Cory Booker and Senate Republicans vote down Canadian drug imports.

Greenbeard said:

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.

Click to expand...

Like I said in the original post, I was hoping someone with more information could provide valid reasons because I was curious.

Once pointed to the fact there was valid reasons, I accepted that because it makes sense. I have little trust for politicians so I'm always going to lean to nefarious assumptions until given reason to believe otherwise especially, in cases where someone voted on an issue where they were funded by one side of the argument.

As far as the safety issues, if they are being used regularly by Canadians without issue then it would seem safety issues are largely blown out of proportion. If a medication were to be causing problems they could stop those particular drugs rather than all.

apdst said:

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?

Click to expand...

If they had approval from Canadian regulators I'd support such a thing.

Nap said:

As far as the safety issues, if they are being used regularly by Canadians without issue then it would seem safety issues are largely blown out of proportion. If a medication were to be causing problems they could stop those particular drugs rather than all.

Click to expand...

That's right now. I assume there are currently no serious issues with the drug safety infrastructure ensuring drugs sold in Canada to Canadians are not harmful.

But if the intent is to make Canada America's pharmacy, then you're presumably going to have a huge influx of drugs flowing through Canada to get here, a country with nine times as many people. If that's not the case, then this approach won't have much impact anyway. Who is responsible for inspecting the safety of manufacturing sites and distribution warehouses (and where are those, for that matter?) producing and storing those drugs? Is it us and will we be expanding the FDA’s Globalization Initiative? Is it the Canadians, who I don't believe have ever indicated willingness or ability to guarantee the safety of huge volumes of pass-through drugs that rival or exceed the volume of drugs they're already responsible for on behalf of their own citizens? If the latter, that's sort of the equivalent of taking down a wall and making Canada pay for it.

Booker is taking a lot of flack for his vote but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to hold off on committing to support this in the absence of answers to those questions.

That said, the bigger issue is that this probably wouldn't have the intended effect anyway, even if there aren't safety issues. It's more likely to screw up the prices Canadians pay for drugs than fix the prices Americans pay.

**** Cory Booker; a bought out Clintonista neoliberal fraud and remnant of the tenuously clinging Dem establishment that needs to be torn down and replaced wholesale. The contemptible sort of false progressive who will talk at length about civil and voting rights, because it costs his benefactors nothing, then turn coat the instant money, and more specifically donor interests get involved.

The whole notion that he voted against the bill out of concerns about imports meeting FDA standards is absurd sophistry; obviously a weak tea excuse and pathetic attempt at plausible deniability for a deeply unpopular vote that was so transparently made on the behalf of his funders (he is at present the biggest bribe taker of Dem Senators from Big Pharma). People who disingenuously attempt to pad out or back such nonsense, probably out of some sense of misplaced partisan loyalty, should be as ashamed as Booker. Pharmaceutical safety issues with Canadian drugs? Please, do tell; this coming from a man who voted recently to _weaken_ FDA regulations (yes, there are good things in the bill; there is also plenty of bad that objectively weakens drug quality control):

https://mic.com/articles/165421/cor...tions-big-pharma-canada-drugs-vote#.tEmOw28d4

Beyond that, what specific issues can Cory Booker point to? He hasn't made any attempt whatsoever at rationalizing his bogus apprehension with specific or concrete examples of failures or deficiencies in Canadian drug manufacturing and logistics.

This repulsive man and his supporters can **** right off.

Nap said:

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.

Click to expand...

Politicians aren't able to accept money from anyone. That's illegal.

EMNofSeattle said:

If they had approval from Canadian regulators I'd support such a thing.

Click to expand...

Canadian drugs do have approval from Canadian regulators. Canadian drugs that have FDA approval are just expensive as American drugs.

I'll give this one to the Canadians, their drug approval system is much more streamlined and less costly to pharmaceutical companies than the FDA.

Greenbeard said:

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.

Click to expand...

The pharmaceutical industry isn't making the safety argument; the government is.

What needs to happen, is Congress should figure how to lower the average cost of FDA approval down from $2.6 billion

Nap said:

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

Click to expand...

There are VERY few ways to get money out of politics. Good luck an achieving ANY of them. Particularly since its the foxes guarding the hen house.

1: Restrict all politicians from earning money outside of their government checks. Any money tied to them that isn't from that government check (after they enter office and have been out of office for at least 10 years) = auto prison time and confiscation of all money earned during that time frame.

2: Get rid of the use/need for money altogether in society.

3: Force Politicians to take a pauper vow with same conditions as outlined in #1. Giving them only what they need to survive comfortably + free healthcare.

4: Create a society where greed and power are not a driving force. (think original star trek type society on Earth)

Beyond any of those nothing else will work. They will always find a way around whatever does happen to managed to be passed.

Kal'Stang said:

There are VERY few ways to get money out of politics. Good luck an achieving ANY of them. Particularly since its the foxes guarding the hen house.

1: Restrict all politicians from earning money outside of their government checks. Any money tied to them that isn't from that government check (after they enter office and have been out of office for at least 10 years) = auto prison time and confiscation of all money earned during that time frame.

2: Get rid of the use/need for money altogether in society.

3: Force Politicians to take a pauper vow with same conditions as outlined in #1. Giving them only what they need to survive comfortably + free healthcare.

4: Create a society where greed and power are not a driving force. (think original star trek type society on Earth)

Beyond any of those nothing else will work. They will always find a way around whatever does happen to managed to be passed.

Click to expand...

Publicly funded elections with stringent spending limits, stringent and low personal donation limits, bans on political advertising (either outside of party spending or altogether), and bans on paid lobbying would be a great start, and have been proven effective elsewhere. A constitutional amendment is also necessary to reasonably insulate campaign finance control from the politicians, and modify the first amendment such that the absurd Buckley v Valeo and Citizens United SCOTUS interpretations that 'money is speech' no longer applies to it.

You'll of course never completely eliminate the disproportionate influence of private money in public office, but what you can do is substantially reduce it such that the US is no longer a de facto plutocracy, and has a representative government like other first world countries with meaningful campaign finance and lobbying controls.