As if we weren’t already aware that our nation’s experiment in ‘government by the people, for the people, and of the people’ hasn’t gone wildly astray, here’s a news item that more clearly explains the problems facing average Americans as they try to take back their government from the corrupt politicians and corporations that are turning back the hands on the clock of time to a place we thought we’d put behind us years ago.
According to an article in The Tennessean, Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R) engineered a backroom legislative maneuver to protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits.
In language tucked into a Defense Department appropriations bill, AT THE LAST MINUTE and WITHOUT APPROVAL OF A HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, Frist and Hastert proposed giving immunity to companies that develop vaccines in the event there is a declared public health emergency. Basically, what they are asking is that their big pharmaceutical donors be immune from any repercussions arising from their producing, marketing, and dispensing vaccines or other health “countermeasures” that result in serious harm or death to users of said product.
Aside from the obvious pandering to high money donors at the expense of the ‘real American’ citizens, there is another issue at stake here, namely the fashion in which this language was slipped into the bill itself.
From the article: “some say going around the longstanding practice of bipartisan House-Senate conference committees’ working out compromises on legislation is a dangerous power grab by Republican congressional leaders that subverts democracy.”
While apparently not illegal, it is highly unusual for tactics such as these to be used as they ameliorate the entire reason for compromise committees to meet in the first place.
And the text of the inserted bill was reportedly written by representatives for the pharmaceutical industry and given to the lawmakers for insertion. It is somewhat germane to remind readers that Frist has received over $270,000 in campaign donations from the pharmaceutical industry since 1989.
Several problems are presented here: (a) lawmakers apparently are not writing laws themselves, but letting donors and staffers do this work, a total shirk of their actual job. They seem to have come to the conclusion that we vote them into office to collect donations that will keep them there instead of working out legislation that protects and promotes the average American’s concerns; (b) lawmakers are routinely tricked by their own leadership when it comes to working out legislation. According to the report, members of the bi-cameral committee were told that this bit of legislation was NOT in the final bill. They left the meeting only to return to the floor to vote on the bill that then included the language in question; (c) large corporations are buying off elected officials to create situations for themselves that no average citizen could get away with, such as blanket immunity for creating faulty products or services; (d) omnibus bills that contain legislation that is not even remotely related to the main thrust of the bills are common place these days and dilute the oversight power of individual members or watchdog groups until it is too late to change things.
This law was signed by the president on December 30th, 2005. So if by chance you get a bad batch of vaccine for any reason, too bad for you. You have no recourse against the makers of the vaccine for your or your loved ones ill effects.
And all this in the name of protecting America and of government for the people.
Oh yes…this piece of information came to light because of complaints by a Republican staffer, so sorry GOPers, can’t blame this on the ‘liberal media bias.”
(cross posted at Bring It On)
This entry was posted on Monday, May 8th, 2006 at 6:27 pm and is filed under Democracy, Government, Health, Politics, Reform.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:17 am
Right on.
May 9th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
While I have problems with the anti-democratic process of the insert, liability protection is essential.
Every major US vaccine maker has pulled out of making flu vaccine; only Chiron and Aventis Pasteur are left.
For three years running, we have had major shortages, and we have been damn lucky we have not been hit with a bad strain.
Vaccine work is difficult, expensive and yes, you have a (low) chance of bad reactions and infection. But that risk is way out of proportion to the benefit of having a vaccine available.
Next year, during flu season, we will once again have a shortage, and we will begging the Europeans for any vaccine they can spare. Their vaccines will have the higher risks than ours (less oversight – which is why Chiron produces their vaccines over there).
Theoretically, a bad flu season could lead to the deaths of thousands of unvaccinated kids.
I’m damn tired of trying to get flu vaccine for my kids because there is none available. Last year, my four year old went without so that my toddler wcould be protected.
All so the trial lawyers could keep on suing….
May 9th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
I have to say, I’m of two minds on this one.
On the one hand, I completely agree that this was a highly unusual and unethical way to get this legislation passed.
On the other hand, it is not unprecedented to offer this sort of protection in the case of emergencies. Good Samaritan laws, for example, are designed to protect people from prosecution who try to help someone in dire need.
I have to think that if this were REALLY a huge give-away to Big Pharma, they’d have language in there that capped liability in ALL cases. To put laws in place that say “Look, if we have an emergency and we need to move quickly, there may be some shortcuts necessary for the greater good.”
I don’t particularly like the lack of repercussions, it does sort of let the pharma companies have carte blanche in terms of safety and effecacy. But if a pandemic hits this continent and there’s a very real possibility of large percentages of the population dying off, there is definitely a balance to be struck. On the one hand, preventing snake-oil salesmen who sell useless or even harmful products. On the other, unnecessarily slowing down the speed with which new vaccines can be made and released, while every hour of delay means massive death.
Nevertheless, I guess I do have to agree that if there were really no ulterior motive, if this were really just in the public good, it should have been debated on the floor of the Congress and gone through the normal channels.
I just wanted to point out that it isn’t as cut and dried as some of the other scandals relating to the current Administration.
Liam.
May 9th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
i think abramoff proved your point clearly that government is thus: The spoils go to those with the dough…
May 10th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Great post Ken, when I read down to the word FRIST I knew something was wrong and considering his back-ground I knew he would be cozy to the drug and medical lobby. I think also this adding to needs to be put a stop to, but until then, bills will be like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna git.
May 16th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
(responses)
Shea- Sad though, isn’t it?
John- I agree that some level of liability protection is necessary, and alluded to this in several posts on Health care and Judicial reform some time back. (Go archive diving if you are curious.) But blanket protection is not only specious, but an unwise green light to manufacturers to ignore safety concerns and go only for the bottom line.
Second, although we’ve had flu vaccine shortages, the fact remains that no flu shot can really protect you from the flu the way other vaccines do. At best, you get minimized symptoms due to the ever mutating nature of flu. In general, I am in favor of vaccines, even with their associated risks, but don’t think that those who do suffer adverse vaccine reactions should be simply out of luck. Often the adverse effects are very costly to the finances of those affected.
My rant here was primarily about the way this action progressed, which was quite sneaky, and less about the law itself, though I obviously have a few problems with that as well.
Good to hear from you again.
Liam- It is one thing to help someone in dire need, of which those who get a preemptive flu shot are not. It is another to excuse any manufacturer from all liability for their product, especially when those doing the excusing are also benefitting fromt he industry they seek to protect.
Further, if a flu pandemic did strike, there is no reason to believe that a flu vaccine would be all that effective. Most of the time they only minimize symptoms, not prevent the disease itself. And as flu virus are well know mutators, the vaccine could easily have a low rate of efficacy. All the more reason for the pharma to tinker a bit more and keep trying untested products on the population at large without any recourse.
We could have easily crafted ’emergency’ laws that made sense in the light of day instead of this dark of night give-away, which as I said above is my main beef here. Where was the honest dialogue? Hidden beneath a pile of cash, that’s where.
I know this isn’t the biggest fish to fry, just another piece of the growing lack of representation we get with the current crop of politicians in office these days.
Glad you stopped by again.
Windspike- Yoou got that right. At least, that’s the configuration we have today. Not really the way it’s supposed to be though.
Floyd- Nice to hear from you again. Yes, we really do need to pass a law making bills single issue and not these big omnibus bills that everyone and their mother throws some piece of legislation into.