Our Chatty Cathy Congress

Those of us former little girls of a certain age can remember a doll that we all had to have. She was called Chatty Cathy, and if you pulled a string in her neck, she would say things like “Please brush my hair” and “Let’s have a party!”

It turns out that Chatty Cathy and the United States House of Representatives have a lot in common. Except in Congress’ case, it is the biotechnology industry that has been pulling the string.

In today’s New York Times, Robert Pear has a story that tells us how it happened that more than a dozen lawmakers made virtually the same statement in the official record of the House health care debate. (It’s worth knowing that these are not necessarily speeches they gave on the floor itself, but rather, what gets printed in the Congressional Record when they ask permission to “revise and extend” their remarks. So no one actually hears them say it, but it does go into the official history of the event, and it does put them firmly on record. It also tells the lobbyists’ paymasters that they are getting good return on their investment.)

In this case, the statement in question had actually been written by the biotechnolgy industry–which, as Michael Scherer and I wrote a few weeks back, has been a big winner in the health reform debate, rolling over even such powerful figures as Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to get its way. Pear (a reporter whose digging skills are legendary among those of us who have been around Washington a while) tells us:

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”

Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to “revise and extend my remarks.” It is unusual for so many revisions and extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists.

Those statements generally went something like this:

In separate statements using language suggested by the lobbyists, Representatives Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, both Republicans, said: “One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their research to foreign countries like India.”

In remarks on the House floor, Representative Phil Hare, Democrat of Illinois, recalled that his family had faced eviction when his father was sick and could not make payments on their home. He said the House bill would save others from such hardship.

In a written addendum in the Congressional Record, Mr. Hare said the bill would also create high-paying jobs. Timothy Schlittner, a spokesman for Mr. Hare, said: “That part of his statement was drafted for us by Roche pharmaceutical company. It is something he agrees with.”

The boilerplate in the Congressional Record included some conversational touches, as if actually delivered on the House floor.

In the standard Democratic statement, Representative Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania said: “Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. This bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in health care delivery, technology and research in the United States.”

A lobbyist whom Pear describes as “close to Genentech” insists that there is nothing nefarious about any of this, and that it happens all the time. Indeed, this is not the first I’ve heard of something along these lines. One practitioner was the infamous lobbyist Jack Abramoff.:

A few years later, Ney paid unusual attention to another Abramoff client, the Florida gambling boat company SunCruz, which was headquartered more than 1,000 miles outside of Ney’s congressional district. Abramoff and his business partner were trying to buy the cruise ship fleet from Konstantinos “Gus” Boulis, but Boulis was demanding unwelcome additional terms.

In March 2000, Ney used the Congressional Record to assail Boulis.

“On the Ohio River we have gaming interests that run clean operations and provide quality entertainment,” Ney wrote. “I don’t want to see the actions of one bad apple in Florida, or anywhere else to affect the business aspect of this industry or hurt any innocent casino patron in our country.”

Ney’s remarks were orchestrated by Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay spokesman who had just been hired to work for Abramoff at Preston Gates & Ellis LLP. Scanlon had approached Ney through his chief of staff, Neil Volz, according to sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Volz has repeatedly declined to be interviewed.

A few months later, Boulis agreed in principle to sell SunCruz to Abramoff and Kidan for $147.5 million. The deal closed in the fall. But Abramoff and Kidan failed to make good on a $23 million payment owed to Boulis, court records show.

When Boulis was being difficult in the negotiations, Ney again made an official statement, this time heaping praise on Kidan.

“Since my previous statement, I have come to learn that SunCruz Casino now finds itself under new ownership and, more importantly, that its new owner has a renowned reputation for honesty and integrity,” Ney said in the Congressional Record on Oct. 26, 2000. “The new owner, Mr. Adam Kidan, is most well known for his successful enterprise, Dial-a-Mattress, but he is also well known as a solid individual and a respected member of his community.

“While Mr. Kidan certainly has his hands full in his efforts to clean up SunCruz’s reputation, his track record as a businessman and as a citizen lead me to believe that he will easily transform SunCruz from a questionable enterprise to an upstanding establishment that the gaming community can be proud of.”

But Kidan’s “track record” included a string of lawsuits, judgments, liens, bankruptcies and failed businesses. His Dial-a-Mattress franchise in the District was in bankruptcy. He had filed personal bankruptcy, and he had surrendered his law license in New York after being accused of fraud. One of his mentors, Anthony Moscatiello, was alleged by law enforcement to be an accountant for New York’s Gambino crime family.

Ney later said he did not know about Kidan’s background.

Ney ended up spending some time in prison; Abramoff is still there. So is this a sign of corruption, coziness or just laziness on the part of lawmakers? Whatever it is, it stinks.

Related Topics: bill pascrell, biotech lobby, blaine luetkemeyer, genentech, joe wilson, lobbying, phil hare, robert brady, roche, Congress, Democratic Party, Health Care, Republican Party
  • Latest on Swampland

    At CPAC, Romney Stresses Conservative Credentials

    Three days after a trifecta of losses underlined lingering questions about his ability to win over the Republican Party’s base, Mitt Romney arrived at CPAC to allay skeptics’ fears. Throughout his second bid for the GOP nomination, Romney has made his business bona fides the centerpiece of his candidacy. But on Friday, before a packed room at the annual conservative confab, he sought to emphasize the record he compiled in Massachusetts. “I was a severely conservative governor,” he told the crowd. “I know conservatism, because I have lived conservatism.” 

    Romney: I Was A 'Severely Conservative' GovernorHuffPost Politics

    Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

    Mired in the Sticky Politics of Health and Faith, Obama Shifts on Contraception

    In the face of mounting pressure from Catholic leaders and politicians, the White House on Friday tweaked its position on contraception coverage mandates in the Affordable Care Act. Rather than require large religious institutions like Catholic colleges and hospitals to provide employees with free health insurance coverage for contraception, insurance companies themselves will have to pick up the tab.

  • Paul-no not that one

    What is the practical effect of these “revise and extend” remarks?
    Other than showing fidelity to their lobbyist masters that is.
    They seem more risky than they are worth when exposed.

    What is the upside for the Congressperson?

  • trifecta55

    The upside is a stack of bundled checks.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Why do real estate agents put a SOLD sign on a house?

  • bitterpill8

    Yes, KT, it stinks. Maybe the culprits should be introduced as the Robotic Member for Genentec. The corruption is so deep and these people see nothing wrong . Perhaps a certain former Congressman from Freezer Fridge can do with some company.

  • carotexas1

    Why do I get the feeling that this has been thrown out as a smoke screen to divert the story away from the big give away and the evergreening in the bill so it will not have pressure to be changed?

    I do agree with you Karen this also stinks.

  • stuartzechman

    This is an absolutely wonderful piece, KT, made even more so by the manner in which you’ve posted it here.
    .
    We need a lot more reporting like Pear’s–and blogging like this– if we’re to have any shot at turning this country around.
    .
    Beautiful, beautiful work –this kind of thing is why your trade is enumerated in the Constitution.
    .
    Thank you so much.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Why do real estate agents put a SOLD sign on a house?
    .
    In this case the lobbyist are the real estate agents. What is the upside for the owner (In your parable the Congressperson)
    .
    Seems just doing their bidding without cut and pasting stuff into the record would be the way to go.
    .
    Unless they aren’t that bright.

  • pafro

    Remember when the Boehner walked around the House floor handing out Tobacco PAC checks: http://is.gd/4Vzs2
    This is crooked, but on appearance is getting less crooked than the way things used to operate.

  • freeinpa

    I guess he could of stuffed cash in their freezers instead!

  • 53_3

    Its actually easier to hire someone like Haliburton, freetopee, then conveniently lose $9,000,000,000.
    .
    That is only one instance of the rampant corruption during the Bush era, freetopeeonyourownshoes, but it kinda outshines the congressmans’ crime by no less than 100,000 times.
    .
    But, I agree, freetopee, it’s all ok, ’cause your crooks are better than ours…

  • 53_3

    Oh, and the guys who walked the floor handing out checks that pafro was referring to, freetopee?
    .
    They were all over at K street…

  • pafro

    Speaking of Jefferson, can anyone explain why he got 13 years and Duke Cunningham, who from the accounts I have seen benefited way more from the bribes he took, got 8?

  • Ivy_B

    pafro, IOKIYAR

  • pafro

    Someting has been nagging me since I read this article late last night.
    I think my problem with this “reporting” is that we learn that 42 members of Congress did something sleazy, then instead of a simple list of who did this, the names of ten or so of the culprits are slowly trickled out in a rather Byzantine article.
    What stopped the NY Times from helping out their readers by just listing these bums?
    In this sense, the corruption of our journalistic institutions is also put on full display. I am actually less annoyed with the corruption of these back-benchers (who we mostly assume to be corrupt under our system of perpetual fund-raising), then the NY Times cover-up via incomplete disclosure.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.
    .

    Don’t think this is “corruption” on the part of the NYT. The 42 is Genentech’s estimate of how many people picked up its talking points. I think that if the NYT had all their names, it would have run them. But it could be a case of the lobbyist bragging (it happens). And it would be hard to document picking up “some” of its talking points. You would have to go through every utterance made by every member of the House.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    I might add, too, that I think this is a terrific piece of reporting. Don’t quite understand your assertion that the media is somehow more corrupt here than the House members.

  • pafro

    So if this is such a terrific piece of reporting, from the context of this article, would you be able to explain to me if the term “biosimilars” and some references to protecting U.S. jobs are code for what are essentially eternal patent protections for drug companies that will cost U.S. taxpayers long term?
    And since the author of the amendment that offered “biosimilar” protections, Anna Eshoo, is claiming that the amendment doesn’t do what all these congresspeople are hoping it does http://is.gd/4VD8m what exactly does it do and what did Genetech pay for if the person they asked to offer the amendment for them is so unclear on it?
    Oh that’s right…Anna Eshoo or Joe Barton, the authors of the part Genetech likes so much aren’t even mentioned in the article.
    carotexas1 is right. This is classic Tim Russert-style jourmalisms: go after the “gotcha” of little import while all the more insanely corrupt stuff is walled off in “off the record” double secret land.

  • Cliff

    is this a sign of corruption

    Durr.

    Please, for decency’s sake, will you name names and call a spade a spade.

  • Cliff

    And by the way, Miss EnergyTomorrow.org has got her face plastered all over my computer screen and it’s really grinding my gears.

  • pafro

    To be fair, maybe Mr. Pear is working up the chain to where the real bodies are hidden (Anna Eshoo’s only post secondary education is an associates in English–she didn’t come up with this patent protection scheme), but I wouldn’t be surprised if we get some slaps on the hands of the back-benchers in the form of a few editorials in the Pensacola Times and such excoriating Reps for being so blatantly in the tank, whining about the role of money-raising in Congress, etc., and then the whole thing goes away.

  • Cliff

    And I would really like to complain about the weather but it’s just too goddamn nice out. I mean this weather is the reason people move to Phoenix.

  • formerlyjames

    I had the same problem with miss energy, couldn’t get her big butt off my screen. Note to participants: keep your mouse pointer well clear of miss energy.

  • 53_3

    Hmm, let’s see.
    .
    Maybe he didn’t get all that 9 billion, but let’s just say he was at the trough from 9 million. So that’s a hundred times as much, and, to begin with, if he can steal a hundred times as much money and pay only 0.62 times the length of time, then, as a Republican, he must, by definistion, be 62 times the person Jefferson is.
    .
    Now, if one train were going west at…

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Actually, pafro, i think michael scherer and i answered some of those questions in our story on this issue some weeks back:
    .
    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1931595,00.html

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Scherer and I dealt with some of those issues a few weeks back:
    .
    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1931595,00.html

  • formerlyjames

    This story is all the more interesting, yet depressing to me for the references to the friends of the most corrupt administration in modern times. I had to go on a wiki memory hunt over abramoff and his buddies, and lest we forget, I kind of wish now that I had not done that. Ruined my day.

  • pafro

    You remember when I used the term Byzantine? I sit down and read this article. I wonder to myself, hey, “what is the real issue here, what does Genetech want (and what the heck is a ‘biosimilar)?’” Instead of a short explanation in the so-called “excellent article” I have to do a bunch of research and piece together information from the preceding months.
    If this was the only time this lack of context happened it would be one thing, but this is THE pattern.
    P.S. on the corrupt note:John King on CNN this morning let Rudy Guiliani claim that trying terrorists in U.S. Courts is un-American, even though he used to brag about how awesome such trials are. He also let Guiliani lie and say that the new Democratic Rep from NY-23 voted against the health care bill last week. John King lets people lie to him all the time. If there isn’t corruption at news orgs, why does King still have a job?

  • 53_3

    A little help for everyone to beat the @dvertisers:
    .
    Use your refresh button twice!

  • 53_3

    I’m advising you also that I wasn’t allowed to write my previous two versions of this helpful advice.
    .
    Is it possible that the words advertisers or click stopped it?

  • 53_3

    Nope.

  • 53_3

    I just tried a little more elaborate post explaining that they are activated by mouseovers even though they say “click to expand”, and that sometimes, the ads are positioned so that the “skip ad” button doesn’t appear in the browser window.
    .
    Hope this message makes it.

  • Cliff

    Thanks for the advice.
    .
    Maybe it’s just Safari, but the ads don’t necessarily seem to get activated by the mouse, for me.

  • destor23

    Thanks for the helpful reminder about who is actually writing our health care legislation. Can’t say I’m exactly shocked but nice to see it spelled out.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Pafro: I understand your complaint, but i don’t see why you jump to the conclusion that this is evidence of media “corruption.” from where i stand, it just looks like the story could have used some better editing–which, unfortunately, is something that i see a lot of, given the financial state of the business these days. you have a lot fewer people doing a lot more work, and that has consequences. (i think we have some recovering journalists among our commentariat, who might back me up on this.)
    .
    a graf or two of context would have helped, i agree. but that does not suggest a nefarious plot on the part of the nyt.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    and all that said, i think it was an extraordinarily valuable piece of journalism. what i really don’t get is this sentence of yours:
    .
    I am actually less annoyed with the corruption of these back-benchers (who we mostly assume to be corrupt under our system of perpetual fund-raising), then the NY Times cover-up via incomplete disclosure.
    .
    huh?

  • carotexas1

    Thank you Karen for responding,and it was a great article you and Michael wrote.
    .
    I am really concerned about the evergreening as my understanding how it works, all they have to do is tweak the formula and keep it from ever having a generic. If this is true would more publicity on this before the bill is final change this?

  • sevenoaks07

    Just a thought. Maybe our lawmakers find it easier to accept material holus bolus from the lobbyist. He/she gets to have on record a fine piece of someone else’s product with all that that implies. The lobbyist points out this inclusion to those who cut his/her check. The voter thinks he has an articulate rep. Win win all round. And we lecture Hamid Karzai on corruption.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Main Entry: cor·rup·tion
    Pronunciation: \kə-ˈrəp-shən\
    Function: noun : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
    .
    I’d say Pafro made the case that supports that definition.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    P-NNTO: You were a tad selective in that definition, weren’t you? What I got from Merriam-Webster was:
    .
    1 a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity b : decay, decomposition c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
    .

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty
  • mdfstx

    Why is the headline linking to this story entitled “How the Drug Industry Pulls Congress’s Strings? Once you review the actual article it becomes a discussion of the standard operating procedure of lobbyists and elected congressional representatives. Nothing in the story raises even a hint of an industry wide scheme of manipulation, never mind anything untoward at all.

    The industry isn’t perfect, but then I challenge you to find one that is, and I’d ask you to start with the profession of journalism. I long for someone to merely present me with the relevant facts so I may make my own judgments and conclusions, and weary of a focus on the sensational to the complete absence of presenting all sides of the issue.

    Why has the Times chosen to denigrate an industry? Can I trust media if they don’t present all sides of a story? You are supposed to present information, not simply tar industries, groups, individuals, with a brush and a label such as the one leading into this article. Don’t you understand, I can’t tell the difference between you and Fox; neither of you will give me the facts without bias or even give me all the facts.

    Time, prove yourself journalists, and write an article about the good in this industry and the people who labor in it, rather than just focus on the negative aspects. The costs of prescription medications gets loads of press, but have any of you ever stopped to calculate and compare the annual costs of blood pressure medication vs the cost of treating a stroke. If you don’t write this story, please change your tabloid, sensational tactics.

    Give me Joe Friday and just the facts please.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    I agree it’s an issue and a concern (though in this case, it is the tail and not the dog, I think.) My understanding is that evergreening happens to a certain extent even under the current system for traditional pharmaceuticals. Also, my understanding is that the Senate bill is even worse on this score. So I agree that it bears watching, particularly once a bill hits conference.

  • jcapan

    KT!!! Thank you so much for this fine definition of the US legislative process:
    .
    1 a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity b : decay, decomposition c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
    .
    I mean, who’d have guessed that the mass of legislators are corporate sock puppets, surely not us daft rabble.

  • http://aroundthesphere.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/they-copied-their-homework-from-wikipedia-they-did/ They Copied Their Homework From Wikipedia, They Did « Around The Sphere

    [...] Karen Tumulty at Time at Swampland: Those of us former little girls of a certain age can remember a doll that we all had to have. She was called Chatty Cathy, and if you pulled a string in her neck, she would say things like “Please brush my hair” and “Let’s have a party!” [...]

  • palininatowel

    Ironic post considering much of the media, including Time, is hanging by a thread at present with only pharma’s constant bombardment of electronic, print, outdoor and online advertising keeping the floundering world of news media afloat.
    .
    So save your sob story of the poor, persecuted industry.
    .
    Good lord, you’ve had your way with government regulations and regulators for years.
    .
    How about we outlaw direct advertising of prescription drugs to consumers and go back to letting doctors decide what’s good for patients?
    .
    I wonder if Republicans who are so concerned with nothing coming between the doctor-patient relationship would back a ban on consumer advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals, including erection meds?
    .
    Would you be in favor of such a ban?

  • xxception

    You people above that are still hung up on Haliburton need to get your facts straight. While they WERE awarded contracts without a bidding process, they are one of only 2 companies in the entire world capable of providing the logistical support they do. Pleasing you guys is impossible. If both bid, you would complain that only 2 bids were accepted without bothering to educate yourself. No matter what, you were going to be unhappy and voice your displeasure. Why jump through more hoops when your “indignation” will be the same and the outcome would most likely be the same?

  • destor23

    Because when you say Halliburton is one of only two companies in the world that could have done the job… we don’t believe you. Just seems a bit convenient to us.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Hey destor, ever hear of google?

  • Paul-no not that one

    A tad selective?
    .
    For someone who uses words for a living to say that as she links to a source that shows that exact definition is pretty funny.
    .
    Pafro used a word that fit, by definition, and you choose to show other meanings?
    .
    One can do that all day with many words in the language.
    .
    Safire weeps from where ever he is.

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks so much for responding to commentary, KT.

  • Cliff

    Well then the gang rapes, the corruption, and the electrocuted soldiers are okay then.

  • stuartzechman

    The industry isn’t perfect, but then I challenge you to find one that is…

    If by “perfect” one means “unwilling to subvert through material influence the democratic processes our nation has preserved with the blood of patriots”, then no, there doesn’t seem to be a “perfect” industry in sight.
    .
    The challenge isn’t to find an industry that’s “perfect”, but to find and implement the system through which industry influence is minimized, and public influence is raised to its proper level. To do so necessarily means to weaken the power of corporations.
    .
    …and all the yelling of “Bias! Bias!” is so much cheap working of the refs. The press should be biased –biased toward the public interest where it conflicts with industry’s. Dutifully presenting “all sides of the story” has no public value whatsoever when one side is the public interest, and the other is industry interest. Only a shill or a fool would demand that the tobacco companies’ point of view be given equal time and emphasis along side lung surgeons’ in a piece on the dangers of smoking.

    Time, prove yourself journalists, and write an article about the good in this industry and the people who labor in it, rather than just focus on the negative aspects.

    That’s a truly ridiculous demand, completely at odds with what the problems of journalism actually are. Balance for balance’s sake (or to satisfy the criticisms of industry PR shills) isn’t synonymous with presentation of the truth. Real journalists don’t “balance” negative aspects of a story for the sake of deflecting criticism. There either is significant equivalence, or there isn’t. The industries themselves are more than capable of buying advertising time and public relations expertise testifying as to “the good in this industry and the people who labor in it“, something of which ordinary folks are well aware.
    .
    Luckily for the institution of journalism, this kind of bogus criticism can now be countered by so many more engaged news consumers demanding an end to He Said-She Said. Luckily for us, most of us see this kind of demand for fake balance for what it is, and can tell journalists directly to reject it on our behalf –which they are starting to do.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Testimony of Rory Mayberry, Former KBR Food Production Manager: Halliburton’s Questioned and Unsupported Costs in Iraq Exceed $1.4 Billion”
    (2005)

    http://tinyurl.com/yf6wf34

    Sworn testimony.

    The bidding aside, war profiteering used to the kind of thing conservatives would rightfully be angry about.

    I miss conservatives.

  • formerlyjames

    Give me a break. Drug industry lobby and no bid contract supporters and apologists appear here like cockroaches out of woodwork? Why? Afraid of being nudged away from the pig trough? I have read enough of this tread already. I await another.

  • formerlyjames

    Please somebody help. I am learning safari and the apple system, and cannot get rid of the intrusive energy ad. Please, if somebody can tell me how to do it, I would be grateful.

  • Paul-no not that one

    I’m on a MacBook using Safari and the only suggestion I have is make sure the cursor is to the left.
    .
    For whatever reason Swampland, starting when they switched formats,-maybe a year ago-has loaded like #2.
    .
    I don’t have that problem with any other site.
    .
    Perhaps someone more savvy can help you (us).

  • formerlyjames

    Thanks, Paul. I just got a MacBook pro and it is a learning experience. I did go to the energy site and left a message that I don’t appreciate the intrusion. For whatever that’s worth. Thanks again, and by the way, I am one of your fans. Your insight is always appreciated.

  • Paul-no not that one

    I think it may be more of a TIME.com issue than the advertiser but alerting them to the annoyance is smart.

    And thanks for the nice words.

  • palininatowel

    From the lobbyist’s fingers to the representatives’ ears to the floor of the House…

    The guilty parties and their word-for-word recitations of the work of big pharma:

    What a roomful of parrots looks like

  • stuartzechman

    You really need to include the lobbyists’ point of view, e.g. how their expertise is so valuable to lawmakers, palininatowel, otherwise industry sockpuppets like mdfstx won’t find you credible, and will accuse you of bias.

  • palininatowel

    stuart,
    .
    Just goes to show how lame these folks are. Did mdfstx really think it wasn’t crystal clear what was going on with his/her post?
    .
    Yes, mdfstx, we just fell off the turnip truck.

  • pafro

    I looked at the NY Times website to see if they followed up with the sort of derivative journalism (i.e. filling in the gaps in the story) that they could have done by looking over the legislative record. Nope. It was the lady working off viewer donations that did.

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/16/the-chatty-cathy-principle/ The Chatty Cathy Principle – Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] Swampland A blog about politics. Swampland Feed   Daily E-mail Updates   « PreviousOur Chatty Cathy Congress [...]

  • pafro

    So it was ex-staffers of Eshoo and Barton (the Reps who introduced the amendment) who did the lobbying of Congress on this:
    http://blog.littlesis.org/2009/11/15/former-eshoo-barton-staffers-at-center-of-genentech-scandal/
    Do you think the NY Times reporter knows this but left it out of the story on purpose?

  • 53_3

    A circular argument if I ever saw one:
    .
    There was no competition!
    .
    Yes there was, we just limited to those who could “do the job” according to our specs!
    .
    Therefore, there was competition!
    .
    See how stupid this is, xxception? Papers containing such arguments get summarily rejected, to the embarrassment of their authors.
    .
    Of course, wingnuts like yourself have no clue anyway…

  • mdfstx

    You throw out nasty comments with ease, but can you back any of them up? Prove yourself. Name a specific instance “having your way with regulations and regulators for years.”

    I’ve no problem with an advertising ban on pharmaceuticals.

    You want to “weaken the influence of corporations” who develop life saving alternatives to costly medical procedures. So be it. See if where health care costs go. Why such vitriol towards an industry that at it’s core saves lives? What method of free market enterprise do you propose as a replacement for an industry that otherwise incentivizes the development of life saving medications?

    How do you respond to the effect of medications which replace expensive medical procedures.

    Do you not see that your vitriol gets in the way of true change? How can people respect your concerns as valid when you fail to look at the real picture of the industry?

blog comments powered by Disqus