Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Marcy Wheeler does a brilliant job of mining the transcripts of the healthcare reform debate to show that Republican legislators were literally reading from a script written for them by lobbyists from Genentech. One after another they took to the podium to parrot the exact same phrases Genentech wanted them to parrot. From a post entitled What a Roomful of Republican Biotech-Paid Whores Looks Like, here's the first example:
"I oppose this bill but love the appropriate balance it gives to monopolistic biologics"Joe Wilson
I have criticized many of the provisions of this bill (H.R. 3962) and rightfully so. But in fairness, I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.
Jerry Moran
Mr. Speaker, after reviewing H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, listening to the concerns of Kansans, and visiting Kansas hospitals to speak with doctors, nurses, patients, and administrators, I have concluded that this bill will be harmful to Kansas and I strongly oppose it. However, I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options to patients without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.
Kay Granger
Mr. Speaker, I have criticized the majority of the provisions in H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and I will vote against it. However, I am pleased that H.R. 3962, as well as the Republican Substitute Amendment that I support, both include language relating to biosimilar products.
Lee Terry
Mr. Speaker, I have criticized many of the provisions of this bill and rightfully so. But in fairness, I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.
Ted Poe
I am strongly against H.R. 3962, and I will vote against it should it come to a vote on the House floor. However, I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.
Blaine Luetkemeyer
Mr. Speaker, I have criticized many of the provisions of this bill and rightfully so. However, one bi-partisan area that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower-cost options to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country that is included in both the underlying bill, which I strongly oppose, and the Republican substitute, which I intend to support, are the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products.
Lynn Jenkins
Mr. Speaker, I have criticized many of the provisions of this bill and rightfully so. However, I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.
Mike Conaway
Mr. Speaker, I have criticized many of the provisions of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and with good reason. However, I believe that the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.
There were actually many more of them. Here's another:
"Creating a pathway with incentives"Joe Wilson
Creating a pathway for new products that doesn't destroy the ability or the incentives for innovator companies to develop breakthrough technologies and at the same time providing a safe and effective way to bring competition to benefit patients is a laudable achievement.
Jerry Moran
Creating a pathway for new products that does not destroy the ability or the incentives for innovator companies to develop breakthrough technologies and, at the same time providing a safe and effective way to bring competition to benefit patients and encourage treatments, is a necessary objective.
Kay Granger
Creating a pathway for new products that doesn't destroy the ability or the incentives for innovator companies to develop breakthrough technologies and at the same time providing a safe and effective way to bring competition to benefit patients is a laudable achievement.
Lee Terry
Creating a pathway for new products that doesn't destroy the ability or the incentives for innovator companies to develop breakthrough technologies and at the same time providing a safe and effective way to bring competition to benefit patients is a laudable achievement.
Ted Poe
Creating a pathway for new products that doesn't destroy the ability or the incentives for innovator companies to develop breakthrough technologies and at the same time providing a safe and effective way to bring competition to benefit patients is a laudable achievement.
Blaine Luetkemeyer
Creating a pathway for new products that doesn't destroy the ability or the incentives for innovator companies to develop breakthrough technologies and, at the same time, providing a safe and effective way to bring competition to benefit patients is a laudable achievement.
Lynn Jenkins
Creating a pathway for new products that doesn't destroy the ability or the incentives for innovator companies to develop breakthrough technologies and at the same time providing a safe and effective way to bring competition to benefit patients is a laudable achievement.
Mike Conaway
Creating a pathway for new products that does not destroy the ability or the incentives for innovator companies to develop breakthrough technology and at the same time provide a safe and effective way to bring competition to benefit patients is a creditable achievement.
But before you Democratic partisans get too smug, you might want to check out the follow up post: Also in that Room: Democratic Biotech-Paid Whores.
"Another significant benefit: jobs jobs jobs!"Bob Filner
I wanted to draw attention to another significant benefit of this legislation: the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.
Yvette Clarke
Another significant benefit of this legislation, which has not received as much attention, will be the creation of new high paying jobs, high quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.
Donald Payne
Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.
Bill Pascrell
Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle: this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in health care delivery, technology, and research in the United States.
Phil Hare
With unemployment at its highest level since 1983, another significant benefit of this legislation that should be highlighted is the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.
Linda Sanchez
But another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received much attention is its promotion of high-paying research, high tech, and manufacturing jobs. Contrary to the claims that this is a "job killing bill," in fact, this bill will create thousands of jobs here in the United States.
Robert Brady
Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology, and research in the United States.
"1) An enormous demand for healthcare workers!"
Bob Filner
First, this bill will create enormous demand for healthcare workers, especially in the area of primary care.
Yvette Clarke
First, this bill will create enormous demand for healthcare workers, especially in the area of primary care.
Donald Payne
First, this bill will create enormous demand for healthcare workers, especially in the area of primary care.
Bill Pascrell
First, H.R. 3962 will create enormous demand for health care workers, especially in the area of primary care.
Phil Hare
This bill will additionally create enormous demand for healthcare workers, especially in the area of primary care.
Linda Sanchez
First, this bill will increase demand for healthcare workers, including doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, home health workers, and more.
Robert Brady
First, this bill will create enormous demand for healthcare workers, especially in the area of primary care.
It's almost Pavlovian to read - say the words, hit the lever, receive the contribution.
Politics
Comments
Ed:
I don't have the citation handy but I read, a few days ago, that a number of Dems also took the script that was handed to them by Genentech. I'm guessing that any of the Elephants'Asses that did that are BlueDogs, but that is a guess.
Posted by: democommie | November 18, 2009 9:35 AM
Pay no attention to that lobbyist behind the curtain!
[Lobbyist pulls lever repeatedly - smoke billows and "thunder" is heard.]
Posted by: threetorches | November 18, 2009 9:35 AM
And people wonder why politicians are loathed. NOFX put it best - "...you're wrong if you don't question your government"
Posted by: sdadsawdas | November 18, 2009 9:42 AM
ok, I'm sure you've gone over this, but what is so evil about Genetech?
Posted by: becca | November 18, 2009 9:49 AM
Sadly, I think we can assume that the same thing happens with the majority of issues that come before congress.
Posted by: qetzal | November 18, 2009 9:49 AM
Democommie @ 1 - Ed's post lists some Democrats, so it'd be easy to define whether a caucus within the Democratic party was responsible, whether the only common thread was campaign contributions from Genentech, or some other pattern emerges.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 18, 2009 9:53 AM
erm..."hit the lever, receive the contribution" would be Skinnerian, not Pavlovian.
But yeah, the point stands.
Posted by: JRQ | November 18, 2009 10:00 AM
Do they actually listen to each other talk? I already had a strong hunch that they don't, but this section is priceless:
Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle
I think they've heard it a few times now.
Posted by: Odie | November 18, 2009 10:14 AM
I think most of these were remarks inserted into the Record, not actually delivered on the floor of the House.
Posted by: DaleP | November 18, 2009 10:27 AM
Michael Heath:
Goddamnitalltohell! I hate it when you give me reading assignments--especially when I have to eat crow!!
It appears that NONE of the folks who signed that are BlueDogs, so they must be just plain stupid. Aieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Now that, THAT'S out of the way I can return to my regularly scheduled porn downloading!
Posted by: democommie | November 18, 2009 10:40 AM
This was front page on the NY Times last Sunday, so this is old news. Although this list is more exhaustive than NYT.
Yeah, it wasn't just Republicans at all. In fact, that's what was so funny, is that the lobbying firm hired by Genentech wrote two scripts, one for Dems that said, "I support this bill because..." and another for Rethuglicans that said, "I don't support this bill, but I like the part that says..." Classic.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 18, 2009 11:06 AM
Genentech is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful corporation I've ever known in my life.
Posted by: Monsignor Henry Clay | November 18, 2009 11:22 AM
Genentech isn't evil, becca. There are doubtless hundreds of nice, moral people who are fed and clothed by genentech. There is also a wanker in PR who wants to be promoted and members of upper management who are cynical and myopic and don't so much care about the means to an end that they think is good as long as them and theirs are provided for and they get invited to the boss' fourth of July BBQ next year.
Posted by: Scrabcake | November 18, 2009 11:44 AM
If "hit lever, receive the contribution" is Skinnerian, I'd love to see a better analogy for Pavlovian politics.
I imagine it would have something to do with drooling at the podium.
Posted by: ABradford | November 18, 2009 11:51 AM
Yeah, I can't blame Genentech at all for this - PR departments are supposed to be staffed by amoral, manipulative douchebags who try to leverage government to benefit their company. It's their job. It's like blaming the shark in Jaws for eating people.
I can, however, demand better congresspeople. Or at least less embarrassingly bought-and-paid-for ones.
Posted by: mad the swine | November 18, 2009 12:52 PM
Given up on the satire, I guess, mad the swine? That's a comment I fully agree with on a literal level! heh...
The particular issue on which they are lobbying is also a tricky issue that requires careful weighing of consequences -- more than it appears most congresscritters are capable of. Generally speaking, making generics more available benefits consumers... as long as it doesn't completely take away the profit incentive for developing a new drug, and this does not appear to be happening.
On the other hand, I'm not so sure it wouldn't be a good thing if there were better regulations on bioequivalency testing of generics. Right now, for generics, the lab making the drug does their own testing and submits the paperwork to the FDA. There are virtually no audits. They are basically just "promising" that they tested the drug and found it had a comparable bioavailability with the name brand version. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some labs manufacturing generics are significantly better than others when it comes to how rigorously they test this...
This is not a great situation for the consumer. Almost always, it is the right call to buy the generic version if available, because you're getting the same goddamn thing for cheaper. But one cannot be 100% confident of this -- there may be times when the generic version really is inferior, because it was manufactured at a shitty lab. And because the FDA is very lax about policing generics, there is absolutely no way whatsoever to reliably tell the difference.
Genentech clearly just wants to throw up roadblocks for generics, so they can make more money on their name brand stuff (and we shouldn't expect them to do any differently... it would be a betrayal of their stockholders if they did!) So legislators can't just listen to them -- nor can they just ignore them as part of Big Pharma, for the reasons I described above. We need our legislators to take a good look at the process for certifying generics, and weigh the costs and benefits to the consumer of various alternatives.
The odds of that ever happening? The stomach churns...
Posted by: James Sweet | November 18, 2009 1:17 PM
"When you believe in things
that you don't understand,
then you suffer..."
Wouldn't it be fun to watch politicians get an electric shock every time they parrot something they actually know nothing about? Probably noticeably dim the lights in DC from the power drain.
Posted by: BaldApe | November 18, 2009 6:43 PM
I think BaldApe wins this thread.
Posted by: democommie | November 18, 2009 9:37 PM
I feel obliged to say that anybody who has the image of, say, a video montage of lawmakers all saying these things in a row is going to be sadly disappointed.
This is the Congressional Record. Members of Congress are generally given free reign to "revise and extend" their remarks, which means that what goes into the Congressional Record doesn't necessarily bear any relationship to the words actually spoken by that person.
(One stalling tactic, as used in the House debate on the health care bill, is to deny a member this capacity, meaning if they want something in the record, however long, they have to say it.)
Posted by: Glazius | November 19, 2009 12:46 AM
Posted by: llewelly | November 19, 2009 1:55 AM