Millions of Americans struggle on a daily basis to afford medicine in the United States which is the highest in the world. Many seek affordable drugs by driving to Canada or seeking medicine (as well as medical care) in India. Yet, one of the first things that President Obama did in the new health care law was to cave to a demand by the powerful pharmaceutical lobby to drop provisions guaranteeing cheaper medicine. The lobby then got Congress to block two measures to guarantee affordable medicine. With billions at stake, Congress and the White House again yielded to the demands of this industry, which is sapping the life savings away of millions of families. Given this history, many are concerned about a meeting planned between Obama and the Prime Minister of India. Public interest groups object that Obama is threatening retaliation against India in the hopes of blocking one of the major alternatives for families in acquiring affordable medicine. Congress has also again responded to industry demands for pressure in India to change its laws and, as a result, raise the cost of medicine. Doctors Without Borders, a highly respected medical group, has denounced the effort of the Obama Administration as threatening basic health care for its own citizens and those around the world.
Obama will meet with Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh this week at the White House to demand a change to its intellectual property laws. In addition to a long record of yielding to the demands of the pharmaceutical industry, Obama has also yielded to copyright and trademark hawks who has secured ever increasing criminal and civil penalties in the field. Here, the industry wants to cut off the supply of affordable medicine coming out of India due to its large generic drug industry. The industry is alarmed by the fact that India’s market is forcing the cost of drugs down for HIV, TB, and cancer by more than 90 percent.
Critics charge that Obama is basically reading from a script written by Pfizer and the industry in threatening retaliation if India does not change its intellectual property laws to limit the availability of generic drugs. There is no question that India’s legal system needs reform and intellectual property rules could be tightened. However, Doctors Without Borders insists that this is a raw effort to shutdown a country offering millions of people affordable medicine. If successful, the impact on the sick could be breathtaking if not life taking. Most AIDS drugs are generic and India supplies a huge amount of the HIV medicines.
The problem is that Indian courts have already supported the claims of Indian companies to produce such generics. For example, Novartis tried for seven years to block a low-cost generic salt form of the cancer drug imatinib, marketed as Gleevec. The Indian Supreme Court ruled that the company had every right to produce the drug and that the company, and by extension the U.S., was trying to impose effective monopoly pricing on consumers.
Likewise, a case involving Bayer shows how such inflated pricing works. Bayer lost an effort to block an Indian drug that slashed the cost of a kidney cancer drug by 97 percent. That’s right, 97 percent. Bayer wants to sell it as a cost of $4,500 per month.
Obama has increased the government paying for such drugs for the poorest Americans, but that healthcare deal still allowed drug companies to pull in windfall profits at public expense. Moreover, for middle income families, such costs (or the resulting higher insurance costs) have sapped away income at a time of diminishing wealth. The companies have a valid argument that some protection is needed to allow them to recoup billions in research to develop such amazing drugs. Intellectual property law encourage innovation by guaranteeing such profits that in turn encourage the investment in new research. However, with one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington (populated by former members and staff members who helped draft earlier laws), the drug industry has imposed obscene (and at times ruinous) costs on families who struggle to pay for life-sustaining medicine.
Doctors Without Borders is leading a campaign opposing Obama’s efforts to cut off the largest market for affordable drugs — a move that would leave families captive to the pricing set by these companies.
I truly hope that you Big Pharmapologists in these comments and your families come down with deadly diseases and you can’t afford the drugs to cure yourselves.
Absolutely sickening.
Mike,
Speaking of drummers, in almost any interview with the old jazz guys, Ginger Baker is the only rock drummer who receives universal respect
Elaine,
I’m not sure if it was single payer or public option, but either way Americans were in favor of something better, more progressive than what we’ve ended up with.
And I’ve always felt that Sen. Feingold lost his seat as a result of a lack of support from Obama after his comments.
Reblogged this on veritasusa.
I just wish politics was more like NASCAR so we could see in bright neon colors who each politicians sponsors were. Its obvious that many of them are operating (racing) on what is known as a contingency basis.
Just had to have a antibiotic filled…. I have great insurance… And my copayment was 75$…. I almost flipped a lip…..there were only 10 in the bottle…. How much does it cost to make a dang pill….
Obama…. The man for the 1% couldn’t do any better….. Time for the 99% to give back…..
Thanks laserhaas….on the story…. Or was that Elaine a Matt Tibbi….
OMG! Obama tells Singh to fu*k himself. Singh walks out in a huff. Here is the joint statement:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/27/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-singh-india-after-bilateral-m?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+whitehouse%2Fiphone_newsroom+(iPhone+Newsroom)
The only thing I can say is express my own personal experience … there is the “cheap none effective low cost Generic drugs” and the “fair and good qualities of affordable low cost medicine” … and anyone having insight of the difference and halting the supply of the cheap none effective yet low cost Generic drugs … might appear to be the enemy of the people … when they would actually be fighting for the good of the people …
We really need to be careful of what we ask for … because what is the good in paying 3.00 or 5.00 or 10.00 for a pill that don’t lower the blood pressure .. or won’t balance the sugar level .. or what good is cheap medicine if the meds are causing more harmful side effects than helping the primary purpose for taking the med in the first place …
” there is the “cheap none effective low cost Generic drugs” ”
That’s weird. Members of my family use about a dozen different prescriptions a month. We always opt for the generic when available.
I would have to check to be sure, but I believe we use about 9 generics out of 12.
We have never had any problem, nor has any general physician or specialist had reason to change from the generic.
That does not surprise me. It is my understanding that generics have to be exactly the same chemical.
We always consider the alternatives. So far we have seen no reason not to use generics when available.
The “or else” seems to be coming from a Republican congressman…
“The WTO’s agreement on intellectual property rights allows the local licensing and manufacturing of generics when a government decides that doing so is in the public interest. The provision is typically invoked to combat epidemics, not cancer, prompting the U.S. pharmaceutical industry to argue India is abusing its power under the agreement.
Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) introduced a bill last week that would seek an alternative means of persuading India to change course. The bill, which won quick backing from India’s critics, would tie the country’s authority to export duty-free products to the U.S. under the Generalized System of Preferences, a program designed to help developing countries, to its efforts to increase intellectual property protections ”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/drug-companies-india-prime-minister-patents-97400.html#ixzz2g7Uzy7CT
Further, regarding my expectations of Turley…
Here we are facing a huge crisis and nothing but silence from the Professor. Forgive me, but I can’t help but wonder if he is having trouble “crafting” the appropriate headline.
Mike, I am well aware of your, and many others, disappointment. I have my share, too, and often cringe at many decisions.
I guess much of my displeasure with Prof. is that I expect some degree of dispassionate, fair discussion from a professor of law. I surely need to give that up here, but do admire the discussions with many of the regulars.
As you know, I also expect credible sources. The Daily Mail and Alex Jones doesn’t make it. When I see Turley using them, I cannot help but wonder if he would accept a paper from a student who uses Cliff Notes as his source.
I also hate it when he puts unsaid words (or motivations) into Obama’s mouth such as the leading headline here.
As to this particular issue, my heart most certainly lies with Doctors Without Borders, but this is a damned complicated issue in damned complicated times where a lot of the bad guys have a lot of power. In my estimation, that gives Obama a teacherous path to travel.
But one of the good things about this blog is that it prompts me to search on more info. Today I learned the Indian government and set prices for certain drugs. Do you in your wildest dreams expect that we can do that here? I don’t likewhat he has to givein order to get, but it is not hard to understand that’s where we are.
In the meantime, we have the start of covering lots of uninsured Americans with health insurance. Seems to me that was a 50year battle. That buys him a lot of forgiveness in my book.
I’m glad the doubling of our healthcare insurgence premieres is really going to help the poor.
sarc off
http://www.prisonplanet.com/insurance-giants-that-wrote-and-lobbied-for-healthcare-law-cash-in.html
“I do, however, continue to believe that Prof. Turley’s blogs are often political hit pieces on Obama”
pdm,
Indeed they are and so are some of my guest blogs for that matter. I strongly supported Obama for election and re-election on this blog. That included financially and actually doing some political legwork. He has been a terrible disappointment to me and has not proceeded as advertised. He deserves much of the opprobrium laid upon him here. That Romney and McCain were decidedly worse choices only illustrates the nature of corporate control of this country.
Gene, Lotta’s comments have, ahem, enlightened me and I apologize to you and Prof. Turley for suggesting that his source was Dan’s World. I do, however, continue to believe that Prof. Turley’s blogs are often political hit pieces on Obama and seriously object to his choice of headline on this piece. I still do not know what his source is that contends that Obama will so thuggishly “threaten” (I take the “or else” as a threat and hardly the hallmark of diplomatic talks) Singh on his visit. Here is a BBC piece that suggests the meeting has a rather important agenda and does not mention drug talks on the lengthy list:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24237301
That is not to say that tough talks on drugs will not take place but I seriously doubt that Obama would treat such a critical partner so ham-handedly (particularly after the success of the state dinner in 2010?).
Prof Turley’s headline sets up Obama to look very bad, and I think that often his primary objective.
For the record, our drug policy is abominable and Obama has played a role in the continuation of the policy, but I lay the greater blame on the industry and Congress. and the Bush administration’s Medicare Drug benefit.
Guitarists have better fine muscle control of their fingers. 😀
I could talk about singers and their glottal muscles, but I think we’ve gone far enough.
Reblogged this on Anoop Astrology Sutra and commented:
Manu is already on spree of taking bad decisions hopefully won’t add this to it.
Blouise,
Or do date a drummer. When you figure out they are all a little nuts, a guitarist will usually step right up to the plate. 😀
Ah but drummers have better rhythm.
All I wish to add to the debate … never date a drummer.
Ca[t. Erb,
Regarding your comment about Ben Franklin and Tom Paine, I agree with the idea of being generous with giving stuff away. I have written numerous things that I never bothered to copyright or trademark. Same with many of my photos. I don’t have a problem with someone keeping a copyright or Trademark for a reasonable period of time to recoup their expenses and make some money. However, the industry driven copyright laws have gone a mile too far. When I wrote the story of the airmen of Buchenwald, I found several stock Army Air Corps photos of B-17 crews standing in front of their airplanes. Somebody had copyrighted them! Same with photos of that B-17 engine laying in a Paris street. That is a bit much.
After finding that, I looked up the current version of copyright and trademark laws. Enough to make you throw things at the wall.
RTC,
Do you mean single payer or public option?
*****
Lieberman expresses regret to colleagues over healthcare tension
By Alexander Bolton – 12/15/09
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/72375-lieberman-expresses-regret-to-colleagues-over-healthcare-tension-
Excerpt:
Liberals have blamed Lieberman, some publicly and many privately, for forcing Reid to drop the public option, which for many liberals had been a crucial piece of reform.
But most Democratic senators have been careful not to criticize the lawmaker, whose support is necessary to reach the 60 votes Democrats need to pass the bill.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), among the most vocal supporters of the public option, said it would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise. Feingold said that responsibility ultimately rests with President Barack Obama and he could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation.
“This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth,” said Feingold. “I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect.”
But Feingold added there are “obviously good things in the bill” and focusing on an individual member is not an “accurate portrayal of what happened.”