• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cory Booker and Senate Republicans vote down Canadian drug imports.

N

Nap

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
8,362
Reaction score
3,187
Location
Jackson, MS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12...asure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/

I will admit I don't know much about this issue but to me this seems like a good amendment.

What really irritates me though is, how is it legal for politicians to receive all this funding from businesses and be allowed to vote on issues directly involved with a bill. It seems to be pretty clear that this was pay-to-play type situation. How do we get the money out of politics, and what exactly is that ethics board doing about situations like this?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.phil...-importation/?amp=1?client=ms-android-samsung

This is another article on this amendment, the tweet at the bottom by Bob Casey was classic.

If anyone has more information on this and some valid reasons why to not pass this amendment (other than receiving checks from PhRMA) please let me know.
 
Last edited:
Nap said:
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12...asure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/

I will admit I don't know much about this issue but to me this seems like a good amendment.

What really irritates me though is, how is it legal for politicians to receive all this funding from businesses and be allowed to vote on issues directly involved with a bill. It seems to be pretty clear that this was pay-to-play type situation. How do we get the money out of politics, and what exactly is that ethics board doing about situations like this?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.phil...-importation/?amp=1?client=ms-android-samsung

This is another article on this amendment, the tweet at the bottom by Bob Casey was classic.

If anyone has more information on this and some valid reasons why to not pass this amendment (other than receiving checks from PhRMA) please let me know.
Click to expand...

Politicians on both sides are participating in the pay for play with big pharm.
 
Nap said:
I know, this is my issue with the whole thing.....
Click to expand...

The only way to fight it is to make a huge issue about it. Fighting big phara is fighting big money and big political influence. It's been tried and needs to be tried again. The last story with any traction was the EpiPen cost hike. We don't hear much about that anymore. The CEO of that company is the daughter of a politician.
She is the daughter of Gayle Conelly Manchin and Joe Manchin, who was a prominent politician throughout her childhood and as of 2015 was the senior United States Senator from West Virginia.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Bresch
There was a lot of screaming and hollering and then the hype faded. No laws have been passed to solve the problem. CVS is offering a cheaper version but this is only one situation in thousands.

Corey Booker's contributions from pharmaceuticals:
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Total, $385,678 Individuals $172,178 PACs $213,500
Health Professionals Total $242,755 Individuals $200,555 PACs $42,200

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00035267&type=I&newmem=N
 
Last edited:
NonoBadDog said:
The only way to fight it is to make a huge issue about it. Fighting big phara is fighting big money and big political influence. It's been tried and needs to be tried again. The last story with any traction was the EpiPen cost hike. We don't hear much about that anymore. The CEO of that company is the daughter of a politician.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Bresch
There was a lot of screaming and hollering and then the hype faded. No laws have been passed to solve the problem. CVS is offering a cheaper version but this is only one situation in thousands.

Corey Booker's contributions from pharmaceuticals:
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Total, $385,678 Individuals $172,178 PACs $213,500
Health Professionals Total $242,755 Individuals $200,555 PACs $42,200

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00035267&type=I&newmem=N
Click to expand...

Maybe it wasn't such a bad idea to scrap that ethics committee because they obviously suck at their job.

*To prevent any confusion, this was intended as a joke
 
Nap said:
Maybe it wasn't such a bad idea to scrap that ethics committee because they obviously suck at their job.

*To prevent any confusion, this was intended as a joke
Click to expand...

It needs a rebuild. New body, new engine, new drive train, new wiring, new everything. Chavetz subpoenaed the head of the ethics committee yesterday and the left had a fit. It needs some work.
 
NonoBadDog said:
It needs a rebuild. New body, new engine, new drive train, new wiring, new everything. Chavetz subpoenaed the head of the ethics committee yesterday and the left had a fit. It needs some work.
Click to expand...

"The left" had a fit because Chavetz is bought and paid for.
 
Nap said:
I know, this is my issue with the whole thing.....
Click to expand...

I'd LIKE to think this is one issue that BIG LEFT and BIG RIGHT can agree on. The prices being charged for live-saving, or live-improving drugs are INSANE.
 
Kobie said:
I'd LIKE to think this is one issue that BIG LEFT and BIG RIGHT can agree on. The prices being charged for live-saving, or live-improving drugs are INSANE.
Click to expand...

From what I read it appears that this is actually a policy Trump campaigned on so there is hope for it. It also said it had enough support to pass if not for the senators in the pocket of big pharma.

We have to somehow separate money out of politics if we ever want to get stuff right in this country.
 
Nap said:
From what I read it appears that this is actually a policy Trump campaigned on so there is hope for it. It also said it had enough support to pass if not for the senators in the pocket of big pharma.

We have to somehow separate money out of politics if we ever want to get stuff right in this country.
Click to expand...

No argument from here on that point.
 
Kobie said:
No argument from here on that point.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect much argument on this. I am hoping someone with some valid reasons to vote against will show up because I do find this issue pretty interesting.
 
Nap said:
I didn't expect much argument on this. I am hoping someone with some valid reasons to vote against will show up because I do find this issue pretty interesting.
Click to expand...

There's only one "valid" reason to vote against it, and it involves money that none of us will ever see. It's bought-and-paid-for politicians.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Politicians on both sides are participating in the pay for play with big pharm.
Click to expand...

Politicians on both sides are participating in the assault and destruction of the US Constitution, and it is not a new phenomenon.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Politicians on both sides are participating in the assault and destruction of the US Constitution, and it is not a new phenomenon.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
 
If drug pricing in the U.S. is broken, then it needs to be fixed. Re-importing drugs from Canada is too cutesy and roundabout and probably wouldn't actually work. We should be devoting our energy to the actual problem.
 
The problem is the FDA wouldn't allow them anyway.
Some of these drugs do not pass FDA standards.

People have tried ordering drugs online to save money overseas and have ended up dead or have
not gotten the correct dosage or prescription.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Politicians on both sides are participating in the pay for play with big pharm.
Click to expand...

Just being realistic, NJ has a big pharma industry, and both D senators voted against the amendment. I wouldn't really call those votes "pay to play" any more than I'd call pro-oil votes from Senators from Texas "pay to play." When a whole bunch of your constituents work in an industry, it's generally expected that as Sen. you'll support that industry...

The other thing is the vote really was a 'show' vote on the rules for budgeting. If passed it would have given the committee head the discretion to move some funds around if the purpose was to import drugs. In other words, if this thing passed, nothing changed with the rules on importing drugs from Canada. It would have required another amendment/bill and another vote, and the defeated amendment just would have made that a bit easier.
 
JasperL said:
Just being realistic, NJ has a big pharma industry, and both D senators voted against the amendment. I wouldn't really call those votes "pay to play" any more than I'd call pro-oil votes from Senators from Texas "pay to play." When a whole bunch of your constituents work in an industry, it's generally expected that as Sen. you'll support that industry...

The other thing is the vote really was a 'show' vote on the rules for budgeting. If passed it would have given the committee head the discretion to move some funds around if the purpose was to import drugs. In other words, if this thing passed, nothing changed with the rules on importing drugs from Canada. It would have required another amendment/bill and another vote, and the defeated amendment just would have made that a bit easier.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute anything that you have said. What does that have to do with what I said? Ya kinda lost me. That isn't hard to do sometimes.

Edit:
I get what you are saying. I was talking in general. Big pharm has way too much influence and donates good chunks of money to politicians on both sides.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I don't dispute anything that you have said. What does that have to do with what I said? Ya kinda lost me. That isn't hard to do sometimes.

Edit:
I get what you are saying. I was talking in general. Big pharm has way too much influence and donates good chunks of money to politicians on both sides.
Click to expand...

If I was in the pharmaceutical business and I thought that drugs from a foreign country were going to be allowed to marketed in The United States without spending millions obtaining FDA approval, I would be mad as hell and I would lobby my ass off to stop it.
 
JasperL said:
Just being realistic, NJ has a big pharma industry, and both D senators voted against the amendment. I wouldn't really call those votes "pay to play" any more than I'd call pro-oil votes from Senators from Texas "pay to play." When a whole bunch of your constituents work in an industry, it's generally expected that as Sen. you'll support that industry...

The other thing is the vote really was a 'show' vote on the rules for budgeting. If passed it would have given the committee head the discretion to move some funds around if the purpose was to import drugs. In other words, if this thing passed, nothing changed with the rules on importing drugs from Canada. It would have required another amendment/bill and another vote, and the defeated amendment just would have made that a bit easier.
Click to expand...

What it would take, is a law exempting Canadian drugs from FDA approval. Would you be in favor of exempting Canadian drugs from FDA approval?
 
JasperL said:
Just being realistic, NJ has a big pharma industry, and both D senators voted against the amendment. I wouldn't really call those votes "pay to play" any more than I'd call pro-oil votes from Senators from Texas "pay to play." When a whole bunch of your constituents work in an industry, it's generally expected that as Sen. you'll support that industry...

The other thing is the vote really was a 'show' vote on the rules for budgeting. If passed it would have given the committee head the discretion to move some funds around if the purpose was to import drugs. In other words, if this thing passed, nothing changed with the rules on importing drugs from Canada. It would have required another amendment/bill and another vote, and the defeated amendment just would have made that a bit easier.
Click to expand...

I didn't think about that part, that is at least a legitimate argument why some would be against it.

I still don't like the idea of any politicians being able accept money from businesses and then being able to vote on something that affects these businesses. I just don't have any idea on how to stop it.
 
Nap said:
I didn't think about that part, that is at least a legitimate argument why some would be against it.
Click to expand...

The safety argument itself is legitimate, you don't need to assume nefarious motives to explain a no vote predicated on that issue. Just because an argument is convenient for the industry doesn't mean it doesn't have merit.
 
JasperL said:
Just being realistic, NJ has a big pharma industry, and both D senators voted against the amendment. I wouldn't really call those votes "pay to play" any more than I'd call pro-oil votes from Senators from Texas "pay to play." When a whole bunch of your constituents work in an industry, it's generally expected that as Sen. you'll support that industry...

The other thing is the vote really was a 'show' vote on the rules for budgeting. If passed it would have given the committee head the discretion to move some funds around if the purpose was to import drugs. In other words, if this thing passed, nothing changed with the rules on importing drugs from Canada. It would have required another amendment/bill and another vote, and the defeated amendment just would have made that a bit easier.
Click to expand...

a sound point
booker voting on behalf of his constituents
but this will damage his national presidential run in 2020
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom