Marketplace![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (12)
Share link
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
GoogleThe writer of that letter attacked me with the ludicrous claim that I am bankrolled by the name-brand drug lobby at exactly the same time the name-brand drug lobby was attacking me in another paper for those same comments. In fact, it is not the first time the pharmaceutical industry has targeted me for my votes on issues important to us in Missouri. They have run ads and campaigned against me before. One of the major reasons they dislike me is my vote against final passage of the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit in 2003. I voted no because the bill didn't do nearly enough to lower drug costs for Americans or enable price-lowering competition in the marketplace. Six years later, I am still on their hit list.
I don't care, because doing right by the patients in Southern Missouri who need access to affordable medicines requires a thick skin. Too many Americans go without the medicines they need -- 80 percent of Americans don't take their medication in its prescribed dosage, according to a recent study -- and high prices are a chief culprit.
I voted against the health "reform" bill passed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi for this very reason, among plenty of others. It is a backroom deal with special interests in Washington, D.C., to protect big drug companies' profits and hold the American people captive to the highest prices for medicine in the world. The name-brand drug industry spends more on advertising and lobbying than on research and development, a statistic that tells us their profits often outrank their patients.
It doesn't have to be this way. With real concessions from big drug companies and more competition in the market, the American people would benefit from changes that would make our medicines more affordable, improve our standard of care, and raise our standard of wellness.
This is a fight I will continue, as I work to remove big pharmaceutical companies' handiwork from health care legislation of any kind. An industry that spends $609,000 every day to lobby Congress will surely fight me back. But I intend to do with hard work and perseverance what they cannot do with minions and misinformation.
Jo Ann Emerson of Cape Girardeau represents the 8th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please 
Hmmm. Someone is on the defensive.
Jo Ann,
There are alternatives to you. I visited your competitors' websites, specifically Bob Parker, Tommy Sowers, and Larry Bill. They had some good alternatives too.
Pay attention to what any Republican does, not what they say. She voted against health care reform and she'll always vote against health care reform. She'll always vote the party line.
Most flowers give out one final bloom before they "give it up".
Jo Ann,
Your vote against the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit was admirable. Your vote against health "reform" bill was also admirable.
If government really wanted to improve health-care for lower income "working" Americans they would get out of the business of health-care altogether. Their involvement has placed a tremendous burden on lower income "working" Americans.
Health-care should not be considered a right.
Representative Emerson has been a good advocate of patient's rights, and her staff is the most accessible and helpful of any lawmaker out there. Her stand with the drug companies is admirable, and right. Unfortunately, she has caved into pressure from the "no" crowd in the Republican Party when it comes too healthcare reform. In the end, this will come back to bite her. The American people overwhelmingly have said they want healthcare reform, and an end to insurance industry monopolization and tyranny, despite all the rhetorical claims to the contrary by the extreme right. I would hate to see such a noble champion of patient rights as Representative Emerson pay a price for falling out of touch with the needs of her constituents at this time of great need.
Patients rights would be positive rights in which government force is used in the transfer from negative rights which are natural or God given (your preference) and provided to patients. A man has a natural right to his earnings in which he is partially denied in the cost of the transfer.
Positive rights are when those graduating from college seek to draw a paycheck without the burden of providing a product or benefit that the market would be willing to pay for. Many associated businesses operate on this same principle.
If the majority of people wish to have the "planned reform" then why the need of government force? It stands to reason that the market would provide without the use of force.
"An industry that spends $609,000 every day to lobby Congress ..."
James, can you tell us the 'history' of lobbying (start a forum thread, maybe?) ... When it was accepted as a practice, but most importantly why it was. Was lobbying meant to be an avenue to inform our representatives of what we, the taxpayers, want ... working under the assumption that our individual, lone voices were not enough to be effective?
Gurusmom,
Perhaps this will provide you with useful answers http://www.answers.com/topic/lobbying
Lobbying has grown in importance as the size and scope of government has grown. It provides an enormous benefit to a fascist economy in which the state is the senior partner.
Pay attention to what any Republican does, not what they say. She voted against health care reform and she'll always vote against health care reform. She'll always vote the party line.
-- Posted by FrohnaJoe on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, at 8:55 AM
She's voting against heathcare because it is a bad idea. WE can not aford it.
People don't trust Emerson because she is a known liar and a socialist. She voted for the banker bailout a year ago, supported the 'cash for clunkers' boondoggle where perfectly servicable cars were destroyed at the taxpayer's expense, admitted publicly that she doesn't read bills before signing them, tries to mislead people on her past voting record, and supports a host of other big government/nanny state programs.
I'd trust her about as far as I could throw a haystack.
I can't believe that people still think health care shouldn't be a right.
In a truly humanitarian and civilized society I would think that everyone should be able to get the health care they need. If we hope to have a successful future we need to realize that fighting over medical care is a waste of time and energy.
Considering the obscene amounts of money thrown to the banking industry why shouldn't we have a bailout from medical bills. I am sure a few trillion dollars would improve the health of a lot of American's and improve the outlook for this country.