Plouffe on the PhRMA Deal

Posted on 11/18/2009 at 1:58 pm by Bob Cesca

I’m on a conference call right now with David Plouffe. I asked him about the PhRMA deal and how it squares with the president’s anti-lobbyist position.

The upshot, Plouffe replied, is that the president has closed the revolving door. He also said that healthcare reform is complicated and that’s it’s important to control costs.

I asked a follow-up question about whether it was within the president’s character to back out of the deal considering that the drug companies are jacking up prices in advance of reform being passed. Plouffe said he wasn’t party to the deal, of course, but he continued to insist that there would be a cost savings. Nothing about whether it’s within the president’s capacity to back out of the deal.

UPDATE: Audio after the jump.


Here’s my first question with the follow-up, preceded by Amanda Terkel from ThinkProgress and Chris Bowers from Open Left. And later in the call, I asked Plouffe about the Rahm Emanuel influence on the administration.

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Stranahan

    Bob deserves all the credit and recognition I can give him for asking Plouffe a tough, fair question and then following it up. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I’ve been hoping Bob would ask since the details of the PhARMA deal first leaked.And Plouffe didn’t answer. Bob really made some news here, I think – Plouffe is on the record defending NOT negotiating drug prices…as the way to cut costs.He deflects that Obama violated a campaign promise. And it’s not just ‘he broke his word’ – that campaign promised MADE SENSE as policy.Goddamn awesome job, Bob.

  • iLLogicaL

    Well, Jebus, looks like it’s time for a drum circle!

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    Thanks. I appreciate it, Lee.But I’d like to underscore that they were merely tough questions. I didn’t hector Plouffe with a lot of over-the-top proclamations about the president selling out, etc.I think I’ve been pretty clear on the blog that I’m skeptical of Rahm’s influence, and I’m no fan of the drug companies.I’ve been trying to explain here that my approach regarding accountability involves reasoned conversation rather than hyperbolic outrage and threats. Accountability is still accountability, even if it doesn’t involve loud noises.While I never expected him to admit it, I hope that Plouffe at least came away from the conversation thinking that perhaps there IS a conflict between the PhRMA deal and the anti-lobbyist position. Or that there’s a conflict between rejecting the Clinton style in the primaries and still hiring Emanuel and Summers. And maybe these thoughts will make their way to the president in a tone of voice that he can take seriously.

  • iLLogicaL

    You sounded very measured and professional, Bob. I’ve read your book, but hadn’t heard you speak before. Well done, and nice job sneaking in the follow-up without sounding like a pushy basstid.

  • eljefejeff

    very interesting stuff. Good questions Bob!