Big Pharma Is Puppetmaster Behind TPP

Big Pharma Revealed As Puppetmaster Behind TPP Secrecy

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2015 22:13 -0400

It is no secret that US healthcare corporations have been among, if not the biggest beneficiaries of Obamacare: by “socializing” costs and spreading the reimbursement pool over the entire population in the form of a tax, pharmaceutical companies have been able to boost medical product and service costs to unprecedented levels with the help of complicit insurance companies who have subsequently passed through these costs to the consumer, in the process sending the price of biotech and pharma stocks to levels not seen since the dot com bubble.

But when it came to the highly confidential TPP, it was unclear just which corporations were dominant in pulling the strings.

Now thanks to more documents published by Wikileaks, and analyzed by the NYT, it appears that “big pharma” is once again pulling the strings, this time of the Trans Pacific Partnership, which if passed will “empower big pharmaceutical firms to command higher reimbursement rates in the United States and abroad, at the expense of consumers” according to “public health professionals, generic-drug makers and activists opposed to the trade deal.”

In other words, just like the narrowly-passed Obamacare was a gift for big Pharma, so America’s legal drug dealers are now trying to go for another price boosting catalyst, one which however will involve not just the US but some 12 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Worst of all, the negotiations for the next price increase is taking place in utmost secrecy where “American negotiators are still pressing participating governments to open the process that sets reimbursement rates for drugs and medical devices.”

As RT notes, the latest disclosure links the Healthcare Annex to the secret draft of the quite aptly-named “Transparency” Chapter of the TPP, along with each country’s negotiating position. The leaked “Annex on transparency and procedural fairness for pharmaceutical products and medical devices” is dated from December 2014, with the draft being restricted from release for four years after the passage of the TPP into law.

RELEASE: TPP Transparency Chapter Healthcare Annex https://t.co/jc4hYqh06V #TPP #TTIP#TISA pic.twitter.com/xIlO4QCUu6

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 10, 2015

Worse, while in the US the rising healthcare costs are at least spread across a broader social safety net, the TPP is targeting countries where the potential jump in drug prices will have dramatic effects. As the NYT notes, “foreign governments and health care activists have accused pharmaceutical giants, mostly based in the United States, of protecting profits over public health, especially in poor countries where neither the government nor consumers can afford to pay rates anywhere close to those charged in wealthier nations.”

That fight re-emerged in the Pacific trade negotiations, which involve countries with strong cost-containment policies, like New Zealand, as well as poor countries like Peru and Vietnam.

The agreement “will increase the cost of medicines worldwide, starting with the 12 countries that are negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” said Judit Rius Sanjuan, a lawyer at Doctors Without Borders, a humanitarian organization that provides medical care in more than 60 countries.

None other than the CEO of Mylan explained in the simplest possible way what is going on: a government mandated monopoly under the guise of a trade pact: “Heather Bresch, the chief executive of Mylan, one of the largest generic-drug makers, said the brand-name pharmaceutical industry was “establishing, through U.S. trade policy, an international system designed to maximize its monopolies.”

But where the alarm bells truly go off is when someone, anyone, uses the word “fair” to justify policy, such as surging drug costs. To wit: “drug companies, however, say they need to be able to charge fair prices to compensate for the billions of dollars and decades of research that go into their medicines.”

What is amusing is that the true motive behind the TPP’s secrecy have been quite clear to virtually everyone but the population of the TPP’s host nation:

“It was very clear to everyone except the U.S. that the initial proposal wasn’t about transparency. It was about getting market access for the pharmaceutical industry by giving them greater access to and influence over decision-making processes around pricing and reimbursement,” said Deborah Gleeson, a lecturer at the School of Psychology and Public Health at La Trobe University in Australia. And even though the section, known as the transparency annex, has been toned down, she said, “I think it’s a shame that the annex is still being considered at all for the T.P.P.”

RT adds that one country that should be in arms over the TPP is Australia:

The secret negotiations now allegedly reveal that Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme might be undermined, pushing up the cost of medicines in the country.

“United States trade negotiators have aggressively pushed for provisions favoring multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers at the expense of national governments and public healthcare systems,” the Sydney Morning Herald wrote.

But the one place where the biggest price shock may be unleashed is, not surprisingly, the US itself :

The leaked TPP document “shows that the pact could expose Medicare to pharmaceutical company attacks and constrain future policy reforms, including the ability of the US government to curb rising and unsustainable drug prices,” the US consumer rights advocacy group and think tank Public Citizen said in its Wednesday statement.

The group says president Obama’s administration has been “acting at the behest of pharmaceutical companies,” and the secret negotiations it has been holding within the partnership might affect Medicare, limiting “Congress’ ability to enact policy reforms that would reduce prescription drug costs for Americans.”

The same Congress, incidentally, which gladly washed its hands of any discussion of the TPP when the Senate “fast-tracked” its passage and as the NYT further notes, “a House vote on final passage of the bill, now expected on Friday, appears extremely close.”

In other words, in exchange for a few million in lobby spending, aka bribes, by Big Pharma, the US Congress has once again sold out the US population, and this time it even voluntarily bypassed even the mock democratic process of debating the law it will pass.

Why? Just so shareholders of pharmaceutical companies could reap even greater profits at the expense of not just the US population, but of the populations of some of the biggest US trading partners, all of whom are about to see the prices of medical care skyrocket.

And since nothing is confirmed until it is officially denied, here is the punchline:

“The transparency annex in T.P.P. is not subject to Investor-State Dispute Settlement, and nothing in its provisions will undermine our ability to pursue the best health care policy for Americans, including any future action on health care expenditures and cost containment,” a trade representative spokesman said.

Those Americans who may wish to challenge the claim well, they are out of luck: Congress is about to make sure there is no way anyone can have a say into what big corporations have in store for the US population.

The full Transparency Chapter Healthcare Annex below:

Wiki Leaks Annex

EC Credit Control

ABC/ACN # CIK#:  
Respondent T&C Ref: Other
Alison Gordon
courtesy notice EC CREDIT
Tanya Uriarau courtesy notice EC CREDIT
EC CREDIT_NZTA

(Hello Tanya Uriarau, 

You are in ignorance of what is LAW. What the legal fiction is amounts to no thing in Law.
Please study the attached documents which we provide for your education and enlightenment, if you so choose.
With respect, 
I am not “Lost at Sea”, flesh and blood I be.
Thank you for the oppt unity to engage.
Please note, documents in open office template can be provided in pdf format if your it system is primitive.)

On 12/09/2014 4:45 PM, “Alison Gordon” <Alison.Gordon@eccreditcontrol.com> wrote:

Good Afternoon Mr XXXX,

Thank you for the update.

Please be advised this debt relates to unpaid registration regarding XXX XXX with plate # 123456, we do require payment in full no later than Friday 16/09/14 to our trust account details as follows:-

02 0700 0110577 000 quoting reference # 101xxxx

We have no contact details for you so if you require any further assistance don’t hesitate to contact us on 06 835 1800 reference # 1017024 or alternatively call our client New Zealand Transport Agency on 0800 108 809 who can assist with legislative advice.

KIND REGARDS REF # 101xxxx

Alison Gordon (06 835 1800 / 1300 961 916) | Team Leader / Credit Controller | Alison.Gordon@eccreditcontrol.com |

EC Credit Control | www.eccreditcontrol.com |

Reply:

Please refer to documents provided.
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle.
I have no Lawful agreement with you so my Courtesy Notice is the basis for our Lawful interaction.
Thank you for agreeing to my terms, action is acceptance.
My invoices will follow thank you all again.

18/09/2014 4:23 PM, “Alison Gordon” <Alison.Gordon@eccreditcontrol.com> wrote:

Good Afternoon XXXXX,

Thank you for your email.

Please be advised we have been notified by our client as at 18/09/14 that the fees remain payable.  They have advised they have written to yourself confirming the responsibilities of a registered owner.

To reiterate the debt remains payable.

REGARDS ref # 101xxxx

Alison Gordon (06 835 1800 / 1300 961 916) | Team Leader / Credit Controller | Alison.Gordon@eccreditcontrol.com |

EC Credit Control | www.eccreditcontrol.com |

Reply: Hello Alison, 

Again please allow me to inform you that legal is not Lawful. (Refer documents provided you).
Your communication is made on behalf of a foreclosed Legal  Fiction.
We have now an agreement that stands in Law your action is acceptance of this agreement, I have no other binding agreement made with you or the corporate fiction we also know as The Queen by Right of New Zealand. Your action is acceptance of my terms of engagement.
Attached are my invoices for your immediate action.
Thank you

 

Prominent Economists Call for End to Fractional Reserve Banking

Submitted by George Washington on 05/01/2014 

Excessive leverage by the banks was one of the main causes of the Great Depression and of the 2008 financial crisis.

As such, lower levels of “fractional reserve banking” – i.e. how many dollars a bank lends out compared to the amount of deposits it has on hand – the more stable the economy will be.

But economist Steve Keen notes (citing Table 10 in Yueh-Yun C. OBrien, 2007. “Reserve Requirement Systems in OECD Countries”, Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board):

The US Federal Reserve sets a Required Reserve Ratio of 10%, but applies this only to deposits by individuals; banks have no reserve requirement at all for deposits by companies.

So huge swaths of loans are not subject to any reserve requirements.

Indeed, Ben Bernanke proposed the elimination of all reserve requirements for banks:

The Federal Reserve believes it is possible that, ultimately, its operating framework will allow the elimination of minimum reserve requirements, which impose costs and distortions on the banking system.

Economist Keen informs Washington’s Blog that about 6 OECD countries have already done away with reserve requirements altogether (Australia, Mexico,  Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and the UK).

But there is a growing recognition that this is going in the wrong direction, because fractional reserve banking can destabilize the economy (and credit can easily be created by the government itself.)

It was big news this week when one of the world’s most prominent economics writers – liberal economist Martin Wolf – advocated doing away with fractional reserve banking altogether… i.e. requiring that banks only loan out as much money as they actually have on hand in the form of customer deposits:

Printing counterfeit banknotes is illegal, but creating private money is not. The interdependence between the state and the businesses that can do this is the source of much of the instability of our economies. It could – and should – be terminated.

***

What is to be done? A minimum response would leave this industry largely as it is but both tighten regulation and insist that a bigger proportion of the balance sheet be financed with equity or credibly loss-absorbing debt. I discussed this approach last week. Higher capital is the recommendation made by Anat Admati of Stanford and Martin Hellwig of the Max Planck Institute in The Bankers’ New Clothes.

A maximum response would be to give the state a monopoly on money creation. One of the most important such proposals was in the Chicago Plan, advanced in the 1930s by, among others, a great economist, Irving Fisher. Its core was the requirement for100 per cent reserves against deposits. Fisher argued that this would greatly reduce business cycles, end bank runs and drastically reduce public debt. A 2012 study by International Monetary Fund staff suggests this plan could work well.

Similar ideas have come from Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University in Jimmy Stewart is Dead, and Andrew Jackson and Ben Dyson in Modernising Money.

***

Opponents will argue that the economy would die for lack of credit. I was once sympathetic to that argument. But only about 10 per cent of UK bank lending has financed business investment in sectors other than commercial property. We could find other ways of funding this.

Our financial system is so unstable because the state first allowed it to create almost all the money in the economy and was then forced to insure it when performing that function. This is a giant hole at the heart of our market economies. It could be closed by separating the provision of money, rightly a function of the state, from the provision of finance, a function of the private sector.

(The IMF study is here.)

In fact, a lot of experts have backed this or similar proposals, including:

Interestingly, the Chicago Plan for full reserve banking came very close to passing in 1934. But the unfortunate death of one of its main Congressional sponsors – Senator Bronson M. Cutting  – in a plane crash reversed the momentum for the bill.

As Wikipedia notes:

Cutting played a key role in the political struggles over the reform of banking which Roosevelt undertook while dealing with the Great Depression, and which resulted in the Banking Reform Acts of 1933 and 1935. As a supporter of the Chicago Plan proposed by economist Irving Fisher and others at the University of Chicago, Cutting was among a handful of influential Senators who might have been able to remove from the private banks their ability to manipulate the money supply by enforcing a 100 percent reserve requirement for all credit creation, as stipulated in the Chicago Plan. His unfortunate death in an airliner crash cut short what may have been his most enduring legacy to the nation.