Annoying-- Some Would Say Unbearable-- Solicitation Calls Are Back

Pallone pretends he opposes robocalls but he keeps taking their bribes and pretending

I imagine they stopped for a couple of months because call centers closed down. But I've noticed the calls identified with a "V" on my landline's screen-- solicitation calls and robocalls-- are back. It's just one or two a day now, down from 20-25 a day. People hate them and want government to do something about them-- not pretend they're doing something about them (while taking their bribes, the way chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Frank Pallone does).

Over 3 million people are employed by U.S. call centers and the big companies that operate them lobby extensively and give gigantic bribes to politicians in both political parties. So we'll never be rid of them... unless we outlaw political bribery itself... and good luck with that.

There are 7,400 call centers-- employing over 50 people each-- in the U.S. The biggest-- and most grotesque-- one is Alorica (47,298 employees), but there are plenty of other companies operating call centers like AT&T (47,152), Verizon (40,614), Conduent (28,144), Teleperformance (22,548), Comcast (17,940), Spectrum (15,908), Teletech (13,394), Sykes (13,217), Sitel (11,523), ADP (11,374).

Robo calls and phone solicitations are hated by everyone. But the government-- at best-- takes half-steps to keep them from annoying and scamming people. Yesterday-- as the Supreme Court-- prepares to decide whether automated calls to cellphones, however annoying they may be, are constitutionally protected-- constitutional law professor Garrett Epps penned a piece for The Atlantic on the issue: The Supreme Court Could Use the First Amendment to Unleash a Robocall Nightmare. "Today," he wrote, "advocates for 'free speech' will offer a good way for the Court to become the least popular institution in America: by making it decide that Americans have to live with unsolicited, repeated prerecorded calls-- so-called robocalls-- to their cellphones."

The call centers and their allies are trying to use the First Amendment to challenge a federal law that forbids anyone from calling a cellphone to transmit a recorded message.

They are enough of a nuisance that I don’t answer my cellphone anymore if I don’t recognize the number. They are also forbidden under a law called the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), passed in 1991. But the plaintiffs in this case-- a professional organization of political managers, strategists, and pollsters-- are asking the Court for it to be otherwise, to invalidate the TCPA’s robocall prohibition. If they prevail, it will be open season on your cellphone, courtesy of your Supreme Court.

As the Electronic Privacy Information Center warned in an amicus brief in this case, technology in robocalls has reached a staggering level: “There are now dozens of services offering mass texting software to marketers that are easily accessible online.” These companies offer ways to “spoof” (that is, portray the calling number as a local number), to make thousands of calls at once, and to drop voicemails into customer voicemails. With a 30-second online search, I found myself being offered the services of a company highlighting that its “calling capacity has been expanded to allow over 16 million calls daily for large political broadcasts.”

Does the First Amendment protect this intrusive technology, which is, in many ways, tailor-made for large-scale fraud?

The 1991 statute made it unlawful “to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice... to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone service.” The penalties for violations can reach as high as $1,500 a call. (One witness at a congressional hearing in 2018 told the lawmakers that the Federal Communications Commission was pursuing him with a demand for $180 million in fines for an alleged spoofed robocall campaign.)

So far, so good. But in 2015, for reasons that aren’t clear, Congress quietly inserted a new exemption into a mammoth budget bill. Under the amendment, robocalls would be permitted if they were “made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.”

There’s little legislative history to explain the change, but it was obviously a bonanza for private collection agencies. Note that it is not simply debts owed to the federal government; the exemption allows collection robocalls for any debt that the United States guarantees. When it considered the statute, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that as many as 41 million student loans are guaranteed by the federal government; it noted also that “various other categories of such debt are handled through other departments, which include the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Health and Human Services.”

The 2015 amendment immediately attracted the attention of industry groups, including the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC), an industry group whose members run political campaigns or advise political groups seeking to influence public opinion. These members, the group’s brief says, “make calls to discuss candidates and issues, solicit candidate donations, conduct polls on political and policy issues, encourage voters to return their ballots, and organize ‘get out the vote’ efforts.”

Under FCC regulations, political calls can be made to residential numbers. But, the commission argues, cellphones present different privacy interests, and robocalls to them are much more intrusive. At the same time, the number of households that don’t have landlines is exploding, so the ability to call landlines is less valuable than it was.

After the 2015 amendment was enacted, the AAPC brought a suit in a federal court in North Carolina, asking the court to strike down the entire robocall ban. Its argument deployed one of the most powerful and elusive concepts in First Amendment law: the idea of a “content-based restriction on speech.”

“Content basis” as a legal category originated with a 1972 case called Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley, a challenge to a Chicago ordinance that banned picketing within 150 feet of a school-- unless the picketing was part of a “labor dispute.” The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the ordinance; in an opinion for seven justices, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, “Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

...If any differentiation at all among categories of speech violates the First Amendment—if, as Kennedy believed, there is no way to balance the importance of that rule with other interests—then the AAPC is right. The First Amendment says we all have to field phone calls—dozens or maybe hundreds a day, to the point that our cellphones become useless. If the Court refuses to extend the new, rigid doctrine to robocalls, it will call into question the repeated preachments from the high bench that government can’t ban speech just because people don’t like it.

However, if it does strike down the robocall rule—well, as the southern saying goes, it will pretty much be running without opposition for the office of SOB.

One of the sleaziest and most destructive (and powerful) lobbying firms in America-- Squire Patton Boggs-- sent out a pre-packaged, pro-call center "OpEd" to California media yesterday "reporting" negatively on AB-3007, the Assembly's latest attempt to prevent robo-call operations from invading everyone's privacy. The twisted and unsigned OpEd attempts to make the case that current ineffective regulations are good enough. No Californians think they are. The call centers are furious because the new bill would "add to the existing robocall consent requirement by authorizing a person called who gave prior consent pursuant to a prior agreement to revoke that consent 'at any time and in any reasonable manner, regardless of the context in which the consent was provided.' Additionally, the bill would repeal the authorization for the use of automatic dialing-announcing devices to make calls pursuant to an established business relationship or the recipient’s request. Moreover, this bill would require telephone corporations, upon request, and at no additional charge, to make technology that mitigates consumer impacts of automatic dialing-announcing devices available to customers and to offer to customers an option to have the telephone corporation prevent calls and text messages originating from a particular source. These requirements would be implemented by the Public Utilities Commission." And this is exactly what Californians have been demanding for years.

The call centers and their scumbag lobbyists are also upset because they can be sued if they continue to annoy people and "the bill would also authorize the court to impose up to treble damages for a willful or knowing violation of those requirements."

The Squire Patton Boggs author of the article threatens that "If AB 3007 gets signed into law, I have no doubt that another wave of robocalls litigation in California will be coming in this way."

The trade organization representing the call centers is USTelecom and they spend millions of dollars lobbying and bribing members of Congress. So far this cycle they gave over $1,000 each to 25 members of Congress from both of the corrupt political parties. These are all members who would sell their mothers:

• Shore PAC (Jersey crook Frank Pallone's PAC)- $7,500
• Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-TX)- $7,000
• Frank Pallone (D-NJ)- $5,000
• Keystone Fund (Mike Doyle's PAC)- $5,000
• Hawaii PAC (Brian Schatz's PAC)- $5,000
• Robert Latta (R-OH)- $3,000
• Bill Johnson (R-OH)- $3,000
• CherPAC (Cheri Bustos' super-corrupt PAC)- $2,500
• Mike Doyle- (D-PA)- $2,500
• Billy Long (R-MO)- $2,500
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $2,500
• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $2,500
• Mark Warner (D-VA)- $2,500
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)- $2,500
• Greg Walden (R-OR)- $2,500
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- $2,000
• Marc Veasey (New Dem- TX)- $2,000
• New Millennium PAC (Robert Menendez's PAC)- $2,000
• Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY)- $2,000
• Jeff Duncan (R-SC)- $2,000
• Brian Schatz (D-HI)- $2,000
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- $1,500
• Jim Clyburn (D-SC)- $1,500
• Dan Sullivan (R-AK)- $1,500
• Lou Correa (Blue Dog)- $1,500

They also wrote $1,000 checks for over 30 other members this year-- and the year is still young! Everytime you get a robo call, think of all the nice bribes the companies pay Frank Pallone, Kevin McCarthy and Cheri Bustos. How to stop robo calls and telephone scams? How about starting with 20 year prison terms for the owners and managers of the companies (because I'm mostly opposed to capital punishment)? Oh, yeah... and stop allowing bribery to members of Congress like Frank Pallone.

Is EITHER National Political Party Worth Saving?

On CNN yesterday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that "The Republican party has got to get a grip on itself. Republican leaders and members of the Congress… are holding back because they’re terrified of what will happen [to] any one of them if they speak out." Trump appears to be overseeing the disintegration of the GOP. But before you start cheering, at least understand that the other party controlled by corporate interests, the Democratic Party, has been gradually shifting right to fill the ideologically conservative void. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has been an utter failure and has allowed the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- to increasingly take control. Mark Pocan, once a timid centrist in the Wisconsin legislature, has managed to put himself at the head of the CPC where he has offered to shelter New Dems from the activist grassroots by allowing them to pay dues and claim they are "progressives." Yes, progressives who are also New Dems, often voting with the New Dems against progressive priorities. Right now all these so-called "progressives" below are New Dems. (Their ProgressivePunch ratings are included)

• Don Beyer (VA)- C
• Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE)- F
• Brendan Boyle (PA)- F
• André Carson (IN)- C
• Veronica Escobar (TX)- A
• Gil Cisneros (CA)- F
• Angie Craig (MN)- F
• Madeleine Dean (PA)- B
• Brenda Lawrence (MI)- B
• Katie Hill (CA)- F
• Stephen Horsford (NV)- F
• Debbie Mucarsell-Powell (FL)- C
• Donald Norcross (NJ)- F
• Darren Soto (FL)- D
• Lori Trahan (MA)- A

Last cycle, Pocan actually went down to Orlando to campaign in the LGBTQ community for reactionary New Dem Darren Soto against Alan Grayson, of whom Pocan has always been jealous.

Russ Cirincione is the progressive candidate running against a former-progressive in New Jersey's Middlesex and Monmouth counties (NJ-06). "What does it mean to be Progressive?" he asked. "Progressives are loyal to the people they represent," he responded to his own question. "The first standard is simple-- progressives put the people they represent first. Progressives have an ethical standard of loyalty-- to be loyal to the people, we must reject all lobbyist money and corporate PAC money. No one can serve two masters, it’s either the money or the People. I choose to represent the People and have pledged to never take a dime of corporate PAC money, because I'm a true progressive. The standard of loyalty to the People is one that Frank Pallone cannot meet any longer. In last year’s campaign cycle he took over $1,000,000 from the health insurance and pharma lobbies. They contributed nearly 40% of all the funds for his campaign re-election, and quite literally paid for a seat in the House of Representatives. They got one of the top three Democrats on their team who now chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee. And, not surprisingly, Pallone has actively prevented the Medicare for All Act of 2019 from being called for a vote, which has stalled in his committee since February 2019."

"Pallone will never support Medicare for All, Single Payer," Cirincione continued. "He’s been paid not to. He’s even afraid of the very people who have donated to his campaigns. At a recent event this year, he said that he was worried about attack ads calling him a socialist from the very industries whom financed his campaign in 2018. It’s time for a champion in the House that will be loyal to the People, reject big money, and stand up to the powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industry by demanding Medicare for All." Yep, Frank Pallone-- another proud member of the CPC-- making sure no progressive legislation gets to the floor of Congress until he's watered it down into uselessness, if even then. Notice that the Democrats control Congress and neither Medicare-For-All nor the Green New Deal has been voted on.

Anthony Fisher reporting for Business Insider yesterday, wrote that NeverTrump Republicans are trying to decide if the GOP is worth saving. The GOP grassroots approve of Trump-- and immensely so (90% in some polls). Trump's 3 primary opponents-- former governor Bill Weld (MA), former Rep. Joe Walsh (IL) and former governor and congressman Mark Sanford (SC)-- all agree with most Americans that Trump is unfit for office. But none have gained any traction with GOP voters.

The three GOP challengers also say Trump has betrayed the party's long-held principles of free market capitalism, maintenance of a robust foreign policy through international alliances, and an openness to immigrants as a vital part of America.

But most of Trump supporters don't seem to care about those principles. For them, the Republican Party was merely a vessel to get their man in power, where he would unapologetically savage their enemies (the liberal elites, the media, immigrants) and enact a right-wing populist agenda. If Trump started his own new political party tomorrow, his base would almost surely follow suit.

That begs the question: What exactly are Weld, Walsh, and Sanford fighting for? ... Walsh and Sanford both come from the Tea Party, the previous surge of right-wing populism that had its biggest moments in the 2010 and 2012 congressional elections. But Walsh only served one term before pivoting to a career as a conservative radio talk show host, and Sanford lost his House seat in 2018-- in no small part because of his opposition to Trump.

The lesson was not lost on Sanford's Republican congressional colleagues, and for good reason. Trump is far more popular than they are.

As for old Republican tentpole issues like fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets and cutting deficits, no less a conservative authority than Rush Limbaugh admitted on his show this past June that "nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore. All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus for as long as it's been around."

Trump's GOP challengers each represent a certain Republican archetype that barely exists anymore. But they find common cause in decrying Trump's rhetoric-- which now defines their party more than any economic policy.

...But the question is, do any of them truly see any remaining semblance of the party they once knew and loved? Do they believe the GOP will return to its former self once Trump leaves office?

Given the relative ease with which Trump took over the party in 2016, and the overwhelming and sturdy support of the his base, there's no reason to believe Republicans will reject Trump-- and the force of his personality is likely to be endemic to the conservative movement for years to come.

What the Never Trumpers also must reckon with is what comes next if Trump loses reelection in 2020. Because if anger is baked into the Trump brand, it's unlikely that such a visceral emotion simply dissolves from the Republican Party just because the boss has left the building.

That's why Republican anti-Trump dissidents would be better off forming their own party, one which represents the erstwhile Republican values that were so soundly rejected by the GOP electorate in 2016.

Really? Or just joining the Democratic Party-- which now supports many of those old "tentpole" Republican issues like fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets and cutting deficits, all cornerstones of the Blue Dogs' and News Dems' approach to governance. The progressive end of the Democratic Party-- not the phony Pocan end-- are actually what the Democratic Party is all about. Listen to Rebecca Parson, the progressive candidate running for Congress in a Washington seat held by the head of the New Dems. Do you think the Congressional Progressive Caucus is supporting her? Of course not.

The Establishment Is Conservative. Conservatives Oppose Fundamental Change-- Let's Take Pelosi And Pallone For Example

Pelosi and Pallone-- allies of the Sickness Industry... betrayers of Democratic voters

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) was alarmed by the oral arguments in the latest attempt by Trump and the Republicans to kill Obamacare in a Texas court. Two of the judges seemed determined to throw the entire ACA out. Cantwell wrote to her supports that "The GOP is making yet another insidious attack on the health care of millions of Americans. Brought by Republican attorneys general, this case isn't about helping Americans-- it's a clearly partisan and political attempt to strip health care from millions of Americans... Republicans tried to overturn the Affordable Care Act by legislation [but] voters in 2018 elected a pro-health care Democratic majority in the U.S. House... The message that Americans are sending on health care is unmistakably clear: No more partisan attacks on affordable health care. But Republicans just keep trying-- and this time, they could really succeed." There are more than a few conservative Democrats-- many Blue Dogs and New Dems-- who opposed the ACA and will be quietly happy to see it go down.

Take that in the context of a new study published in the American Journal of Medicine, showing that 42% of new cancer patients (under 50 years of age-- so not Medicare insured patients) lose their entire life savings in two years because of treatment and that 62% of cancer patients are in debt because of their treatment. In the U.S., the total medical costs for cancer are $80 billion.

Yesterday Politico-Pro published a piece by Heather Caygle, about how Frank Pallone and Nancy Pelosi are working to sideline the left, working especially hard to kill Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal. Pallone is chair of the most powerful committee in Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee and he is one of Congress' most corrupt members, although that isn't something Caygle and Politico concern themselves with.

"Frank actually understands we're the majority makers and appreciates what we bring to the table," said Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR), a member of the moderate [not moderate-- right-wing] Blue Dog Coalition who sits on the Energy and Commerce panel. "That's very different from 10 years ago when a lot of Blue Dogs were viewed as pariahs."

Pelosi has spoken openly about protecting the vulnerable [right-of-center] Democrats who helped deliver the House last year. And Pallone is essentially the speaker's enforcer at the committee, which is the first real stop for any potential action on progressive priorities like "Medicare for All" and the Green New Deal, H. Res. 109 (116).

The partnership is a remarkable turnaround for two onetime opponents. In 2014, Rep. Anna Eshoo, a longtime liberal ally of the then-House minority leader, was running against the more centrist Pallone for a top committee post. Despite a public whipping effort from Pelosi, Eshoo [even more of a shill of Big PhMA than Pallone at the time] fell short. It was a rare defeat in a bitter race that showed the limits of Pelosi's influence.

The new Pallone-Pelosi alliance will be all the more crucial as the speaker works to corral her fractious House majority, which is increasingly split between a pack of outspoken progressive millennials and a group of more than two dozen freshman moderates.

Pelosi praised Pallone's "invaluable" leadership in a statement, adding, "From health care and prescription drug costs to climate and net neutrality, Chairman Pallone has forged consensus in committee and across our caucus to pass bold legislation through the House."

Pallone described himself as a "pragmatic progressive" during an interview in his Capitol Hill office and said he and Pelosi are now in lockstep.

"For the most part, we agree," Pallone said of Pelosi. "And I'm not sure that we disagree with a lot of what those on the left would like to see, but I think that we just realized that we don't have the votes."

The 30-year lawmaker, who himself boasts a largely liberal voting record, dismissed the idea that he might feel pressure from the left. [Currently 3 Democrats, Russ Cirincone, John Hsu, Javahn Walker have announced primary challengers to Pallone.] Indeed, Pallone has repeatedly fended off progressive demands-- dismissing a special climate panel as "not necessary," taking on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a closed-door meeting, and rejecting a liberal push to forgo contributions from fossil fuel companies.

Democratic leaders have purposefully slow-walked the progressive plans pushed by Ocasio-Cortez and others. The subject of Medicare for All has received hearings in three committees-- but not the Energy and Commerce panel, which also oversees health policy.

And the Green New Deal, which Pelosi dismissively called the "green dream" earlier this year, is just one of several proposals being considered by a special climate change committee that has no legislative power. Pallone's panel is taking up a major infrastructure package that addresses climate change, but it's more modest than the Green New Deal. The House also passed legislation in May demanding President Donald Trump keep the U.S. in the Paris climate pact, H.R. 9 (116), after the measure cleared Pallone's committee.

"Frank is a fair person, a good leader, he gets consensus," said Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell, who has served in the New Jersey delegation with Pallone for more than two decades. "But he's not going to be forced by public opinion to move in that direction or to move in this direction."

Progressives have mostly chosen to focus on the positive, for example celebrating the fact that Medicare for All received a hearing in any committee even if it was clearly meant as a way for Democratic leaders to placate liberals without forcing moderates to take a tough vote they fear could cost them their seats.

But a recent battle over an emergency spending package to address the border crisis, H.R. 3401 (116), has left liberals fuming after their priorities were ignored in the final deal. Rep. Mark Pocan, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, even warned that his group might retaliate by taking a harder line on top Democratic priorities that come to the floor.

"I just think it's hard to ask our caucus to help deliver votes to pass things," Pocan (D-WI) said. "It's just going to be a lot harder for us to care to help deliver votes."

And Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the other progressive caucus co-chair, said liberals plan to put more pressure on Pallone specifically in the coming months.

"It's very important, absolutely. That's a committee of record on health," Jayapal (D-WA) said of the need for a Medicare for All hearing at Energy and Commerce. "He has not committed to it yet but he's a good chairman. I believe I can work with him to make it happen."

Pallone, meanwhile, has purposefully chosen to focus on the things he thinks can actually pass his committee, survive the House floor and in some cases even be considered by the GOP-controlled Senate.

For the sprawling panel-- which has a say in nearly every major public policy issue-- that includes work on everything from lowering prescription drug prices and shoring up Obamacare to boosting pipeline safety and oversight of a recalled infant rocker.

Pallone has also made a concerted effort to work across the aisle, teaming up with the panel's ranking member, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) on legislation to curb robocalls and outlaw surprise medical bills.

And Pallone won't rule out the possibility that Democrats may be able to strike a deal with Trump on infrastructure or prescription drugs, two areas where the president has repeatedly suggested bipartisan negotiation only to back away.

"Hope springs eternal," Pallone said. "I do think that on prescription drugs he's pushing Republicans in the Congress, and probably the same on the infrastructure bill. There are definitely Republicans who would like to vote for all of these things."

Walden, for his part, said in a statement that Pallone has "a tough task keeping the socialist left at bay" and that it was "only a matter of time" before the committee held hearings on Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

Last month the Journal of Medical Anthropology published a relevant piece by Carole Browner, a research professor at UCLA in the Center for Culture and Health, NPI-Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, that I wish members of Congress would read, Moving beyond Neoliberal Models of Health Care. It would give them a better understanding about why progressives are demanding Medicare-For-All. Here are some excerpts, starting with a series of crucial questions Congress needs to answer-- and by Congress, that includes Pallone and Pelosi:

"Why are U.S. health-care costs far higher than elsewhere in the world? And why, if so much more is spent, are such critical outcomes as rates of infant and maternal mortality, life expectancy and treatments for serious diseases not significantly better-- and often markedly worse-- than in other economically comparable countries? Why, moreover, do studies show high rates of patient dissatisfaction, turnover within the nursing and allied health professions and physician burnout? And why, despite recent efforts to ease access to medical care, do 34 million people still have no health insurance, while over 176 million delay in getting needed care-- or put it off completely?"

A new WestHealth-Gallup (2019) survey has reported that 65 million adults said that cost kept them from seeking treatment for a medical problem, while nearly a quarter reduced other routine household spending to pay for health care and/or medicine. As many as 45% of those surveyed said they worried that a major health event could bankrupt them, including one in three families earning at least $180,000 annually. There is just one answer to each of these questions: there is no government-guaranteed right to health care in the U.S. This contrasts with all other high-income countries, and many others not as wealthy, which, through constitutional or legislative action provide their populations with “universal” health care: at least basic medical coverage and insurance against a financial catastrophe triggered by medical problems.

In contrast, the U.S. health-care system is an agglomeration of private corporations whose chief function is to generate profits, and only secondarily to promote health.

Can we still even look to government to solve these kinds of massive societal problems? Unfortunately, there really is no viable alternative. But a government completely defined by establishment conservatives? Not a chance that something positive is going to come out of that, is there? I've lost all faith in Pelosi-- 100% after the concentration-funding episode and her vicious attacks on AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. And Pallone? He's a crooked machine pol from New Jersey and I'm afraid Pramila is just dreaming if she thinks he's part of the solution to any problems. Maybe the Congressional Progressive Caucus should be planning a strategy right now for post-Pelosi congressional leadership. Otherwise we'll be stuck flatfooted again... with another bag of stinking, rotten shit the way the DCCC election wound up this cycle. There are plenty more in Congress just like Cheri Bustos, just like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, just like Kurt Schrader, just like Josh Gottheimer...

Portrait by Jack Spencer

Pelosi Promised If She Won A Majority, She Would Lower Drug Prices-- So What's The Hold Up?

The problem: Pallone and Pelosi

Back in January, when the new Democratic majority began taking over the reins of power in Congress, there was a hopeful spate of reports on drug prices-- like this one by Maureen Groppe in USA Today: Democrats examine drug prices, a first step in Congress' path to cut prescription costs. Groppe reported that "reducing the cost of medicine is one of the few goals" that both Democrats and Señor Trumpanzee have named a top priority. Even "Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the new chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has said he will try to find solutions... But the initiative is stronger on the Democratic side, said Rachel Sachs, an expert on drug pricing legislation at Washington University in St. Louis. 'The Democrats have advanced an affirmative agenda on what to do on drug pricing,' said Sachs, an associate professor of law. 'Different Democrats have different ideas about how to advance each of those goals, but they are all on board with those goals. Republicans have not really advanced an agenda in the same way.'"

No mention, though of the fact that the Democrat Pelosi has driving the ship, Frank Pallone of New Jersey, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a corrupt machine pol who has taken more more in bribes disguised as campaign contributions ($6,288,967) from the Industrial-Medical Complex than any other member of Congress in history. Because of Pallone and his corrupt cronies, the Democrats are stalemated and getting nowhere. Reporting for Vox, Li Zhou wrote yesterday, that the Democrats are supposed to unveil something within a month... but not even they know what it will be yet! "Reducing prescription drug prices was a key plank of House Democrats’ platform during the 2018 midterms. More than six months into their term, however, a concrete bill has yet to emerge from House leadership on the subject, and early excerpts Speaker Nancy Pelosi has floated have spurred progressive concern."

Curbing the rise of prescription drug prices is a problem that Democrats have wanted to solve for some time. Because of the way the industry is currently regulated, many pharmaceutical companies have established a monopoly on certain drugs and have significant leeway when it comes to determining costs for their medications.

As a result, the US boasts some of the highest prescription drug prices of any developed country, leading to shocking costs for thousands of drugs including insulin. Most recently, a gene therapy treatment from Novartis was priced at a whopping $2.1 million.

Despite Democrats’ consensus about the problem and the broad way to solve it (more government regulation), there’s disagreement among lawmakers about the best route to take.

Although Pelosi’s bill is not yet finalized, she has laid out some general outlines at various caucus meetings, including some recent updates that responded to progressive pushback: According to the pieces she’s revealed so far, the bill would enable Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to negotiate on prescription drugs covered by Medicare, but a final price would be decided by the Government Accountability Office if no agreement could initially be reached.

That approach differs significantly from two other bills, one introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the other by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Doggett and Brown’s legislation, which has garnered the support of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, would not include a GAO middle-man in negotiations. Additionally, it would enable a pharmaceutical company’s competitors to produce a generic version of a drug if a firm did not engage in negotiations fairly.

A key difference in the Democrats’ options-- of involving a third party in the negotiations, even if it’s a government body-- has been a point of contention, due to concerns about how this added step might make the process clunkier, while also limiting potential price reductions.

To top it all off, progressives argue that the process for developing this bill has been opaque-- although they’ve been heartened by the latest tweaks by House Leadership, Politico reports. According to a senior Democratic aide, the heads of the two major committees with jurisdiction over the legislation have been making the rounds with different Democratic constituencies as they try to flesh out the proposal.

“We need the same type of transparency in writing drug pricing legislation as for pricing drugs,” Doggett told Vox in a statement.

As lawmakers await the final version of a bill spearheaded by Pelosi, there are still outstanding questions about whether it will be ambitious enough... [T]he contours of the proposal as described during a caucus meeting in late May had spurred outcry from progressives who argued that the legislation didn’t go far enough to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable. Pelosi more recently signaled that she was making updates to the proposal in response to the critiques it’s received... Here’s what we know about the speaker’s plan so far, though these pieces have not been finalized:

• It would enable HHS Secretary Azar to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on the prices of drugs covered by Medicare.
• If the companies and HHS are not able to reach an agreement, the Government Accountability Office-- an independent agency that conducts research and advises Congress-- would help set a final price. (This is different from a binding arbitration process that had been proposed by the House speaker in an earlier version of the measure.)
• As a reference point for price-setting, GAO would use the median pricing for a particular drug in other countries around the world.
• The plan is calling for negotiations that target roughly 250 drugs, though it does not cap the number of drugs that would be part of negotiations.
• If a company does not comply with the negotiations for a particular drug, it would be penalized with an excise tax of 50 percent of its sales on the drug from the previous year.

While the GAO is seen as a better option than a third-party private arbiter (something that had been floated in prior talks) by critics of the leadership plan, there’s a lot of unanswered questions about how exactly the body would handle this job. The GAO is usually tasked with delivering oversight and other reports on government activities, not managing government negotiations.

...The idea of a drug minimum has also emerged as another point of contention. Previously, Pelosi had suggested a 25-drug floor, though the speaker has since said her plan would aim to target about 250 drugs. Critics had expressed worries that any number set by the legislation would instead become a de facto maximum, and negotiations would peter out once an agreement was reached on a select number of drugs.

Advocates in favor of establishing a drug floor suggest that it would force the HHS secretary to engage in negotiation on a set list of drugs, at the very least, and also argue that it would be very tough for Medicare to start this process without working on a more narrow universe of drugs first.

...Beyond the mechanics of the negotiations, one of progressives’ biggest concerns is whether the bill has an adequate backstop that will ding companies with a financial penalty if they don’t comply with the process.

Pelosi’s proposal does have some safeguards, as HuffPost reports:

Companies that refused to participate would be slapped with a tax equal to 50 percent of their prior year’s sales of the drug. Prices on all drugs covered under Medicare Parts B and D could not be increased going forward, and any company that still did so would have 100% of the price hike taxed away.

Doggett’s bill, however, which has more than 100 125 cosponsors, takes a much more aggressive tack on the matter.

If companies did not treat negotiations fairly, Doggett’s bill would enable HHS to issue licenses to competitors who would be able to produce the same drug as a generic, effectively eliminating a company’s monopoly on a particular drug.

This approach would push companies to approach negotiations around drug pricing more seriously-- and make sure that patients could still access a particular drug even if the company manufacturing it opted out of negotiations.

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, spoke for her members, saying "We wanted to make it very clear that it needs to be something bold that has teeth in it, and I think that’s what Rep. Doggett's bill has in it." Pelosi, who laughably claims to be a progressive because she once was, a couple of decades ago, will not allow that. She would rather support the source bribery for her members from the Sickness Industry than fulfill her oath to the voters who put her party in power in the House.

When Doggett introduced the same bill, Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act of 2018 (HR 6505), last year, he hard 104 co-sponsors. In February Doggett re-introduced the bill (H.R. 1046) and now has 125 co-sponsors, all the members of the House who are serious about lowering drug prices. Pelosi and her cronies are not among them and even though more than half the Democrats are behind the bill, she refuses to accept that her caucus has moved on and left her in the policy dust.

In 2020, San Francisco voters will have an alternative to Pelosi if she decides to run again. Shahid Buttar is, like she used to be many, many years ago, the real thing. "Prescription drug prices today reflect a broad-based market failure," he told me recently, "and allow pharmaceutical firms to gouge patients forced to secure their medicines at any cost. Too many Americans  ultimately risk bankruptcy or homelessness simply because they fell ill. Arbitration is literally 'arbitrary,' and we need more powerful tools to ensure that medicines remain affordable. HR 1046 is a thoughtful and important proposal to subject companies enjoying regulated monopolies to consider the public interest when setting pharmaceutical prices. San Franciscans deserve a representative who will stand up for their right not to be preyed upon by drug companies instead of throwing us under the bus."

Tomas Ramos is a progressive community activist in the South Bronx, who is aiming to replace retiring Congressman Jose Serrano. Last month he told me that "It's unconscionable to think that there are lawmakers who don't deem it necessary to pass common sense legislation to rein in the reach of big PhARMA. I support the progressive caucus' efforts to clamp down on this industry, and I look forward to joining them once I'm elected."

Aside from Pelosi, others on her craven and disgraceful leadership team who want to feather the drug makers' nests-- and refuse to co-sponsor Doggett's legislation-- are Steny Hoyer (MD), Ben Ray Luján (NM), Jim Clyburn (SC), Hakeem Jeffries (NY), Cheri Bustos (IL), Frank Pallone (NJ), Richard Neal (MA) and Katherine Clark (MA). SHAME! Freshman members who have signed on and are backing their own constituents over Pelosi's allies at PhRMA are:

• AOC (NY)
• Ilhan Omar (MN)
• Rashida Tlaib (MI)
• Ayassa Pressley (MA)
• Joe Neguse (CO)
• Katie Porter (CA)
• Andy Levin (MI)
• Katie Hill (CA)
• Jared Golden (ME)
• Andy Kim (NJ)
• Chuy Garcia (IL)
• Susan Wild (PA)
• Debra Haaland (NM)
• Veronica Escobar (TX)
• Ed Case (HI)
• Josh Harder (CA)
• Joseph Morelle (NY)
• Mary Gay Scanlon (PA)
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL)
• Tom Malinowski (NJ)
• Antonio Delgado (NY)
• Gil Cisneros (CA)
• Abigail Spanberger (VA)
• Dean Phillips (MN)
• Max Rose (NY)
• Elissa Slotkin (MI)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Jason Crow (CO)
• Susie Lee (NV)
• Sean Casten (IL)
• Elaine Luria (VA)
• Chris Pappas (NH)

Maybe someone should ask Central Valley freshman TJ Cox if he thinks voters in Bakersfield don't want more reasonable drug prices. Greg Stanton in Phoenix might be asked the same question. Ditto for "ex"-Republican Harley Rouda. Sure, Rouda is very, very wealthy but does he think voters in Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach don't want fairer prices for the prescription drugs they need? Lucy McBath is nuts if she thinks voters in Alpharetta, Sandy Springs and Roswell only care about gun control and not also about high drug prices. Maybe Donna Shalala has been hibernating this summer but voters in Miami want fair drug prices too and if she doesn't wake up and smell the roses she's going to wind up with even more time to sleep after November of 2020. The detestable Republican-lite brigade of Kendra Horn (OK), Sharice Davids (KS), Joe Cunningham (SC), Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Ben McAdams (UT), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Angie Craig (MN), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Colin Allred (TX), Mikie Sherrill (NJ) and Anthony Brindisi (NY) can always be expected to oppose anything and everything that's good for working families; so why should fair drug prices be any different? Only primaries can save us from Pelosi and her team and the mindless freshmen who do whatever she says with no regard for the folks back home-- which is exactly why she gave Cheri Bustos the OK to squelch primaries.

In Pelosi-World Drug Manufacturers Come First-- Democratic Voters Can Eat Dirt

Pelosi and Pallone-- allies of the Sickness Industry... betrayers of Democratic voters

Two powerful Pelosi lieutenants, Frank Pallone (NJ)-- the corrupt head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee-- and Richard Neal (MA)-- the corrupt head of the House Ways and Means Committee-- have both painted primary targets on their own backs. I want to share some numbers before we proceed. Since 1990, this is how much Pallone and Neal have taken in legalistic bribes from the Health Sector:

• Frank Palone- $6,152,155 (#1 in Congress)
• Richard Neal- $2,515,526

Since 1990, this is how much Pallone and Neal have taken in legalistic bribes from the drug manufacturing industry:

• Frank Palone- $674,920 (#4 in the House)
• Richard Neal- $400,700

Since 1990, this is how much Pallone and Neal have taken in legalistic bribes from the pharmaceutical companies:

• Frank Pallone- $1,377,855 (#3 in the House)
• Richard Neal- $780,271

The lesson here is not that Pallone is even more corrupt than Neal; both are plenty corrupt. And both owe their success inside Pelosi's Democratic House caucus to the Sickness Industry, for which they are always doing favors and are about to help out again. Pelosi and Hoyer and their henchmen-- Pallone and Neal among them-- have promised the Sickness Industry to never allow Medicare-For-All the become law and have promised the drug industry to never seriously cut prices.

Tangent Warning: A drug I need is called locasamide (VIMPAT). Under Republican Medicare Part D, that used to cost me $3,000/month. Then I realized I could buy it in Thailand for $600/month (same drug made in the same factory). I bought a lot last time I was there and just ran out. On Monday, my doctor suggested we check with Medicare again, hoping the price had come down. It didn't. It went up and now costs $3,400/a month. Why? Because they can. Because Congress lets them. Luckily, I like Thailand a lot-- and Turkey, which is another country where it sells very inexpensively. It sells inexpensively everywhere in the world in fact, in except in our country.

Pelosi wants to lower the prices for drugs a little bit, a kind of sop for the base that put her in the speaker's chair again. As you know, she's better than a Republican. Democrats are better than Republicans. My grandfather once explained to me when I was very young that the only thing in politics worse than a Democrat-- and they were less horrible then than they are now-- is a Republican. Yesterday afternoon, The Hill reported that the progressives in the House who Pelosi is trying to neuter are pressuring Pallone and Neal "to support a far-reaching drug pricing bill that would allow the government to strip drug companies of their monopolies if they refuse to sell drugs at a reasonable price."

The progressives also pushed back on a competing proposal under discussion that would allow an outside arbiter to help set drug prices, warning that the idea would be too weak.

The meeting comes as House Democrats try to bridge a divide that has opened up within the party on the best way to move forward on lowering drug prices, one of their signature issues.

Lawmakers said the chairmen listened during the meeting and expressed openness to different ideas while not offering  a plan of their own.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) office is working on a drug-pricing proposal that would use arbitration, though lawmakers leaving the meeting Tuesday did not mention the Democratic leader when criticizing the arbitration idea.

Progressive Caucus leaders said a bill using arbitration-- instead of the stronger mechanism of stripping monopolies-- could lose many of their votes.

"There are members in our caucus who, if it comes out to be a weak arbitration bill that doesn't include a comprehensive list of drugs, I would have a hard time seeing something like that personally, as well as many other members," Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, said after the meeting.

Neal did not rule out the stronger bill that the progressives want, which is sponsored by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), when leaving the meeting.

Asked about that bill, Neal said, "All of these will be parts of the conversation, yeah, and I think the conversation is going to continue."

Asked if he is wedded to the idea of using an outside arbiter to set drug prices, Neal simply said, "No."

Doggett said leaving the meeting that it was a positive discussion and said he appreciated that the chairmen were not ruling out ideas.

"I don't view arbitration as really negotiation, it is just a way of shifting responsibility to an unaccountable third party," Doggett said. 

Earlier, Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), co-chair with Pocan of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, spoke for her members, saying "We wanted to make it very clear that it needs to be something bold that has teeth in it, and I think that’s what Rep. Doggett's bill has in it." Pelosi, who laughably claims to be a progressive because she once was a couple of decades ago, will not allow that. She would rather support the source bribery for her members from the Sickness Industry than fulfill her oath to the voters who put her party in power in the House.

Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) is standing up to Pelosi and Her PhRMA allies

When Doggett introduced the same bill, Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act of 2018 (HR 6505), last year, he hard 104 co-sponsors. In February Doggett re-introduced the bill (H.R. 1046) and now has 122 co-sponsors, all the members of the House who are serious about lowering drug prices. Pelosi and her cronies are not among them and even though more than half the Democrats are behind the bill, she refuses to accept her caucus has moved on and left her in the policy dust.

Eva Putzova is a progressive Democrat running for a swing district seat in Arizona. The Democratic Party should be overjoyed. Instead toxic DCCC chair Cheri Bustos is snarling, menacing Eva's race, furious that she is challenging an "ex"-Republican Blue Dog, Tom O'Halleran, in a primary. Unlike the corrupt O'Halleran, Eva doesn't take corporate bribes-- and vows she never will. Yesterday she told us that she "will never accept a single penny from any corporation or a corporate PAC, because that's the only way we can ensure we legislate in the interest of the people and not corporations. We institutionalized, legalized and sanitized corruption and now we have to undo it by replacing incumbents who are bought by (not only) big PhRMA."

In 2020, San Francisco voters will have an alternative to Pelosi if she decides to run again. Shahid Buttar is, like she used to be many, many years ago, the real thing. "Prescription drug prices today reflect a broad-based market failure," he told me this morning, "and allow pharmaceutical firms to gouge patients forced to secure their medicines at any cost. Too many Americans  ultimately risk bankruptcy or homelessness simply because they fell ill. Arbitration is literally 'arbitrary,' and we need more powerful tools to ensure that medicines remain affordable. HR 1046 is a thoughtful and important proposal to subject companies enjoying regulated monopolies to consider the public interest when setting pharmaceutical prices. San Franciscans deserve a representative who will stand up for their right not to be preyed upon by drug companies instead of throwing us under the bus."

Tomas Ramos is a progressive community activist in the South Bronx, who is aiming to replace retiring Congressman Jose Serrano. Last night he told me that "It's unconscionable to think that there are lawmakers who don't deem it necessary to pass common sense legislation to rein in the reach of big PhARMA. I support the progressive caucus' efforts to clamp down on this industry, and I look forward to joining them once I'm elected."

Aside from Pelosi, others on her craven and disgraceful leadership team who want to feather the drug makers' nests-- and refuse to co-sponsor Doggett's legislation-- are Steny Hoyer (MD), Ben Ray Luján (NM), Jim Clyburn (SC), Hakeem Jeffries (NY), Cheri Bustos (IL), Frank Pallone (NJ), Richard Neal (MA) and Katherine Clark (MA). SHAME! Freshman members who have signed on and are backing their own constituents over Pelosi's allies at PhRMA are:

• AOC (NY)
• Ilhan Omar (MN)
• Rashiba Tlaib (MI)
• Ayassa Pressley (MA)
• Joe Neguse (CO)
• Katie Porter (CA)
• Andy Levin (MI)
• Katie Hill (CA)
• Jared Golden (ME)
• Andy Kim (NJ)
• Chuy Garcia (IL)
• Susan Wild (PA)
• Debra Haaland (NM)
• Veronica Escobar (TX)
• Ed Case (HI)
• Josh Harder (CA)
• Joseph Morelle (NY)
• Mary Gay Scanlon (PA)
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL)
• Tom Malinowski (NJ)
• Antonio Delgado (NY)
• Gil Cisneros (CA)
• Abigail Spanberger (VA)
• Dean Phillips (MN)
• Max Rose (NY)
• Elissa Slotkin (MI)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Jason Crow (CO)
• Susie Lee (NV)
• Sean Casten (IL)

Maybe someone should ask Central Valley freshman TJ Cox is he thinks voters in Bakersfield don't want more reasonable drug prices. Greg Stanton in Phoenix might be asked the same question. Ditto for "ex"-Republican Harley Rouda. Sure, Rouda is very, very wealthy but does he think voters in Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach don't want fairer prices for the prescription drugs they need? Lucy McBath is nuts if she thinks voters in Alpharetta, Sandy Springs and Roswell only care about gun control and not also about high drug prices. Maybe Donna Shalala has been hibernating this month but voters in Miami want fair drug prices too and if she doesn't wake up and smell the roses she's going to wind up with even more time to sleep after November of 2020. The detestable Republican-lite brigade of Kendra Horn (OK), Sharice Davids (KS), Joe Cunningham (SC), Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Ben McAdams (UT), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Angie Craig (MN), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Colin Allred (TX), Elaine Luria (VA), Mikie Sherrill (NJ) and Anthony Brindisi (NY) can always be expected to oppose anything and everything that's good for working families; so why should fair drug prices be any different? Only primaries can save us from Pelosi and her team and the mindless freshmen who do whatever she says with no regard for the folks back home-- which is exactly why she gave Cheri Bustos the OK to squelch primaries.

What a shame that Pelosi, Hoyer and Bustos decided to skip the hearing-- just like Kevin McCarthy and other opponents of Medicare-For-All: