Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
This -- new questions this morning about whether the White House may have cut a backroom deal with drug company is.
In order to get the health care law passed and to get their support and doing that -- the house committee behind this probe.
Says that they believe that there was some sort of deal that was definitely made and that they want to know more.
Let's find out what.
-- sexist Republic's Michael Burgess is on the house energy and commerce committee that is leading this investigation Patterson walked up and having here today.
Good morning thanks for having me on so what evidence do you have that that there was any sort of arrangement between the White House and pharmaceutical companies as they headed into the boat.
On this bell.
Well you know this all goes back to about three years -- may June -- July of 2009.
When the president came up and and had some photo ops with.
Leaders and industry and said we've card.
Two trillion dollars health care expenses.
Out of the next ten years well that's a pretty interesting figure for someone like myself got a background in health care delivery and and interest in health policy so what what were the what was the makeup of this and for three years we've been stymied and trying to find the answer to this now.
When the house Republicans took over there.
Leadership of the committee it.
2011 we really began to investigate this in earnest and now.
Some 1214 months later we are beginning to get -- a cart back a little bit on just exactly.
What was going on where companies actually trading.
Public support in order to get their policy provisions in the health care law and and it appears that that's the case.
It's -- and here's suggestion is that the pharmaceutical companies we're gonna make out better financially.
As a result of the way the bill is written that that it would somehow.
And and according to these documents that you put out.
You say that the internal records that you obtained from outside stakeholders.
Who wearing gays in the negotiations say you have.
You have the sources within these pharmaceutical companies that have turned over these negotiations to you.
And the and by implication that little salute the individuals in the White House.
Part of the communications.
So it -- there was an email that that definitely caught your attention from Jim Messina.
In the White House.
And under the subject it it it's -- written to aid pharmaceutical lobbyists correct correct correct IN under the subject to says what the -- this wasn't part of our deal.
Do you have any more than acted to sort of back up what -- what's being discussed in -- now.
Yes there is more -- and more will will come out about this but look even going back to the fall of 2009.
When Senator McCain tried to offer an amendment.
In the Senate Finance Committee dealing with reimportation now Senator McCain and I disagree on this as a as a principle but he should be able to offer his amendment.
And when he was prohibited from offering that amendment with the statement that this was not part of our deal.
Again that's got to make -- got to make the tackles -- go up and as you pointed out in the lead into this piece.
The president himself.
The president himself promised no backroom deals.
On this health -- stuff everything's out in the open we're not gonna close the door cut a deal with lobbyists but.
You know in fact that's what was going on I mean look at it from the other perspective from mom and and you know is it is it not -- call.
That given this it you know it takes on such a huge portion of the US economy the health care.
The business overall.
That they would be discussing the way the bill is constructed with all of the players you know obviously pharmaceutical companies are being employers in this country.
And nobody wants to see those huge American company is you know be hurt.
By this bill -- better.
Correct and I have no quarreled with the a pharmaceutical research to manufacturing association.
Arguing on their behalf what I do have a problem -- Is that it happened behind closed doors the American public was excluded what the House of Representatives was excluded.
And this would have been in an important.
-- -- to bring him.
Now the house leadership was in democratic hands at that what but why weren't at least they in the room while this while these policy provisions were put into the health care -- off.
Essentially in exchange for for the silence of -- -- while this bill was being debated.
The back and say what you want more disclosure at -- -- but in -- when will you be releasing what you have it you know you see any claiming as a smoking gun from the pharmaceutical side.
When he hit a felon as blanks about exactly what this deal lives.
-- there's more to come for the balance of this weekend you know obviously we're it took three years to get us to this point I don't know why the White House.
Hasn't been more forthcoming on this.
And again it it does make you wonder what in the world were they trying to hide.
Was it just the fact that it went counter to the president's promises during the election and during the early part of his term when he says.
I'm not gonna do these backroom deals I'm not gonna do these deals with lobbyists and.
Yet there they were around the table with the doors blown eastward is seeing what to have in -- at -- -- thank you.
For sharing their story with us -- taxes and about the.
Filter by section