The Only Dem "Tax Fake Out" Is From Hillary

Megan McArdle of Bloomberg News claimed in a recent article ('The Democrats' Tax Fake Out', D. Post, Jan. 10),  that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to jump start new programs (worker training, free college, preschool care etc.) but "are probably not going to be able to pay for it with the piddly sums from raising higher taxes on the rich".  She goes on to claim:

"Yet both of them seem wedded to the idea that taxes should not rise significantly for anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year"

Of course, this has since been skewered as Bernie made it clear in a town hall meeting last night (and based on his tax plan released over a week ago) that the middle class WILL have to pay more in taxes, if they expect to reap the enhanced benefits he has proposed.  It is actually Hillary who's vowed middle class taxes won't go up, and even proposed tax cuts. But then she is also the Dem candidate who has indicated we can't afford to expand Social Security or offer free college to deserving kids. After all, you only get what you pay for...or don't!

McCardle cites Bryce Covert of Think Progress "who does a good job of making the case that Democratic priorities can't be funded without broader based taxes.".

McCardle then begs the question - based on Covert's lack of explanation - of why the Democrats are "avoiding this obvious arithmetic". But again, it's Hillary doing so, not Sen. Sanders. And the only reason to dodge higher taxes for the middle class is the same as it was after Obama got elected and the Bush tax cuts finally faced expiration: lower taxes could be used as political opportunism. But Hillary, like Obama, wouldn't inform voters it would mean cuts to their favorite program later. Hence, Obama's 2010-11 advocacy of Social Security cuts (via the chained CPI) and his "Debt Commission". Bait and switch anyone?

But this isn't some new revelation. As early as 2009-10, The Financial Times' Clive Crook warned that continuing the Bush tax cuts would be a serious error, and undermine Democratic -backed social programs.  He showed using carefully documented math - from stats parsed from the Government Accounting Office- that keeping the Bush tax cuts in place (which the Dems did for two years) would have serious repercussions. He was right, and we then saw the chained CPI appear as well as cuts to the SNAP (food stamps) program over two successive years.

I argued in several posts that Americans needed to stop falling for this horse shit and accept higher taxes like Europeans do,especially  if they wished to protect social insurance and other domestic benefits programs.

Last night,  in a Town Hall meeting response to a blunt question from CNN's Chris Cuomo -  on  wanting "big government back" -  Bernie correctly and deftly dodged the acceptance of the loaded language and instead vowed he'd protect the American middle class from further inequality. He also explained how this might translate - in the case of his single payer health program  - into maybe $5,000 a year higher taxes. But before the audience had a collective heart attack he reminded them this would be in place of paying higher private health care insurance premiums of say $10,000 - as many families are doing in exchanges and health coops under the ACA. (Or if they don't have the benefit of a federal subsidy under the ACA and hence have the option of only higher deductible plans).

So pick your damned poison. DO you want $5k higher taxes or $10k yearly premiums (likely to increase each year, as they are doing now - according to the WSJ - by an estimated 9.4%). Sanders also did the math for Cuomo and the audience noting the arithmetic results in a $5k savings.

Another woman asked about the high drug prescription costs and again, Bernie - as he did in Dem debate 2 - vowed to rein in the Big PhRmA price gougers.  His plan, again, is overhauling the entire PhRmA price gouging constellation and forcing them to simplify as well as rationalize drug prices. There is also no reason U.S. seniors have to pay so much more than those in other nations. Why should our seniors and other citizens foot the bill for others around the world? Well, because we allow it to happen!

Thus, the ACA was forged by crafting an $80b deal with PhRmA to disallow any import of cheaper drugs from Canada, as well as prohibiting Medicare from bargaining for lower drug prices like the VA. All of this would change under a Bernie Sanders' administration. The savings to Medicare alone, just to allow drug price bargaining like the VA - would save $200b over ten years.

Sanders' simplified drug plan, such as for Medicare, would also obviate the need for so many seniors to do twenty five hours of research each year to ensure they're not getting screwed over by keeping their current drug plan under Part D. (Which program originated under the Bushies' 'Medicare Modernization Act' - one of the biggest corporate giveaways ever.). In many cases while the senior finds the monthly premiums do go down, the tiers of the drugs he needs are changed so he still ends up paying more. Only careful research, consuming many hours of time, enables him to see another Part D plan may be better so he signs on - but then they may change tiers for their own drugs next time!

Bernie's solution would dispense with this smoke and mirrors BS as well as eliminate the notorious 'donut hole' once and for all.  The $64 question is whether Americans are grown up enough to accept higher taxes to solve these issues, or would they rather keep lower taxes - as well as sniff for tax cuts - but face cuts to their social programs later.

Time will tell, and the first look will be after the Iowa caucuses next week.

Big PhRMa Extortionists Exposed: Charging $10,000 A Month For Cancer Drugs

It is bad enough in these United States when an older person on Medicare,  like I am, has had to shell out nearly $797 over the past two months for assorted prescription meds, including one (colcichine) expressly for gout, and others for gum infection and ear antibiotic drops. Where the hell is the ability of Medicare to bargain for the lowest drug prices like the VA does?

Anyway, as tough as I may believe I have it (including the fact colcichine is listed as a "generic" in the drug formulary) it is nowhere near as bad as cancer patients, especially women with breast cancer. They are now faced with a $9,850 a month tab for a new Pfizer drug called Ibrance (see graphic).  The drug is touted as damned near a life saver given the extension of life it affords. The question is: Can a Walmart clerk earning about $10.50 an hour afford it? I doubt it.

Which makes the front page story in yesterday's Wall Street Journal almost make you want to puke. Because it describes blow by blow, tactic by tactic, exactly how Pfizer (which also makes Viagra) decided to arrive at that whopping drug price. I mean, the story almost reads like a crime or horror piece except that it's real, and the crime - massive price gouging - is legal.

Before we get to that, let's concede this drug IS remarkable. But that it should be priced at nearly $10k a month is debatable. According to the piece it was originally called PD-0332991 and "grew out of work on proteins that help regulate how cells form in divide". The research "won a Nobel Prize" and "set off a hunt by drugmakers to put the brakes on the overactive proteins called cyclic-dependent kinases."

Pfizer's specific novel compound "targeted advanced breast cancer fueled by estrogen  - a disease for which existing therapies offered only modest extension of life"

SO far so good, but the intriguing aspect was in setting the price for those advanced breast cancer patients. Originally some oncologists recommended the base price be near Herceptin (at $4,775 a month) but the Pfizer geniuses argued that it "wasn't a good benchmark" because it was so much older than Ibrance and "taken differently."

Who knew that "taking it differently" or the time available could translate to nearly $5,000 a month higher cost? I didn't!

Before getting on to how Pfizer exactly set their price, the WSJ author explodes one of the more common tropes, that costs are based on research. Forget that. In fact, as per the article (p. A1):

"Drug companies routinely raise the cost of older medicines and then peg new ones to these levels".


In other words, they game the system, and this is one huge reason medical costs are spiraling out of control.

In the case of Pfizer's pricing of Ibrance, it (p. A12):

"emerged out of a complex analysis of the new drug - with this one's particular set of benefits and risks, as well as the cost of potential competing drugs and the sentiments of cancer doctors."

Well, Pfizer's gurus adjudged the risks and benefits at least in line with others available such as Affinitor from Novartis AG. When Novartis raised Affinitor's price by 9.9% on Jan. 6, Pfizer briefly had second thoughts pricing its drug as high (Affinitor was then $687 above Ibrance).

There was then the issue of doctor acceptance and that hinged on not hitting the critical $10,000 a month  level "which would require physicians to document medical necessity."

Pfizer definitely wished to avoid that higher paper work threshold so priced its drug just below the $10,000 level, at $9,850.

The WSJ piece claims that:

"Sales are off to a strong start. The drug has been taken by 18,000 cancer patients so far"

And I will wager that nearly all those women taking it are one percenters at least. (Pfizer talks about "subsidies" for low wage people but this is hard to reconcile with their claim that Ibrance will "eventually bring in billions of dollars per year".)

Mainly on the backs of women at death's door who will feel like they have a gun to their heads if they don't cough up what these drug extortionists want!