John Edwards takes on the powerful pharmaceutical/healthcare lobby --details they won't like... LINK

John Edwards is taking on the powerful pharmaceutical lobby in D.C. If you listen very carefully you can hear Repub Lobbyists for Pharmaceutical Companies saying "we got to make sure this guy does not win."

Monopolistic practices should never be accepted when it comes to such a basic need as pharmaceutical healthcare. And if healthcare providers are setting premiums high enough to 'pocket 30% of every dollar" then the healthcare providers need to be forced to spend 85% of those dollars on actual patient care.

Edwards gets it. The other Democratic candidates need to join him in standing up to the pharmaceutical/healthcare lobby that has a death grip on Congress.

Democrats can turn down campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry and still win the General Election. That would be a tremendous position to be in --a Democrat in the White House who does not owe any allegiance to the pharmaceutical/healthcare lobby. Then maybe we could really reform healthcare in this country.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3277452

Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards to Announce Details of Health Care Overhaul Plan

"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards wants to reduce the cost of U.S. health care by removing patents for breakthrough drugs and requiring health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on patient care.

The former North Carolina senator was expected to discuss details of a universal health care proposal he released in February during an appearance Thursday at the Riverside Health Center.
Edwards' plan would remove long-term patents for companies that develop breakthrough drugs and then reap large profits because of the monopolies those patents provide, according to a statement by Edwards obtained Wednesday evening.

Edwards said offering cash incentives instead would allow multiple companies to produce those drugs and drive down prices.

He also was expected to detail a plan requiring health insurance companies to justify their rates by requiring them to spend at least 85 percent of the premiums they collect on patient care. He said New York, Minnesota, New Jersey, Florida already impose similar requirements."

MORE

It has 72 co-sponsors.

The Democratic Candidates need to join together on this issue, and as members of the Democratic Party we need to see to it that our choices step up on this important issue like Edwards, who is my choice, is doing.

Hr 676 -- MEDICARE FOR ALL.

By the way, if you only tell people to 'read up on HR 676' how many people do you think you will persuade to your position?

BTW Intellectual superiority that is enjoyed only by the person possessing it benefits no one else.

Why not accept the fact that Edwards has good ideas that Kucinich would gladly back (and vice-versa I am sure)?

If you depend upon someone else for knowledge -- when you can find the answers yourself -- YOUR knowledge is limited to that SOMEONE ELSE'S knowledge.

It's not "intellectual superiority".

If you know something important and you do not share it with the jury you should not expect them to be persuaded to take your position simply because you know it.

To persuade anyone to adopt Kucinich's position on anything you will have to do more than instruct the person to 'read up on it.'

It's not a question of something that ONLY I KNOW and CAN KNOW. ANYONE can know about HR 676 and read up on it themselves. That's all I am asking people to do.

I have done that and compared it to Edwards' plan. I am asking others to do the same.

You deftly avoided answering this question.

No need to try and persuade you to adopt ideas when you can only see Kucinich's plan as the only solution to this very complex problem.

I said Kucinich's plan was better. And I arrived at that conclusion by reading BOTH plans. And I am asking others to do the same.

In this case, ANYONE can read up on HR 676 -- it is publicly available.

You support Kucinich --you should know better than anyone that Kucinich can have the best ideas to address any problem, but if he does not 'persuade' people they are the best he will fail to change the system for the better.

People can find Kucinich's positions on their own, but they are unlikely to do so and therefore not be persuaded to adopt his position if his ideas get no public exposure.

We have to 'persuade' voters to adopt our positions based upon their merit, and we will not 'persuade' voters to vote for our candidate if we merely tell them to 'read up on it.'

It is disingenuous to state a position and then provide no supporting evidence for it other than to say 'read up on it.'

Sure would make for some short televised debates if that were the standard.

What part of the following don't you understand?

1) I have read BOTH.
2) I have formed an opinion after reading BOTH.
3) I am asking OTHERS to READ BOTH.

What part don't you understand?

...without knowing about kucinich's plan. why's that? you ought not to be supporting anyone's plan until you know which one is the best. YOU are unconvincing because YOU haven't done your homework.

but what we the people want. I find Edwards is getting more corporate donations than Kucinich so they are buying their way into his health plan. We already have a plan that works quite well for seniors, Medicare. The only reason Medicare won't work is if it becomes underfunded, and that is what the insurance companies are doing to attempt to kill it. Most of us who have studied the health care matter for years realize that extending and improving Medicare for all is the most effective and money efficient way to go.

It will cut out the insurers and for profits, like Bill Frist's chain of hospitals but they will always find a way to make money, not to fear.

but what we the people want."

YOU SAID IT!!!

That's exactly right!

We will get single payer universal health care when we DEMAND it, and not one moment before.

My concern is that We, The People haven't made a big deal about this, and educated others, so that everyone is not only familiar about what it is and what it isn't, but.... knows it's DOABLE!

We haven't done that.

I appreciate pnhp, but I don't see them as having accomplished that educational task.

I'm excited about SICKO, but I wish there was more of an understanding foundation. I think it's going to go over the heads of a lot of people, because it's so new to them.

Wish, wish wish.... beggers, horses.

activists. They have done the research and documented what is going on but they aren't going to start the revolution. It's really up to us, but thank god at least they have given us the information we need to do it.

The insurance powers certainly aren't going to give up easily, and we, the people, aren't going to fight until we're desperate enough.

I'm not holding out a lot of hope...

because if it doesn't, then there's no point.

It's a single-payer proposal.

Schwarzenegger vetoed it. They are trying again.

I'm asking if it has a chance of passing in the House?

And if your representative won't support it, are you actively working on getting a candidate elected next year who WILL support it?

but he won unfortunately. It's the first I've heard of this, since you won't tell us what's in it, I'll have to go read it at some other time, and I'll let you know whether I will actively support it or not.

I am not not beyond recognizing better ideas on a host of issues from other candidates, since none of the candidates can be an expert on everything.

In this case, Edwards has past experience in dealing with the Healthcare industry as a plaintiff trial lawyer.

We are going to be putting forth more than a single presidential candidate in the General Election in 2008 -- we will be putting forth a platform with proposals for changes. All the Democratic Candidates can play a large role in putting together that platform.

"We the People" :) I mentioned his book "Four Trials" down thread. A must read for anyone curious about the Health and Pharma racket.

I also know of advocacy groups trying to banish Pharma ads (a 2 billion dollar bonanza for ad agencies, yet no cure for cancer or aids, but we have Viagra!!)

this matter. If you read all the articles on it, you will be more informed about the matter.

http://www.pnhp.org

This is where Dennis Kucinich consulted to come up with his health plan. He didn't pull it out of a hat and he thought about it very carefully. I would wish that Edwards would look into this further and return any donations that he has received from the insurance industry. Then I might be behind him in the primaries but not before.

they have in Canada. Edwards plan is still about privatized insurers. He doesn't cut out the middle man, the insurers, and they are the problem not the solution. Making them pay 85% into health care still won't stop the cherry picking of healthy over people who actually need health care, the sick.

I enjoy hearing about my choice for President!

K&R!!

Anytime the government grants anti-trust protection to an industry because of trade secrets, that creates the environment for abuse if you can ward off government oversight that looks into their books and policies.

Drug making decisions in this country driven by profit motives which are supported by monopolistic protections. Make the process more open and the public will be benefitted.

:thumbsup:

their patent and now I pay $75--there no longer is a generic form thanks to pure, unadulterated greed.

I believe that they would like to see him go softly into the night, but Edwards is a fighter...

They often spend years and years to develop these "breakthrough" drugs and do deserve to recoup their R&D expenses. Once similar drugs hit the market, the pharma who introduced the original can no longer make as much money.

I can't imagine why any company would go through that process, not to mention the stringent requirements to get their drug approved if they couldn't make money on it.

I do admit big pharma seems out of control and Americans are suffering their greed. I would like more details about the cash incentives part of Edwards's plan.

and cash incentives that reward R & D and research could be high enough to encourage drug companies, and yet not as high of a return as monopolistic practices today permit.

their patents--and it doesn't take much at all (a longer active time can be all that's necessary).

The biggest advances in insulin-dependent diabetes and AIDS research, for example were made in Sweden and India, respectively. There's very little big profit to be had with control medication.

First, they change the dosage and/or delivery system slightly and seek extended patent protection on the basis it is a 'new product.'

Second, they negotiate 'a payment' to major generic manufacturers NOT TO PRODUCE the generic version of their drug that is about to lose patent protection.

Both strategies are used every day and result in higher prices to the public.

see the CATIE study on antipsychotics.

Edwards' plan immediately insures 47 million people who have no health insurance and therefore limited access to healthcare(including over 7 million children who can do nothing about their situation).

To 'GET RID of Insurance Cos' there is going to have to be a transition from the present system to one that does not rely on Insurance Companies --that is where the 'many fixes' will be required.

You do not have to refuse all reform because you cannot get the ultimate reform you seek --which in the meantime will continue to inflict untold pain on the uninsureds without healthcare access.

I'm not voting for him...:sarcasm:

Why people prefer candidates to promise pie in the sky dreams that will never have a snowball's chance in hell of having broad support is beyond me. There is no basis in reality for some of this stuff, but it sounds REALLY REALLY good.

Arnold vetoed it.

but some folks would rather receive no pie at all if they can't have the whole thing right now.

regarding health care.

It'd be nice to hear more from Obama and ANYTHING from Hillary.

It is hard to get some people to focus on 'ideas' rather than focusing on 'who is proposing the ideas.'

None of our Democratic Candidates for President are 'experts' on all areas. And no matter which Candidate actually gets the nomination, you can expect that other candidates will serve in the next Administration in some important capacity.

I like Edwards as my choice, and I think he is uniquely qualified to address the healthcare issue having had to deal with them as a plaintiff's trial lawyer. There are many other areas where other candidates might be more knowledgeable than Edwards.

But regardless of who proposes them, we need the best set of proposals that will make up the Democratic Platform that we can present to the voters.

I would like to see the Democratic Candidates unified in addressing these healthcare issues. It certainly should not be just a political football they can use to score points 'against their Democratic rivals.'

So he knows how they tick. His book "Four Trials" goes into great detail about this.

(Actually, "Kucinich's" bill is Conyers)

I'm a supporter of Edwards because of his strong stand on Poverty.

I wish he was more comprehensive with health care, but I think he's on the right track, and is push-able.

We'll see what happens when SICKO is released--Edwards may move more towards HR676 then. :)

As for patents on "breakthrough drugs"--- other countries don't allow patents on ANY prescription drugs! Seems sane to me....

Maybe Edwards is thinking the step by step approach... I hope SICKO changes his mind on that.

Thanks for posting this!

If you think creating Homeland Security from scratch was a big job, just imagine what 'reforming' healthcare in this country to single payer universal healthcare would be like.

The contractual commitments, guaranted payments, and inability to raise a system of compensation for healthcare workers in a timely manner would create a totally chaotic situation that would make gasoline rationing and the Enron meltdown look inviting.

The system must be reformed in a series of steps to get to where you want to be. And you have the added problem of dealing with entities who have such power over the delivery of such services that they can blow up the entire process and make it look like it was the reformers' fault.

What's chaotic is trying to keep the insurance companies included.

Not for nothin, but I see Edwards as the lawyer lobby candidate. I see lawyers lovin the current health care set up. Is he really going to stand up for universal health care like Kucinich or will he keep dealing with the drug companies?

One other fact the public rarely hears .... Doctors and Lawyers are often on the same side of providing of quality safe healthcare, and the healthcare corporations insert themselves in between the doctor and patient and try to control what doctors think best in the way of diagnosis and treatment.

We all lose if we do not accomplish reform, rather than hold out for ultimate single payer universal healthcare('medicare for all') which cannot be passed in the present Congress.

how can he accomplish "reform" in this congress. Does he have someone pitchin his plan on the hill. Who is doing this for him or is he just talkin.

I think Hillary will be the next pres. All that is left is who will be her veep and what will she stand for.

I hope she stands for universal health care.

I posted:
"Plaintiffs' attorneys do not 'love the current health care set up.' He stands up to drug companies..
One other fact the public rarely hears .... Doctors and Lawyers are often on the same side of providing of quality safe healthcare, and the healthcare corporations insert themselves in between the doctor and patient and try to control what doctors think best in the way of diagnosis and treatment.
We all lose if we do not accomplish reform, rather than hold out for ultimate single payer universal healthcare('medicare for all') which cannot be passed in the present Congress."


Let's see how you misinterpreted what I posted....

I posted 'We all lose if we do not accomplish reform, ....'
AND YOU POSTED: 'he ain't a senator how can he accomplish "reform" in this congress.'

On first impression, it would appear clear that I did not allege Edwards to be a current Senator, and in fact I did not mention 'senator' at all in my post(check above).

How is 'reform' accomplished? Well if Edwards is President he will propose legislative action to Congress and nothing Congress passes will become law without the President's signature(unless the majority is large enough to override the President's veto --highly unlikely).

You posted "Does he have someone pitchin his plan on the hill."
I did not post anything about anyone 'pitchin his plan on the hill.'

You posted "Who is doing this for him or is he just talkin."
I did not post anyone was 'doing this for him' but every legislative proposal is 'just talking' until it is voted on and passed by a house of congress.

If you believe that a major healthcare reform proposal will be passed by either house of Congress before the next election in 2008, I am sorry to tell you that you are mistaken. It will take leadership from the new President(hopefully Democratic) and the new Congress to do that.

I am glad that Edwards is talking about reform. I am a big supporter of mental health parity in America. I hope the Dem party can do something for real.

As far as 2008, it will be up to President Hillary Clinton. I hope she takes another crack at health care reform. I doubt she will.

I hope Edwards can convince the Dem party to accept health care reform. I hope we get mental health parity. I hope we don't stay the course.

And as far as I'm concerned, the more candidates that take on Big Pharma the better.

<wink> <wink>

He has about as much chance of getting that done as eliminating
influential lobbyists from the guvnmint. Corse, that there is a
cooonstituuutional issue, ain't it?