if ‘re-importation’ gets to be a big enough problem, the pharmaceuticals will simply stop selling in the price controlled markets.
Count to 10 on December 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM
I’m shocked I tell ya, shocked!
lovingmyUSA on December 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM
It’s not about “making sure they take a hit”. It’s about allowing people the freedom to choose where to buy their stuff from. If Big Pharma can’t figure nut how to make a profit in that kind of environment, then they should be allowed to die. Seriously, can anyone tell me that the Founders ever intended for this government to be the guardian angel of big business?
NorthernCross on December 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM
All I know is that his term has a BIG TIME expiration date.
HornetSting on December 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Obama: “I am on the precipice of a deal with the pharmaceutical companies.”
csdeven on December 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Maybe the reporters at the WaPo have figured out that there are no green jobs of the future out there when they get their walking papers and have awakened to the fact that misleading the public about this doofus president is a prescription for extinction.
kens on December 16, 2009 at 12:04 PM
The American taxpayer funds a lot of the R&D (both basic and applied science) that allows these drugs to become medicine. What Canada and other countries are doing is stealing. We pay to develop the drug the company charges a price and counties that have chased off thier scientists and gutted thier own R&D rely on us to do the work and then say “gives us a price break or we will steal it anyway”.
LincolntheHun on December 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Yes, let’s have Big Government make sure that everything that goes into our bodies meets regulatory requirements, because we could always use more regulations.
Alternatively, we can allow the consumer to decide whether he/she wants to buy milk from thousands of miles away. Most Americans are smart enough to make a good choice.
NorthernCross on December 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Looks like the walking corpse see the writing on the wall~you’re retiring in 2010, maverick. Good riddance.
HornetSting on December 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Probably, true, but that’s not a good reason to impose this unfairness on Americans.
NorthernCross on December 16, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I have to agree. I would much rather have Hillary than this guy, and I really despise Hillary.
kam582 on December 16, 2009 at 12:08 PM
“…put Hillary clinton in the WH.” So true. This shallow President we have would have/will say or do anything that keeps him where he is and so will his buddies. I used to think that Bill clinton was the most amoral President but Obama leaves him in the dust.
jeanie on December 16, 2009 at 12:14 PM
The liberals and Democrats do not care if Obama changes his mind or lied about anything.
They do not believe in anything.
Except for the other side being out of power.
albill on December 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM
So, following this logic out, wouldn’t it be smart to allow drug reimportation? It seems to me this would ultimately put the squeeze on the Canadians and their vaunted socialist health care when Big Pharma halts exporting American consumer subsidized drugs.
The end game could be Canada pays more, and their health care system is exposed as a fraud, and Americans pay less.
Golden Boy on December 16, 2009 at 12:18 PM
We have laws on the books to combat profiteering and fraud at the expense of the Government by defense contractors and their suppliers. Those laws say, in effect, that a supplier cannot sell goods to the government at a higher cost than the lowest cost that they sell them on the private market.
It’s time to build and apply such laws to every company which chooses to do business with Government dollars (which, in the end, are our dollars).
For the pharmaceutical companies, that means that if they sell into the Canadian market (or any other foreign market, for that matter) with a given price, they are obligated to provide the same price here in the US.
We should not be supporting the Canadians (if the pharmaceutical companies are dumping into Canada), nor should we be gouged (if the pharmaceutical companies are profiting on their sales into Canada).
unclesmrgol on December 16, 2009 at 12:18 PM
At which point Canada makes good on it’s threat to void the drug patents, which allows anyone who wants to, to start manufacturing the drugs. End result, American companies loose even more money.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Once patents are revoked, anyone who wants to will be able to make those drugs. The Pharma companies will have no say in the matter.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Imagine that, having a hard time competing against stolen goods.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2009 at 12:23 PM
We should retire the whole lot, both sides of the aisle.
America needs a Mulligan.
fogw on December 16, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Should Americans be allow to buy pirated copies of software, music, movies, etc?
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2009 at 12:25 PM
So, paying the market price is “unfair,” and the government should step in and fix it?
Wow!
Al in St. Lou on December 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM
OT, but fun.
Amspec blog.
And the entire bill is over 2000 pages…..
Wethal on December 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Obama lies.
Grass is still green, in the summer.
The sun still rises, in the east.
Pinocchio in Chief.
Schadenfreude on December 16, 2009 at 12:37 PM
I’m concerned about the role of congress in inflated drug prices. For example, more than a decade out of patent, basic synthetic insulin has tripled in price. There are companies that would like to step in and offer generics, but they can’t because there are no rules in place governing “biogenerics”. How convenient!
I have absolutely no sympathy for drug companies that rely on Americans paying inflated prices to cover people in other countries getting price breaks, just as I have no sympathy for them when they jack up the price I pay for an old product just because they can.
They’re businesses. They can benefit from competition, as businesses do, even against themselves.
VerbumSap on December 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Reign of Error
Fuquay Steve on December 16, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Barry not keeping “promises”? I’m SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I tell you!
GarandFan on December 16, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Probably, true, but that’s not a good reason to impose this unfairness on Americans.
NorthernCross on December 16, 2009 at 12:08 PM
.
So theft is ok if “everybody does it”?
I was five when I was no longer allowed to use that to excuse my actions.
LincolntheHun on December 16, 2009 at 1:00 PM
*sigh*. I’d bet money that the post continues to pander to Obama. This lil blurp isn’t going to stop them from pandering to, and supporting the inept goon.
capejasmine on December 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM
So you don’t approve of capitalism?
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM
If the reign of terror imposed by this Congress and the WH includes useful and convenient lying then I suppose it’s alright for the entire Dem heirarchy to use it then? Must be, as it seems to be accepted practice in their circles. The question though is why don’t their supporters see it? Becoming certain that the folks here who adamantly maintain that progressives live in a world of un-reality are more than correct. Seems they are able to close their eyes and ears to the most blatant examples.
jeanie on December 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM
So you believe capitalism requires government-imposed monopolies?
VerbumSap on December 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Fortunately, Obama’s presidency also has an expiration date. January 2013, unless he pulls off an armed coup.
wildcat84 on December 16, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Absolutely not. I don’t recall lack of consumer electronics to be harmful in any way, except when going cold-turkey.
Dark-Star on December 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Compare this story to the one about the attacks on Lieberman’s wife. The left is absolutely insane.
Wine_N_Dine on December 16, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Don’t know how anyone can be surprised by this. Have people forgotten which party he belongs to?
chewmeister on December 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Here I thought you were speaking in hyperbole. It’s absurd to say that an actual theft is taking place.
NorthernCross on December 16, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Mr. Malleable means what he says only as the words are spoken, trained to beat a lie detector, shifting between “is and should” as David Brooks found laudably unprecedented from Malleable Spock’s last speech.
As Jeffrey Lord nailed it, “President Spock” is void of Emotional Intelligence. That absence of character dooms every aspect of Spockbama’s agenda to the ultimate failing grade.
maverick muse on December 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Strawman, since a free flow of goods across borders requires no government intervention. As far as not paying market price, that ship arguably has sailed, since we’re paying over-market to make up for Canada’s under-market.
NorthernCross on December 16, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Show me that people are filling out their prescriptions with pirated CDs and DVDs and I’ll concede the merit of your argument.
NorthernCross on December 16, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Mr. President sold the media a super jumbo sized bottle of SNAKE OIL and they’re just now figuring out that his product doesn’t cure any of the ails that he claimed it would. Not. A. One.
scalleywag on December 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM
With that response to merit, NX, you lost whether or not you concede.
maverick muse on December 16, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Hey, if you want to pay more money to Big Pharma for your drugs, go right ahead. Don’t expect the rest of us to give them any donations, though.
NorthernCross on December 16, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Obama says whatever they put on his teleprompter. Sometimes reality slaps you in the face.
duff65 on December 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM
scalleywag on December 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Barry’s still working on his slight of “open hand” trick.
Obama would have been wise to consider the fate of snake oil salesman Mr. Merriweather as loss of limb is the modus operandi of Jihadis and the Iranian Theocrats whose Middle Eastern culture repudiates Obama’s open hand. Not Obama, but THEY own the monopoly on “now you see it, now you don’t,” though Obama is trying to follow their lead.
maverick muse on December 16, 2009 at 3:12 PM
I’m very torn here. I can’t decide to go with “Ya think?!?” “Well Duh!” or “No Sh!t Sherlock!”
Ah well, it’s almost Christmas, why not go with all three?
DrAllecon on December 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Since when was big pharma interested in finding cures? They have always been interested in making a profit and buying out our congressmen with bribes and taking control of the FDA, FTC,XYZ or whatever they can to make money. There are natural products on the market that Big Pharma don’t want people to know about. They don’t want wellness, they are in the sickness business. Wake up and think about all the TV ad’s promoting what? It sure isn’t cures. Every dug is toxic to our body. There are always side affects to any drug. Look at all the new illness they labled over the last 10-20 years. Baby boomers need to understand that personal responsiblity comes first not biggy pharma.
bones47 on December 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM
He took his wife on a date, and he let his kids have a dog.
You see, he keeps the promises that really matter.
malclave on December 16, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Revert to your 2:50 answer to the 12:25 question, and reconsider the “merit” of excusing thievery because it’s cheaper, because that tolerance for corruption is NEVER cheaper than stopping the corruption.
As per your discussion with MarkTG regarding the price of pharmaceuticals, in my estimation, that industry is utterly rank with corruption, having merged into a global governance body via WHO, the UN and nearly every nation’s government. Having polluted the minds and bodies of most people as masses are diagnosed with attention deficit disorders and depression, they have specifically gone to bed with members of Congress to disassemble our Constitutional Republic into statism.
I do not approve of the ways that American businesses have become global corporations with no allegiance to any people and no allegiance to the US Constitution, outsourcing and assassinating “American” businesses.
In the case of your argument, the pharmaceutical industry is motivated to make fortunes most frequently by promoting chemical dependency in the multitudes of people consuming the drugs containing worse side effects than promised relief. By “most,” I specifically reference all of the Rx ads barraging the public on television, radio, internet and publications including junk mail. Allow me to point out for instance, that antivirals are what people need more of, not vaccines that “prevent” viral infection but activate the body’s immune system to actually succumb to the viral attack. Knowing this, the only reason the industry opts to develop vaccines rather than antivirals is for the easier profit as vaccination campaigns are massively distributed compared to antiviral application on the “as needed” basis. The Pharmaceutical industry is as corrupt as our government is. Both organizations have extorted life savings and actual blood from citizens become victim of abuse. Corruption must be brought to an end.
maverick muse on December 16, 2009 at 3:53 PM
bones47, the Dean of the Harvard School of Medicine warns everyone of the adverse neurological affects that every drug induces. He eschews the marketing ploy of pharmaceutical promotional ads that our federal trade commission takes kickbacks for having permitted on our public airwaves. “Ask your doctor for xyz; you deserve it.”
maverick muse on December 16, 2009 at 4:00 PM
malclave on December 16, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Anal retentive brittle bitter men kick the dog.
maverick muse on December 16, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Here I thought you were speaking in hyperbole. It’s absurd to say that an actual theft is taking place.
NorthernCross on December 16, 2009 at 2:47 PM
You are correct. In the current context, what is taking place is not (yet) a theft. What is taking place is this: If the pharma companies refuse to sell to the canadian govt at a less-than-market price, the canadian govt is THREATENING to steal the intellectual property of said pharma companies. This is more akin to extortion. Are you really trying to justify this by denying a particular crime (theft), or any crime at all? I ask, because it’s obvious you are in fact trying to justify it.
runawayyyy on December 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM