David Postman adds more coverage after my post below on the topic of Maria Cantwell's transparently weak prescription drug ad. Mike McGavick's campaign blog led the charge on this issue, but Postman's coverage adds a response from Cantwell's spokesperson that is worth examining:
The Gorton bill that Cantwell and others called a gimmick had nothing to do with reimportation. It was a bill no one would even co-sponsor when he introduced it. "Does McGavick support Gorton's bill? He won't say. Does he support Cantwell's legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices? Once again, he equivocates.
Asking if McGavick supports Gorton's bill is one of the most inane questions of the campaign season. I worked for Slade at the time; I worked on healthcare issues in the state, talked with him about the issue, and dealt directly with this bill (though, little known fact, I happened to personally disagree with the details). That bill was designed to stimulate a debate and action on the topic of what prices seniors were paying for prescription drugs - before there was a Medicare drug benefit. The bill in question is a moot point with that benefit in place. Why does Cantwell's spokesperson care?
Perhaps it's because she wants obfuscate the subject. Just like Senator Cantwell's ad talks a lot about prescription drugs without really saying anything at all. She's been in the Senate for six years, why can't she tell us what she might have done in that time to work on the issue of Medicare and prescription drugs? Why does she spend precious campaign dollars telling us in vague terms she's "fighting to bring down the cost of prescription drugs"? McGavick's blog details her efforts on Medicare have proven ineffective, and her reimportation talk is also remarkably less valuable now that the Medicare drug benefit is in place (anyone see lots of stories in the news these days about seniors trekking to Canada for prescriptions?).
I suspect the answer to all this is demagoging to seniors, including on the topic of prescription drugs, is part of the Democratic playbook that her campaign team seems loath to depart from. Yet, since that issue has been taken off the table by the actual success of the Medicare Prescription Drug program that leaves the topic only available for the most partisan campaigners. What's Cantwell going to do, run an ad saying she supports the Republican-led drug benefit that is actually working for seniors?
Sure, like her spokesperson, Cantwell can keep complaining about pharmaceutical companies since they're a stereotypical whipping boy, but as a report cited in my above post on the issue noted:
The drug plans competing for Medicare beneficiaries have been able to establish greater than expected cost savings from aggressive price negotiations, very low-cost coverage for generic drugs and less costly brand-name drugs, and other steps to keep drug costs down.
The truth is the prescription drug issue isn't what is used to be for Democrats, but that hasn't stopped Cantwell's team from going to the well one more time on it. One would think an incumbent Senator would have more to run on after six years in office.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 28, 2006 09:45 PM | Email ThisQ: What has Cantwell done in 4 yrs for Drug prices
A: ???????????
Q: What has Cantwell done to lower gas prices as one of her ads quotes.
A: She voted against Alaska oil drilling to lower our dependence on foreign oil. She supported Gregoire who added 9 cents a gallon on our gas in this state. ?????????????
Q: What has Cantwell done to restore our federal sales tax deduction as her recent ads show.
A: She voted against that sales tax deduction, and the estate tax reduction. ???????????
Promises Promises
I watch Actions!
Posted by: GS on September 28, 2006 09:55 PMFor years we've had to put up with the lies from the left, and now that we're telling the truth about the left, they're wetting their pants.
No wonder they want to surrender, they're a bunch of spineless, lilly-livered losers.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on September 29, 2006 08:11 AMI propose a new rule for voting: if a candidate uses the term "fighting" for their activities while in office (for an incumbent), or in the community (for a challenger), they are immediately written off as a serious candidate.
Posted by: Kirk Parker on September 29, 2006 08:31 AMWashington residents should feel lucky to have twice as money to spend on prescription drugs as Mexicans and Canadians. Would it be fair for Mexicans with salaries 1/10 of those in the US to pay the same prices for drugs? Should Mexicans who can't afford to pay US prices be told to get lost?
Posted by: Michael on September 29, 2006 09:18 AMPretty soon Maria between you, Nickels, and Sims and your tax and spend mentalities I won't just get Mexican prices on my Rx's I'll be living a life style as if I actually were a citizen of Mexico with the disposable income I have left.
Posted by: Tyler Durden on September 29, 2006 11:02 AMWell, there is a way to avoid paying that cost:
Simply renounce American citizenship, move across to Mexico, hop the fence back in, migrate to Washington, and get them for free. God knows Democrats hate it when American citizens have more recourse than their illegal constituents. Gotta keep that voter base happy.
Posted by: ERNurse on September 29, 2006 01:45 PMWow, she's fighting for us! But as others have asked above, what has she accomplished for the state of Washington, particular concerning the issues that she is touting?
Posted by: Gary on September 29, 2006 05:12 PMWhat we want to hear is:
What Dids did you do in your last 6 yrs in office.....?
That successfuly lowered drug prices?
I thought so.
What Dids did you do in your last 6 yrs in office?
That successfuly reduced this states taxes?
I thought so.
What Dids did you do in your last 6 yrs in office?
To fight terrorism
I thought so.
Just watch the brew-ha-ha when Canadian citizens figure out they are pay (in part) for the drugs U.S. citizens buy there.
Want lower drug prices in America, lobby your representatives to allow the U.S. government to bid out their purchases.
The VA (Vetran's Admin) does in fact negotiate price with suppliers. Their drug and supplies costs are a fraction of the cost item by item than what the Medicare system pays.
Are the Republicans wrong for allowing this to take place? You bet! But, keep in mind this has been going on for decades and we the tax payers have been getting short changed by both the Democrats and Republicans in Washington.
Will Mike McGavick be able to change this? Not likely, as it's much bigger than he is. But it is worth a shot as we know Maria Can't.
Posted by: Cardio on September 30, 2006 03:03 PManyone hear that or is it a puff piece from the industry? given the 3rd World-istan, it would make sense. they can't keep their own houses in order--why should i trust them for my meds?!
Posted by: jimmie howya-doin on October 1, 2006 04:51 AM