Teacher:In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: Latest Emails Show the Extent Of Obama’s Ties To The Pharmaceutical Industry 
  
 On the campaign trail Barack ‘Blaze a Blunt’ Obama promised not to sell out to special interests, but to stand up for change. Yet when big pharma came knocking at his door with a pile of money, he quickly changed his tune. The latest batch of emails released by House Republicans prove Obama will give in to any industry, so long as it serves his personal political purpose regardless of promises made to the contrary. 
  
 Back in 2009, drug industry lobbyists sought to stop Obama from supporting a bill aimed at lowering medicine prices by allowing the reimportation of certain pharmaceuticals. The obvious lever: support for his plan to overhaul healthcare. On June 3, 2009, a lobbyist sent an email to the presidents chief healthcare advisor, Nancy-Ann DeParle. Her response was that the administration had “made a decision, based on how constructive you guys have been, to oppose importation on the bill.” 
  
 During his campaign, Obama attacked the pharmaceutical industry, but as we all now know, when the chips are down, Obama folds like a wallet. The emails also detail Obama’s deep reliance on big pharma to finance the adevertising campaign in support of his healthcare overhaul. With Obama on the end of big pharma’s leash, no wonder he continues to crackdown on medical marijuana. 
  
 Basically, the prescription drug industry gave Obama 80 billion dollars in support of his healthcare plan in exchange for favorable treatment on other issues. From the beginning Obama promised to open up the decision making process to public view, but when the big drug boys came calling, all bets were off, and Obama starting making back-room deals. I wonder how many back-room deals he’s made with respect to cannabis? 
  
 As an example of Obama’s two-faced dealings consider this email sent by a union boss after meeting with Jim Messina, Obama’s then Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, to discuss financing the healthcare overhaul advertising campaign, “They plan to hit up the ‘bad guys’ for most of the $, they want us to just put in enough to be able to put our names in it – he is thinking @100K.” 
  
 Ultimately, the deals were made, and Obama gave up his principles for dough. Bryant Hall, then senior vice president of the pharmaceutical group, said it best, “We got a good deal.” 
  
 Democrats have rushed to the President’s defense claiming it’s just business as usual. Hold on just a minute. I seem to remember something about change. Beyond his general statements, Obama specifically attacked big pharma on the campaign trail stating: 
  
 The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies. And you know what? The chairman of the committee who pushed the law through went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year. That’s an example of the same old game playing in Washington. You know, I don’t want to learn how to play the game better. I want to put an end to the game playing. 
  
 Yeah right bud. We now know that was just the sort of double talk we’ve come to expect from Obama. I hope when his head stops spinning it’s still facing forward, or ‘Million Dollar Mitt’ might beat him in November. Obama had better snap out of it before it’s too late. I really don’t want see how bad things can become in this country under another dunderheaded Republican–do you? 
  
 Source: http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/PDFs/20120531ObamacareDeals.pdf ||||| For good or bad, a recently published email exchange between the White House and Big Pharma during the height of the 2009 health care reform debate, is one of the most important documents from that epic legislative struggle. Today, The New York Times' Peter Baker sifts through a batch of emails unearthed by House Republicans and spotlights a revealing conversation between a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the president's top health care adviser and, by chance, the wife of Times reporter Jason DeParle. In the 2009 message, DeParle agrees to prevent cheap imported drugs from entering the U.S. market, a guarantee that would save the industry billions and ultimately lock in its support for ObamaCare. "Any progress on the importation front?" writes the lobbyist. "I made the decision, based on on how constructive you guys have been, to oppose importation on the bill." 
  
 Since the release of the emails last week, conservatives have griped about the undue influence the pharmaceutical industry had in the legislation. Baker's piece fills in the gaps on how that bargain, in that single email, was thought necessary for passing the bill. Writes Baker: 
  
 Just like that, Mr. Obama’s staff abandoned his support for the reimportation of prescription medicines at lower prices and with it solidified a growing compact with an industry he had vilified on the campaign trail the year before. Central to Mr. Obama’s drive to overhaul the nation’s health care system was an unlikely collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry that forced unappealing trade-offs. 
  
 Depending on where you stand, it was either a fool's bargain, cutting off an affordable method of drugs for millions of Americans, or a necessary evil, allowing for the passage of an over-all positive piece of legislation. 
  
 Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at jhudson at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire. 
  
 John Hudson ||||| This doesn't strike me as very big news, but congressional Republicans have apparently released copies of some emails that were exchanged between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry during negotiations over the healthcare reform bill. Here is Peter Baker of the New York Times: 
  
 On June 3, 2009, one of the lobbyists e-mailed Nancy-Ann DeParle, the president’s top health care adviser. Ms. DeParle sent a message back reassuring the lobbyist. Although Mr. Obama was overseas, she wrote, she and other top officials had “made decision, based on how constructive you guys have been, to oppose importation on the bill.” Just like that, Mr. Obama’s staff abandoned his support for the reimportation of prescription medicines at lower prices.... “There was no way we had the votes in either the House or the Senate if PhRMA was opposed — period,” said a senior Democratic official involved in the talks, referring to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug industry trade group. Republicans see the deal as hypocritical. “He said it was going to be the most open and honest and transparent administration ever and lobbyists won’t be drafting the bills,” said Representative Michael C. Burgess of Texas, one of the Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee that is examining the deal. “Then when it came time, the door closed, the lobbyists came in and the bills were written.” Some of the liberals bothered by the deal-making in 2009 now find the Republican criticism hard to take given the party’s long-standing ties to the pharmaceutical industry. “Republicans trumpeting these e-mails is like a fox complaining someone else raided the chicken coop,” said Robert Reich, the former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. “Sad to say, it’s called politics in an era when big corporations have an effective veto over major legislation affecting them and when the G.O.P. is usually the beneficiary.” 
  
 This is all stuff we've known for years, and the new emails don't seem to add an awful lot other than a bit of detail. The spin the Times puts on this is that it's unusual because Obama had denounced Big Pharma so strongly during the 2008 campaign, but this strikes me as painfully naive. Attacks like this are usually done precisely to get public opinion on your side and soften up your opponents so they'll be more likely to deal once you're in office. As Baker writes of the negotiations themselves, "The White House depicted in the message traffic comes across as deeply involved in the give-and-take, and not averse to pressure tactics, including having Mr. Obama publicly assail the industry unless it gave in on key points." 
  
 Right. And these are exactly the kind of hardball tactics that most liberals think Obama should engage in more often. It is, if you like, Obama acting a bit like LBJ. Perhaps, if Republicans had been genuinely willing to cooperate on healthcare and provide Obama with a few more votes, this sort of thing might not have been necessary. But they weren't, so it was. ||||| WASHINGTON — After weeks of talks, drug industry lobbyists were growing nervous. To cut a deal with the White House on overhauling health care, they needed to be sure that President Obama would stop a proposal intended to bring down medicine prices. 
  
 On June 3, 2009, one of the lobbyists e-mailed Nancy-Ann DeParle, the president’s health care adviser. Ms. DeParle reassured the lobbyist. Although Mr. Obama was overseas, she wrote, she and other top officials had “made decision, based on how constructive you guys have been, to oppose importation” on a different proposal. 
  
 Just like that, Mr. Obama’s staff signaled a willingness to put aside support for the reimportation of prescription medicines at lower prices and by doing so solidified a compact with an industry the president had vilified on the campaign trail. Central to Mr. Obama’s drive to remake the nation’s health care system was an unlikely collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry that forced unappealing trade-offs. 
  
 The e-mail exchange three years ago was among a cache of messages obtained from the industry and released in recent weeks by House Republicans — including a new batch put out Friday detailing the industry’s advertising campaign supporting Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul. The broad contours of his dealings with the industry were known in 2009, but the newly public e-mails open a window into the compromises underlying a health care law now awaiting the judgment of the Supreme Court. 
  
 Mr. Obama’s deal-making in 2009 represented a pivotal moment in his young presidency, a juncture where the heady idealism of the campaign trail collided with the messy reality of Washington policy making. A president who had promised to negotiate on C-Span cut a closed-door deal with a powerful lobby, signifying to disillusioned liberal supporters a loss of innocence, or perhaps even the triumph of cynicism. 
  
 But the bargain was one that the president deemed necessary to forestall industry opposition that had thwarted efforts to cover the uninsured for generations. Without the deal, in which the industry agreed to provide $80 billion to expand coverage in exchange for protection from policies that would cost more, Mr. Obama calculated he might get nowhere. 
  
 “Throughout his campaign, President Obama was clear that he would bring every stakeholder to the table in order to pass health reform, even longtime opponents like the pharmaceutical industry,” Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said Friday. “He understood correctly that the unwillingness to work with people on both sides of the issue was one of the reasons why it took a century to pass health reform.” 
  
 Republicans see the deal as hypocritical. “He said it was going to be the most open and honest and transparent administration ever and lobbyists won’t be drafting the bills,” said Representative Michael C. Burgess of Texas, a Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee examining the deal. “Then when it came time, the door closed, the lobbyists came in and the bills were written.” 
  
 Some liberals bothered by the deal in 2009 now find the Republican criticism hard to take given the party’s longstanding ties to the industry. 
  
 “Republicans trumpeting these e-mails is like a fox complaining someone else raided the chicken coop,” said Robert Reich, who was labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. “Sad to say, it’s called politics in an era when big corporations have an effective veto over major legislation affecting them and when the G.O.P. is usually the beneficiary.” 
  
 In a statement, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug industry lobby known as PhRMA, called its interactions with the White House part of its mission to “ensure patient access” to high-quality medicine: “Before, during and since the health care debate, PhRMA engaged with Congress and the administration to advance these priorities,” the lobby statement said. 
  
 If the negotiations resembled deal-making by past presidents, what distinguished them was that Mr. Obama had strongly rejected business as usual. During his campaign, he singled out the power of the pharmaceutical industry and its chief lobbyist, former Representative Billy Tauzin, a Democrat-turned-Republican from Louisiana. 
  
 “The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies,” Mr. Obama said in a campaign advertisement, referring to 2003 legislation. “And you know what? The chairman of the committee who pushed the law through went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year.” |||||
Student:
The White House cut a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to get health-care reform passed, a revelation getting renewed attention thanks to emails released by House Republicans, reports the New York Times. In one from 2009, Obama adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle tells a top industry lobbyist that the administration has agreed to block the importation of inexpensive drugs into the US, "based on how constructive you guys have been." In exchange, the big drug companies agreed to support the president's overall reform. Republicans call it a back-room deal that proves President Obama is a hyprocrite, Democrats say Republicans are the hypocrites given their ties to the industry, and the White House says it had to work with all players to get something passed. Kevin Drum, Mother Jones: "The spin the Times puts on this is that it's unusual because Obama had denounced Big Pharma so strongly during the 2008 campaign, but this strikes me as painfully naive." Given GOP intransigence, the president had to strike a deal like this, and he used "hardball tactics that most liberals think Obama should use more often." John Hudson, Atlantic Wire: "Depending on where you stand, it was either a fool's bargain, cutting off an affordable method of drugs for millions of Americans, or a necessary evil, allowing for the passage of an over-all positive piece of legislation." TJ Green, the Weedblog: "I wonder how many back-room deals he’s made with respect to cannabis?"