Sanders' Drug imports amendment killed in Committee by Dems, Murray & Bennett !

[Shadows]

Republicans and Democrats Continue to Block Drug Reimportation – After Publicly Endorsing It


Disgust with high prescription drug prices is nearly universal – 77 percent say drug prices are "unreasonable" – and 71 percent of respondents favor allowing the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. Trump's FDA chief, Scott Gottlieb, was not only against importation, he'd written a Forbes editorial in 2016 denouncing then-candidate Trump's position on the issue. Trump's Health and Human Services chief, Tom Price, also has a long history of supporting pharmaceutical industry initiatives.

Sanders, along with co-sponsors Elizabeth Warren and Robert Casey, offered an amendment to the user-fee bill that would have allowed for importation of drugs from FDA-approved facilities in Canada. As Casey pointed out in committee, the amendment is laden with protections, requiring patients to have valid Canadian prescriptions, allowing the FDA to shut down bad actors, etc. Once again, Democratic discipline broke down. The amendment this time was beaten in committee, 13-10. Two Democrats, Patty Murray and Michael Bennett, both of whom accept a lot of pharmaceutical money, voted no.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-republicans-and-democrats-blocking-drug-reimportation-w485638

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lol

[RI]

Shockingly, Murray continues to be a HP.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Well, at least it won't hurt as much if those red state dems go down now.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It increasingly appears that the left is going to have to fight to control it's own party before it will be able to fight the Republicans. ("Vote Democrat! They're not quite as awful as Trump and the Republicans!" may win an election or two, but it isn't a real solution to the problems facing our country and its citizens.)

[dead0man]

Of course I laugh at the Senate Dems that better be getting primaried but won't be....but how were Americans going to get a Canadian prescription under this plan?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I am really starting to lose respect for Tester now.  He's supposed to be the kind of Democrat that doesn't go for this corporatist garbage.

Of course I laugh at the Senate Dems that better be getting primaried but won't be....but how were Americans going to get a Canadian prescription under this plan?

I'm not up on the details, but I would assume that the pharmaceutical companies would purchase drugs from across the border and Americans would get them that way.

(Of course, buying drugs online isn't exactly a new thing.  My mom did it one time when she bought stuff from India.  Don't ask me how it went.)

[dead0man]

I should have been more clear.  How are they getting the written prescription, like from a doc, that is Canadian.  

This bit

As Casey pointed out in committee, the amendment is laden with protections, requiring patients to have valid Canadian prescriptions

Doesn't a doc need to see a new patient before writing a prescription?  I'm sure the writers of the bill thought this out, I'm just not seeing how.  You could make it easy to get one, but then it would be easy to scam.  That's not good.


I'm torn on the entire issue.  On one hand, the FDA makes putting new drugs on the market just stupid expensive for the makers of the new drugs so they should be able to charge whatever the hell they want to make up for those losses, but if they're able to make money selling drug X in Canada for Y dollars, why can't they make money selling it to Americans for the same price?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Murray and Bennett voted for fast track. They like free trade for corporations but not consumers. Neoliberal frauds like them are why the Democratic party is so hated.

[The Govanah Jake]

Hey Look. Corey "Sellout Hooker" Booker is on their with some of the largest Contributions. What a shock.

[136or142]

The problem is that when the prescription drug bill of George W Bush was passed, the the conservative Republicans insisted that it include a provision that no government agency would negotiate drug prices with the manufacturers.

There is nothing magical about Canadian pharmaceutical drug exports, just that the Canadian provinces negotiate the prices with the manufacturers.  Canadian drug prices would actually be cheaper if either the Federal government negotiated the prices, of if the provinces got together and had one negotiating authority.

If you want cheaper drugs, get this law changed and don't increase the demand for the drugs made here which would undoubtedly increase their price.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/jan/17/tammy-baldwin/tammy-baldwin-federal-government-prohibited-negoti/

Baldwin says the federal government is prohibited "from negotiating lower prescription drug prices for our senior citizens."

Her reference is to Medicare Part D, a voluntary insurance program for prescription drugs for people on Medicare. Views differ on whether seniors ultimately would benefit if the federal government could negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies on prescription drug prices for Part D. But current federal law does prohibit that.

We rate Baldwin’s statement True.

There is a discussion there that negotiated prices would result in fewer drugs being made. Given the amount that the drug makers spend on advertising, I think that's a load of nonsense.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The problem is that when the prescription drug bill of George W Bush was passed, the the conservative Republicans insisted that it include a provision that no government agency would negotiate drug prices with the manufacturers.

There is nothing magical about Canadian pharmaceutical drug exports, just that the Canadian provinces negotiate the prices with the manufacturers.  Canadian drug prices would actually be cheaper if either the Federal government negotiated the prices, of if the provinces got together and had one negotiating authority.

If you want cheaper drugs, get this law changed and don't increase the demand for the drugs made here which would undoubtedly increase their price.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/jan/17/tammy-baldwin/tammy-baldwin-federal-government-prohibited-negoti/

Baldwin says the federal government is prohibited "from negotiating lower prescription drug prices for our senior citizens."

Her reference is to Medicare Part D, a voluntary insurance program for prescription drugs for people on Medicare. Views differ on whether seniors ultimately would benefit if the federal government could negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies on prescription drug prices for Part D. But current federal law does prohibit that.

We rate Baldwin’s statement True.

There is a discussion there that negotiated prices would result in fewer drugs being made. Given the amount that the drug makers spend on advertising, I think that's a load of nonsense.

California's Prop 61 would have at least made the state of California get the best price. However, it was defeated with the help of the pharma lobbyist who is the current California Democratic chair.