I recently saw yet another op-ed in another newspaper by another Big Pharma shill — you know, someone handed his talking points and told to go at it.

You can tell they’re a shill when they make exactly the same argument, point by point, as all the other shills make. You also know they’re a shill when they claim to be a conservative — and yet support blatant protectionism and all sorts of other anti-free market principles when it comes to Big Pharma.

Here’s a taste of the op-ed on Canadian drug reimportation, by a Dr. Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health in the Washington Examiner:

While many think of them as a cheap alternative to domestic drug purchases, the so-called “Canadian” drugs allowed under the Vitter Amendment can come from almost anywhere on the globe. It’s an easy path for substandard and toxic drugs to enter our supply…

Imposing price controls here — which is what importation, in effect, does — will lead to stagnation in our own drug research and development process. Our children and grandchildren will have to accept 2009-quality drugs far into the future.

Yes, the American Council on Science and Health is a corporate front group, of course. And Ross’ “conservative” arguments are as tired as can be.

But I was pleasantly surprised to see comments on Ross’ post by people who understand what conservative principles actually are — and who saw the post for what it was.

A “Lanier Y Chapman” wrote –

Shouldn’t good conservatives be against the FDA, which is a government regulator? Let drugs (medicinal and narcotic) come in, and let anyone buy anything from anywhere.

And by the way, free importation is not price control. It’s just free trade. How can you be against free trade? Dr. Ross sounds like a shill, and drug companies are sounding like car manufacturers, teachers’ unions, NEA perverts, steel producers, sugar growers, etc–lobbies that try to use government intervention to steal money from Americans.

And then there’s this comment from “Steve,” who introduces Ross’ pharma doubletalk to reality:

Yes, I want to see the U.S. pharmaceutical industry continue to be innovative; but at the same time, for example I’m getting a drug from India (thru Canada) that costs me $225 for a 90 day supply. The U.S. version (discovered by a U.S. company) would cost me over $1000 for a 90 day supply. And to make it worse, my insurance company will not pay for any of it, even though it is necessary.

Don’t buy any of Big Pharma’s ridiculous arguments about reimportation. And please, don’t buy that they’re “conservative” arguments.

They’re anything but.

Image source

I’ve guess I’ve finally come back to my senses.

After years of being cynical about our political system’s capability of doing anything but accumulating debt, I somehow thought Obama could make a difference. I thought, among other things, that meaningful healthcare reform was finally on its way.

But the system itself is more powerful than Obama … far more powerful.

I didn’t think it was possible that Congress could create a healthcare reform bill that I would oppose. I figured that any change would be a step in the right direction.

But then the White House caved in to Big Pharma on issues like Medicare price negotiations and Canadian drug reimportation. Big Pharma was basically assured that it could continue to charge monopoly prices for brand-name drugs without restraint.

That completely knocks out the promise of controlling skyrocketing prescription drug costs — which should have been a key pillar of healthcare reform.

Obama did this, clearly, as a political calculation. He did not think he could get a bill passed if he had both Big Pharma and Big Insurance against him. So he picked his poison — and Big Pharma agreed to support reform.

As a result, “healthcare reform” has become “health insurance reform.” The health insurance industry, like Big Pharma, is not a sterling example of the free market economy at work. That’s why you don’t see real price competition, and why health insurance companies focus instead on increasing their margins by not paying off claims. It’s also why a public option is necessary for there to be any chance of real insurance reform.

I don’t think Obama’s going to get the public option, either.

I think we’re going to get a bill passed that encourages/forces Americans to sign up for private insurance, and that continues to subsidize drug company profits. It will end up enriching both Big Pharma and Big Insurance. And it will cost us billions or trillions of dollars that we don’t have and must borrow from China.

Borrow and spend. That’s been the core “problem-solving” approach of both Democrats and Republicans over the past 30 years (with the exception of Bill Clinton, the only president to have balanced the budget during this period.) In fact, Obama’s “problem-solving” approach on healthcare is eerily similar to George Bush’s approach on Medicare Part D.

As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains:

The White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That’s basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it’s proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the Boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We don’t know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details haven’t been made public.)

Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher health-care costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs. To be sure, as part of its deal with the White House, Big Pharma apparently has promised to cut future drug costs by $80 billion. But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?

Exactly.

Isn’t it odd, in a day when the political parties are supposedly so different, and people are shouting about non-existent “death panels” at town hall meetings, that the underlying reality is that the political parties are actually so similar? That the Democrats’ “solution” for healthcare may simply be an expanded version of the Republicans’ “solution” for seniors who can’t afford their prescription drugs — Medicare Part D?

Democrats and Republicans enjoy the perks of power. But they ultimately don’t run Washington. They both must answer to the same “paymasters,” as consumer advocate Ralph Nader calls them. Corporate interests.

Show me a grassroots movement that takes on corporate power, and I’ll show you a third political party. You won’t find it within the current two-party system. When we next “water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants,” as Jefferson put it, those tyrants will be giant multinational corporations, not their trembling lackeys who hold political office.

Image source