« COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE PRESS RELEASE: “‘REAL’ AD COUNTERS LATEST LIES FROM AL FRANKEN” | Home | MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “HOLD ON A SECOND, ASHWIN†#2 »
MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “HOLD ON A SECOND, ASHWIN”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | September 18, 2008
The MN GOP issued a very tough release this morning in response to the the lies being pushed by Madia’s liberal allies and fundraisers. As he made clear in the debate on Tuesday evening, Representative Erik Paulsen doesn’t support privatizing Social Security. Paulsen in fact wants to preserve Social Security and also supports negotiating (and actually reforming the process) to lower prescription drug costs. Madia was dead wrong when he said the CBO estimated “$30 billion a year…” savings. Even the DFL didn’t make that silly claim.
Thankfully for residents of the 3rd CD, the MN GOP is here to set the record straight and exposed the lies of Madia and his liberal allies and fundraisers in the blogosphere.
###
St. Paul – Republican Party of Minnesota Chair Ron Carey today released the following statement following DFL candidate Ashwin Madia’s repeated false statements regarding savings from pharmaceutical negotiations, falsely citing the Congressional Budget Office and distorting Paulsen’s own words.
“Ashwin Madia falsely contradicted Erik Paulsen when he said that the Congressional Budget Office reported there would be $30 billion in savings if Medicare Part D were to negotiate for drug prices. Rep. Paulsen was correct: the Congressional Budget Office has said it would only have a negligible effect on drug prices. In addition, the MN DFL falsely claimed that Rep. Paulsen supports privatizing Social Security when he clearly stated ‘Social Security absolutely has to be preserved and protected, without a doubt.’
“Whether it’s lying about Rep. Paulsen’s support for Social Security privatization, lying about the CBO’s analysis of Medicare Part D, or lying to DFLers about for whom he voted in the 2000 election, Madia and his allies have shown he cannot be trusted by residents of the 3rd Congressional District.â€
“Now Hold On A Second, The Congressional Budget Office Has Said That You’re Gonna Save $30 Billion A Year…” – Ashwin Madia In Response To Rep. Paulsen Saying The Congressional Budget Office Found Negotiations Would Have A “Negligible Effect†On Medicare Costs. (Ashwin Madia, AARP debate, September 16, 2008)
Congressional Budget Office Letter: “By itself, giving the Secretary broad authority to negotiate drug prices would not provide the leverage necessary to generate lower prices than those obtained by PDPs and thus would have a negligible effect on Medicare drug spending.†(Congressional Budget Office Letter to Sen. Ron Wyden, April 10, 2007, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/79xx/doc7992/DrugPriceNegotiation.pdf)
Madia Allies Falsely Claim Paulsen Wouldn’t Protect Social Security. “Similarly, Paulsen, who has accepted thousands of dollars from the insurance and banking industries, refused to rule out privatizing Social Security… (DFL Press Release: “DFL Party: ‘Without A Doubt’ – Paulsen Is No Friend To Minnesota’s Seniors,’ www.dfl.org, September 17, 2008)
Paulsen Called For Social Security Preservation In Debate. “Social Security absolutely has to be preserved and protected, without a doubt. That is a contract. That is a bond that has been made with workers through the government. That needs to be carried on. The government should provide any incentives. I support incentives to provide additional savings that can be done on top of regular retirement, whether it’s through additional 401k savings, universal savings accounts, that’s appropriate. We have almost essentially a negative savings rate here in the United States and people need to set aside a little bit more money for their long term retirement.†(Erik Paulsen, AARP debate, September 16, 2008)
Ashwin Madia Claimed He Voted For Al Gore In 2000 In Lead-Up To DFL Endorsement. “DFL 3rd District congressional candidate Ashwin Madia says he misspoke when he told Minnesota Public Radio that he voted for Al Gore in 2000. Madia now says he voted for George W. Bush that year. … MPR: 2000 election, of course, McCain wasn’t the nominee. Did you actually vote for Bush in 2000? Madia: No. MPR: You didn’t? You voted for Al Gore? Madia: Yes.†(Curtis Gilbert, “Madia’s Misstatement,â€MPR’s Polinaut Blog, April 16, 2008, http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2008/04/madias_misstate.shtml)
###
This is a reminder that I am a part-time research consultant to Erik Paulsen for Congress. Minnesota Democrats Exposed is my personal blog and it is not created, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by any political party, candidate, or candidate’s committee
Topics: Ashwin Madia | 29 Comments »
29 Responses to “MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “HOLD ON A SECOND, ASHWIN””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
at least the conversation around this race is staying centered on policy. quite the shocking development this close to election day i would say.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Hold on a second MnGOP. CBO letter you cite is specific to H.R. 4 which, incidently, cripples negotiation (which is why it concluded that it would have little impact on prices. H.R. 4 contains this language:
Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to establish or require a particular formulary.”
Translation: the government can’t say I won’t buy your drug. It’s not exactly easy to negotiate prices when one of the parties can’t walk away form the table. It’s the exact same power a company like Wal-Mart exercises. Give me X or I won’t buy it.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I understand that Madia erred (lied) about the CBO number, but I question the wisdom of Paulsen’s positions of:
– drug negotiation legislation what would remove key drugs from the list of medications available to anyone in a federal government health program?
That’s pretty stupid.
– rejecting real efforts to reform the broken and bankrupt social security system.
That’s also pretty stupid.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Again, Chestnut, why do republicans not trust the free market when it comes to giving the federal government the power to use its market position to negotiate prices?
Would you prefer it if Blue Cross (or whatever you private insurer) is couldn’t negotiate cost of treatment with providers or drug companies?
It’s illogical not to allow the Federal Government who is the customer of the drugs for delivery to Medicare to not negotiate its prices.
Could it reduce choice? Yes. Just like it does/could when you have any insurance. Will Medicare be able to eliminate necessary drugs that lack an alternative? No, just like your private insurance.
But, hamstringing the Federal government form being able to negotiate a price (and just accept what the drug companies will give them) and further hamstringing the government by saying you can ask for lower prices but you can’t alter formularies goes against every concept of free market Republicans usually hold dear.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
PlymouthDem: The point of the release is to correct Ashwin’s false statements from the debate and expose the lies of the DFL and from Madia’s fundraisers that Paulsen wants to privatize Social Security and that doesn’t supporting negotiating to lower prescription drug costs.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
So, Michael, what is it. Is it Paulsen’s position now that he will not privatize social security and wants to allow the Federal government full power to negotiate drug prices?
Because his record and his statements in the debate sure as hell aren’t clear on either point and it certainly would be a break from the Republican party (minus Norm who apparently recently changed his position).
September 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
… I ask because it would be awesome if Paulsen would actually take a position on an issue and be clear about it as compared to trying to dance around his previous record.
Does, for example, Paulsen now disagree with his previous vote to disallow the state of Minnesota to negotiate drug prices?
September 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“Why do republicans not trust the free market when it comes to giving the federal government the power to use its market position to negotiate prices?”
First, that’s a finely spun statement. Government price controls are anathema to the free market concept. Second, the direct result of your “price negotiation policy” is really worse than just a simple undermining of our economic system — it will ELIMINATE KEY DRUGS from the menu. What good are cheap drugs if the drugs you need aren’t an option?
Look to the VA where drug rationing is already the net result of its price negotiations.
“Would you prefer it if Blue Cross (or whatever you private insurer) is couldn’t negotiate cost of treatment with providers or drug companies?”
You really don’t understand the difference between government and private enterprise, do you? Your ignorance is staggering. Moreover, because BSBC negotiates its prices, it’s insured don’t have access to certain drugs, procedures and care facilities.
That you want want to take that service denial to a national scale seems pretty stupid.
“Will Medicare be able to eliminate necessary drugs that lack an alternative?”
Actually, yes. If the manufacture won’t sell at the price the government fixes to, the drug will be eliminated. Again, look at the VA for your model.
The depths of MouthDem’s stupidity are limitless.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
[...] post by WP-AutoBlog Import 108316 Add to del.icio.us Digg This Subscribe to RSS feed Leave a [...]
September 18th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
So Michael, did you prepare this post while you were “on the clock” for Paulsen or on your own time? See why your petty little disclosures mean nothing? You’re a paid political blogger and no amount of spin in your disclaimers will ever change that.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“First, that’s a finely spun statement. Government price controls are anathema to the free market concept.”
Again, if this is the case, Wal-Mart is anti-free market. Wal-Mart says I will pay X and only X. If you don’t give it to me for X, then I will buy Y. That works when there is a Y. The government will have no more power to negotiate than Wal-Mart when there lacks an alternative. In those situations, the drug company holds the cards. But, to counter-act the high costs you would expect when Medicare has to buy a drug because it is (a) needed; and (b) lacks an alternative it should be given the power to negotiate drug companies does when there is a Y.
“Second, the direct result of your “price negotiation policy†is really worse than just a simple undermining of our economic system — it will ELIMINATE KEY DRUGS from the menu. What good are cheap drugs if the drugs you need aren’t an option?”
Drugs don’t disappear for two reasons: (1) Most people aren’t on medicare, meaning, there are plenty of other markets for those drugs; and (2) the drug company can lower its price to preserve its market share. Companies don’t have to sell to Wal-Mart, but, if they don’t they are choosing to give up some significant markets. The Federal government is opening markets for drug companies. They can choose to participate if they want. In the alternative, the Federal Government could find itself without a drug if it isn’t willing to meet the market demand. That’s the free market at play.
Notably, there’s always the private insurance market which provides an avenue and market for drugs that don’t want to play with Medicare. You want drug X? Come over here, we’ll sell it to you. Again, the free market at play.
Look to the VA where drug rationing is already the net result of its price negotiations. ”
Yes, look at it. Less selection (like a lot of big insurance plans) but significantly lower prices. The key, however, is that the selection is adequate. You don’t walk into the VA and here, man, we could totally solve that headache, but, we don’t do pain relief drugs.
“You really don’t understand the difference between government and private enterprise, do you? Your ignorance is staggering. ”
I understand that they operate nothing like one another now. Putting the government in the same boots as Blue Cross would allow it to operate like Blue Cross. Ie, negotiate its prices.
Again, do you not think Blue Cross creates price ceilings for drugs? Those ceilings are directly proportional to its market power (they say to drug companies want us to buy your drugs and make it accessible to X number of patients? Meet this price). Drug companies get the same power back. They say, want your customers to have access to our drug? Pay this price. The Federal government should get the exact same relationship as Blue Cross does to providers.
“Moreover, because BSBC negotiates its prices, it’s insured don’t have access to certain drugs, procedures and care facilities. ”
Exactly. So? You want more insurance? Go get it. But, you’re not going to be left for dead under BCBS. You are paying less because they can bully suppliers. That means you might not have access to a Lexus at Wal Mart, but, you’ll get your necessities a helluva lot cheaper.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Can someone remind me who it is that offers $4 generic prescription drugs?
September 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
It’s fun to watch you chase your tail Mouth. Painful, but kinda fun.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I’m still waiting for Michael to tell me what the hell Paulsen’s position is on these two issues (privatizing social security and allowing negotiations).
Is he for negotiating even though he was against them (ie, like Coleman). Is he against negotiations? Is he for privatizing social security? What does this even mean? “Social Security absolutely has to be preserved and protected, without a doubt.” Many republicans say that right before saying “therefore we should privatize it.”
September 18th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
.. I find it humorous that apparently even Paulsen’s research boy doesn’t even know what Paulsen’s position is on these two very straight forward issues. He either supports them or he doesn’t.
Say what you will about Madia, but, at least he takes a position on issues.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“Wal-Mart says I will pay X and only X. If you don’t give it to me for X, then I will buy Y.”
Oh, so not buying X is proof that X won’t be unavailable how? Are you kidding me with this argument?
By the way… they’re called “formularies” for a reason. They may generally treat similar symptoms, and belong to the same class of drugs but that doesn’t mean their comparable… or even suggested for the same disease in different patients.
“Drugs don’t disappear for two reasons: (1) Most people aren’t on medicare, meaning, there are plenty of other markets for those drugs;”
You’re not sure what you’re arguing anymore are you? … I never said the drugs would disappear… but they will NOT be available to Medicare/medicade recipients… which is the same thing, for those people.
“The Federal government is opening markets for drug companies. They can choose to participate if they want.”
Yep, and if it’s not profitable enough, they won’t… and your medicare recipients will be without the drugs they need.
Thanks for agreeing.
“In the alternative, the Federal Government could find itself without a drug if it isn’t willing to meet the market demand. That’s the free market at play.”
I got no response to that, other than to say that’s the most non-sensicle statement you’ve ever made… and that’s saying something.
If you refuse to meet market demand, that’s pretty much anathema to free market principles.
You clearly don’t know what the hell you’re talking about… and making shit up as you go along.
“Notably, there’s always the private insurance market which provides an avenue and market for drugs that don’t want to play with Medicare. You want drug X? Come over here, we’ll sell it to you. Again, the free market at play.”
That’s a good argument for dismantling medicare and leaving the whole thing to private insurers.
“Yes, look at it. Less selection (like a lot of big insurance plans) but significantly lower prices.”
What good are lower prices if I can’t get the drugs I need?
“The key, however, is that the selection is adequate.”
So, in addition to drug rationing, you’re also comfortable with lower quality. Thanks for clearing that up.
I think the rest of your comments speak for themselves. Specifically, it is clear that you have not even a fifth-grader’s grasp of the free market system.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
It’s pretty pathetic to see the brave Captain Responsible resort to fear mongering about social security to try and sway elderly voters (and the seriously misinformed).
What is his brave responsible plan for fixing social security? Will he do it on a case by case basis?
Madia is turning into a joke candidate.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
PlymouthDem: The record from the debate is clear: Paulsen is against privatizing Social Security and he is for negotiating to lower prescription drug costs. Ashwin Madia’s liberal allies and fundraisers are lying about Paulsen’s record. If you can’t read the release above, I can’t be of any further help to you.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“You’re not sure what you’re arguing anymore are you? … I never said the drugs would disappear… but they will NOT be available to Medicare/medicade recipients… which is the same thing, for those people.”
They also can’t get a sex change operation. So? This is exactly the same scenario anyone in a large insurance program faces. You get your necessities, you don’t get all of the frills. Some programs have less frills than others. If you really want drug X vs. drug Y than you can go out any buy it. But, medicare is not going to give you drug Y when only drug X will work for a medically necessary treatment. That would be illegal. Notably, they could alter the formularies in the status quo if this were really a threat.
But, given the scenario where there are alternative solutions, you’ve provided zero reason why the Federal government shouldn’t be allowed to negotiate between competing options.
“What good are lower prices if I can’t get the drugs I need?”
Again, you attempt to insert the word “need” into it. That’s a false problem. You have access to needs. You don’t have access to all of the possible alternatives for dealing with that need.
“So, in addition to drug rationing, you’re also comfortable with lower quality. Thanks for clearing that up.”
Access to 10 drugs that do the same thing at a much higher cost has nothing to do with quality. Thanks for playing though.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“The record from the debate is clear: Paulsen is against privatizing Social Security and he is for negotiating to lower prescription drug costs.”
Hurray! Paulsen finally has a position (even though that position is directly in conflict with how he has previously voted.) H.J. p. 4367, 5/10/01.
It’s nice to see the Republicans (Coleman AND now Paulsen) coming around to the what Democrats have argued for for years.
You know, except Chestnut.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“What is his brave responsible plan for fixing social security? Will he do it on a case by case basis?”
What’s Paulsens’s? Apparently nothing since he believes “Social Security absolutely has to be preserved.”
September 18th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Here’s Madia’s fix
“As a former Marine and Iraq vet, I will fix social security responsibly, on a case-by-case basis.”
September 18th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Is anyone else laughing as hard as I am to MouthDem’s tail chasing?
Wow.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Here’s the outcome of the Democrat answer to high drug prices:
1) Elimination of access to key medications.
2) Elimination of access to NEW medications.
3) Forced use of less effective “alternatives.”
4) Lower quality care.
5) A prescription drug benefit that fails to address the healthcare requirements of his beneficiaries.
That’s change I can believe in.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Oh snap! Madia got his ass fact checked. Big leagues, son. Take your ball and go home.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
[...] Paulsen spokester Michael Brodkorb (and still, paid Paulsen staffer) put up a press release from the MNGOP which is basically garbage. In fact, the best use I can think of for it so far, is lining the cage of that bunny to the [...]
September 18th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
[...] MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “HOLD ON A SECOND, ASHWIN” | [...]
September 18th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Isn’t it a little late in the campaign for Eric Paulsen to remain so petrified of public opinion that he won’t take a position on anything?
Having the GOP do his dirty work on this one proves that he has not made up his mind on these very important issues, and wants the wiggle room to say that he didn’t actually stand behind what the GOP was saying should the polls require him to do so.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
[...] The GOP yesterday gleefully attacked Ashwin Madia’s plan to reduce the cost of Medicare by negotiating drug prices. Before I even go any farther, let me ask: is there anyone out there who seriously thinks that negotiating better prices would somehow fail to save money? I mean, common sense is common sense, right? But fighting hard against common sense and reality, the MN GOP released the following statement: Ashwin Madia falsely contradicted Erik Paulsen when he said that the Congressional Budget Office reported there would be $30 billion in savings if Medicare Part D were to negotiate for drug prices. Rep. Paulsen was correct: the Congressional Budget Office has said it would only have a negligible effect on drug prices. (via Republican Press Releases ‘R Us) [...]