Numerous Dems join GOP to be Big Pharma stooges

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
26,497
24,717
136
Jerks.

Full text below. Many tweets and $ figures at the link:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/big-ph...lock-sanders-effort-lower-drug-prices/224057/

"While the Republican Party is publicly dismantling millions of Americans’ health safety net, more than a dozen Democrats late Wednesday quietly threw their weight behind Big Pharma and voted down an amendment that would have allowed pharmacists to import identical—but much less expensive—drugs from Canada and other countries.

The “power and wealth of the pharmaceutical industry and their 1,300 lobbyists and unlimited sums of money have bought the United States Congress,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) declared in a speech on the Senate floor while introducing the amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), which would have been attached to the chamber’s budget resolution. It came amid a flurry of legislative activity during Wednesday evening’s “vote-a-rama.”

“Year after year the same old takes place: the pharmaceutical industry makes more and more money and the American people pay higher ad higher prices,” Sanders continued, asking his colleagues if they “have the guts finally to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and their lobbyists and their campaign contributions and fight for the American consumer?”

It turns out, no.

In fact, 13 Democrats voted against the measure (roll call here), siding with the Republican majority and drawing sharp rebuke from observers, who pointed out that many who voted “no” receive substantial contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

Many were particularly dismayed that Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) had sided with Big Pharma after winning liberal praise for his unprecedented testimony against Attorney General nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Notably, 12 Republicans and two Independents, including Sanders, voted for the measure.

Seventy-two percent of Americans support such a rule, according to Sanders, who noted that the price differences between the U.S. and Canada are “dramatic.”

“EpiPen, for example, costs more than $600 in the United States compared to $290 in Canada for the exact same allergy treatment,” a press statement from Sanders’ office observed. “A popular drug for high cholesterol, Crestor, costs $730 in the U.S. but $160 across the northern border. Abilify, a drug to treat depression, is more than $2,636 for a 90-day supply in the U.S. but only $436 in Canada.”

Sanders’ attempt to attach such a provision to the 21st Century Cures Act last month was similarly blocked.

Should the import rule have passed, it would have been a step towards ending “the epidemic of price gouging,” Sanders said, which has become a hot-button issue for many Americans who are unable to afford their prescription drugs—a point the former presidential candidate hammered home on Twitter ahead of the vote."
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Just goes to show you --- as if it wasn't abundantly clear --- congresscritters are there to serve themselves and their benefactors. Not you, not me, not the public. This is one where I side with the D's on this issue. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to import identical meds from elsewhere to avoid the rip-off of the US consumer.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
It's complicated. If we pass laws to fix prices, then Canada doesn't get them for as cheap. We're basically subsidizing the cost for the rest of the world. Price discrimination is not unique to drugs or healthcare. Eventually you'd hit some point of equilibrium where we'd pay less than we do now and they'd pay more than they do now and it'd stabilize.
 
Dec 10, 2005
29,605
15,160
136
You can't at least post a summary or a link to a news article? I don't consider TYT to be an unbiased source of information.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,402
10,712
136
The Sanders Plan To Lower Prescription Drug Prices
  1. Negotiate A Better Deal
  2. Import Prescriptions from Canada
  3. Restore Discounts for Low-Income Seniors
  4. Prohibit Deals that Keep Generic Drugs Off the Market
  5. Enact Stronger Penalties for Fraud
  6. Require Pricing and Cost Transparency
Cory Booker Joins Senate Republicans to Kill Measure to Import Cheaper Medicine From Canada
The policy has widespread support among Americans: one Kaiser poll taken in 2015 found that 72 percent of Americans are in favor of allowing for importation. President-elect Donald Trump also campaigned on a promise to allow for importation.
Why Big Pharma should be afraid. Very afraid
...lost by a narrow 52-46 vote. And Sanders is fuming at the 13 Democratic Senators who essentially killed the bill by voting against it.​
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,402
10,712
136
Should healthcare and meds solely go to those who can afford to subsidize artificial prices?
It's a regressive payment scheme enforced by the US Government, thereby literally killing people as a result.
Voting down Sander's measure took lives.

Healthcare in the United States needs revolutionary reform to address costs. I will stand for Sanders and his legacy to combat this.
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,172
9,695
146
And this is why the U.S. is consistently ranked dead last in preventable deaths in wealthy countries. People can't afford care for the most basic chronic conditions.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
16,112
8,706
136
Somebody should have told these DINO's that that's not the way to obstruct the opposition's agenda.

But I guess these Dems were more than willing to take the heat for their actions in exchange for........?

OR, maybe these Dems got royally played by the Repubs whereby the Repubs made a "deal" with these Dems by telling them that they could vote nay to appease their corporate sponsors while the Repubs who were safely out of reach of the pharma's would vote yea and thus make up for the Dems no votes to have the bill pass.......but didn't vote yea in order to kill the bill as previously planned.

Either way, the Dems look really bad in how they were responsible for this bill being voted down.
 
Dec 10, 2005
29,605
15,160
136
I would only want to allow for importing drugs if we give the FDA the authority to ensure they meet standards as good as those required for drugs sold in the US. I don't want to be ceding our regulatory authority to other sovereign nations.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,914
4,956
136
There's going to be a one man war in Washington against the lobbyists and mega donor elites over the next four years alright, except it won't be coming from the White House.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jman19

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,111
318
126
Surprised Manchin wasn't one of the Dems voting Nay.

It's complicated. If we pass laws to fix prices, then Canada doesn't get them for as cheap. We're basically subsidizing the cost for the rest of the world. Price discrimination is not unique to drugs or healthcare. Eventually you'd hit some point of equilibrium where we'd pay less than we do now and they'd pay more than they do now and it'd stabilize.

This. The better solution is to simply shorten the duration of drug patents and make it easier for generics to get onto the market. That being said, I have no problem with Canada and Europe being forced to pay their fair share.

And this is why the U.S. is consistently ranked dead last in preventable deaths in wealthy countries. People can't afford care for the most basic chronic conditions.

Source? I'm pretty sure the reason is that Americans are disproportionately composed of fat disgusting cigarette-addicted slobs.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,514
11,651
136
That being said, I have no problem with Canada and Europe being forced to pay their fair share.

Hey its your choice to get fucked up the arse here, don't go blaming us. We'll keep our cheap generics thanks, you keep taking it without the lube. That way we're both happy!
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,172
9,695
146
  • Like
Reactions: soundforbjt

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,111
318
126
Hey its your choice to get fucked up the arse here, don't go blaming us. We'll keep our cheap generics thanks, you keep taking it without the lube. That way we're both happy!

You guys probably have it better in that respect as well, but the story in the OP gave specific examples of protected, name-brand drugs being imported, not generics. From what I can tell, this law basically makes the grey market a white one, in allowing second-party sales where we buy drugs from Canadian pharmacies who in turn by from Mylan and the rest, rather than forcing us to buy directly from the source. The pharmaceutical companies still ultimately control the line of production, so this just shifts cost burdens around. While that could have the effect of lowering costs overall (assuming Europe and Canada hold their line and refuse to bend to pharma pressures to increase prices), it could have negative unintended consequences as well (dropping less profitable/more expensive drugs from their roster, losing a massive source of income, etc), at least short term. Long term it might still work out, but attacking the source of the problem head-on makes more sense to me.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub.../2011/sep/us-ranks-last-on-preventable-deaths

As an aside, medical errors are now the third leading cause of death among Americans. Better speed up that tort reform too.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news...rs_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us

OK, and that says nothing about how the primary reason is overly expensive healthcare as you've alleged.

I've seen that second story, but no direct comparison to how Europe and Canada fare.
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,172
9,695
146
You guys probably have it better in that respect as well, but the story in the OP gave specific examples of protected, name-brand drugs being imported, not generics. From what I can tell, this law basically makes the grey market a white one, in allowing second-party sales where we buy drugs from Canadian pharmacies who in turn by from Mylan and the rest, rather than forcing us to buy directly from the source. The pharmaceutical companies still ultimately control the line of production, so this just shifts cost burdens around. While that could have the effect of lowering costs overall (assuming Europe and Canada hold their line and refuse to bend to pharma pressures to increase prices), it could have negative unintended consequences as well (dropping less profitable/more expensive drugs from their roster, losing a massive source of income, etc), at least short term. Long term it might still work out, but attacking the source of the problem head-on makes more sense to me.



OK, and that says nothing about how the primary reason is overly expensive healthcare as you've alleged.

I've seen that second story, but no direct comparison to how Europe and Canada fare.

I never said it was the primary reason. It is a major contributor, however, and there is little debate in whether or not affordability will allow better access to medical care.

This actual study summarized in the article is worth the read.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”

The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking into account education, income, and many other factors, including smoking, drinking, and obesity. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,514
11,651
136
.

I've seen that second story, but no direct comparison to how Europe and Canada fare.

I wonder if part of that is a side effect of having a monolithic state health sector?

For us the best course to prevent mortality is to prevent the illness. So we spend a lot of money on Primary Health care and disease prevention.

How does it work with you guys? I'm assuming that in a for profits situation its better to treat the disease.

From, say, a lung cancer point of view. Its better to convince people not to smoke in the first place but its far sexier (and more profitable, and easier to find someone to bill) to treat the effects of smoking.

I'd argue that less money spent on disease prevention probably does more good than more money spent on treating disease.
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,172
9,695
146
I wonder if part of that is a side effect of having a monolithic state health sector?

For us the best course to prevent mortality is to prevent the illness. So we spend a lot of money on Primary Health care and disease prevention.

How does it work with you guys? I'm assuming that in a for profits situation its better to treat the disease.

From, say, a lung cancer point of view. Its better to convince people not to smoke in the first place but its far sexier (and more profitable, and easier to find someone to bill) to treat the effects of smoking.

I'd argue that less money spent on disease prevention probably does more good than more money spent on treating disease.
That's the way it is in Canada as well. Far more focus on education and prevention.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,724
48,540
136
Shame on those 13 Democrats. I hope their constituents remember this. Very disappointing.

My admiration and respect for Sanders continues to grow though, despite the majority of politicians validating what I hate about them most. 'Look good for voters, do good for donors' needs to be outlawed somehow.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,514
11,651
136
That's the way it is in Canada as well. Far more focus on education and prevention.

It makes sense as well!

Look at all the big health care issues. Smoking related diseases, Diabetes, heart disease, alcohol abuse, stroke...

All of those can be massively improved just through small lifestyle changes!
 

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,562
1,742
126
When I was in Thailand my health care was very good. And, it was cheap which is sad.

I had a tooth that was giving me a ton of issues when I arrived in Bangkok. I first went to the hospital at 2am. I was seen immediately and totsl cost was $30 USD. Pain meds were like $5 and the best part is their pharmacy is in the hospital. I didn't have to wait till the next day because they were closed. I got serviced immediately.

My tooth was still bothering me so I went to the dentist with my girlfriend. I had my teeth cleaned for $25 USD. When they found the issue I was told I needed root canal. This same procedure in NJ would have cost $1,200. That's crown and all the work. In Thailand, the same exact procedure cost $400 USD. The same exact procedure.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,514
11,651
136
When I was in Thailand my health care was very good. And, it was cheap which is sad.

I had a tooth that was giving me a ton of issues when I arrived in Bangkok. I first went to the hospital at 2am. I was seen immediately and totsl cost was $30 USD. Pain meds were like $5 and the best part is their pharmacy is in the hospital. I didn't have to wait till the next day because they were closed. I got serviced immediately.

My tooth was still bothering me so I went to the dentist with my girlfriend. I had my teeth cleaned for $25 USD. When they found the issue I was told I needed root canal. This same procedure in NJ would have cost $1,200. That's crown and all the work. In Thailand, the same exact procedure cost $400 USD. The same exact procedure.


You really have to factor in how much the people involved were getting paid and the cost of living in Thailand there.
 

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,562
1,742
126
Big pharma is busines first.

They want young people afflicted with disease so they can profit for the duration of the person's life. Think about a 30 something who has type 2 diabetes. That one person will be dependent on their diabetes medication for life. That's 40 plus years barring early death. They don't want you healthy. They want everyone on meds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soundforbjt

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,562
1,742
126
You really have to factor in how much the people involved were getting paid and the cost of living in Thailand there.

No doubt. The fact is NJ is an expensive state to live in. So, pretty much every thing else is going to cost more. It's still sad to think that the cost of health care is skyrocketing in America. Much of this has to do with the greed.