Byron Dorgan’s amendment to allow for drug reimportation failed this evening.
The roll call certainly made for some strange bedfellows, though it does seem that some Yeas were illegitimate.
The defenders of the PhRMA deal were forced to round up so many Democratic votes because the GOP decided to make mischief on the Senate floor. Eighteen Republicans — nearly half their total — broke with their traditional opposition to reimportation and voted with Dorgan, many of them smiling as they watched nervous Democratic leaders huddled around the table in front of the Senate president’s desk. When it was clear it would fail, two of them -= Sens. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) =- switched their votes back to no. Ensign was rewarded for his flip-flop by a sharp Senate-floor tongue-lashing from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime and serious supporter of reimportation.
Sens. Kerry and Kirk voted against the amendment. Of course, we cannot know how Sen. Kennedy would have voted, but he did co-sponsor a bill in 2004 allowing for drug reimportation.
One of the most unfortunate things about this amendment was the bald-face lies that the White House told about the safety issues concerning the drugs.
Is the PhRMA deal a good thing? Do we need it?
Why would it be so bad to able to buy/import prescription drugs from Canada? We’re not talking about unsafe knock-off drugs, these are made by the same pharmaceutical companies as we have right here (they probably are made here and exported to Canada).
<
p>So much for a transparent negotiation about the healthcare reform.
<
p>Here’s the quote from “himself”…
<
p>
<
p>Did Obama have the meeting with Pharma on CSPAN?
<
p>Not only did CSPAN not get invited to the Healthcare meetings but even to this day the Senate has not seen the bill that Harry Reid is single handedly writing. The only transparency is seeing right through Obama’s lies not keeping his word!
<
p>Pharma paid $80 Billion and will get what they paid for… and “we” will be paying far more than $80 Billion as a result.
<
p>So you’re in favor of drug reimportation from Canada, JohnD? I guess you’re in with some of the other Republican hypocrites who lash against health care price controls here in the US but want to take advantage of the benefits of the “socialist” health care they have up north.
<
p>As far as the substance of this, it is certainly not a good thing that this did not make it into the bill (though probably necessary to get the bill passed), but unlike the public option, this probably has more of a chance of passing as a separate measure later.
What healthcare price controls have I lashed out against? Can we make charges like that without backing them up? I happen to be a free market person and would support buying cheaper drugs if they are available. The result might be the drug companies raising drug prices “everywhere” to compensate but that’s fine with me.
<
p>So what is it? Do you support “socialist” price controls on medicine? Perhaps you do, and your position is consistent. But plenty of Republicans claim that they are “free market people” in opposing price controls, single-payer systems, and/or allowing the government to negotatiate prices, which they claim would cause untold disaster. Yet (some) Republicans turn right around and also support re-importing these drugs from Canada, when the only reason these drugs are cheaper is because of the government-controlled Canadian health care system.
<
p>How is that not hypocrisy?
I don’t care how the prices are cheaper there, just that they are. Americans buy $25 Billion of goods from China every month. Does that mean we support Communism or slave labor? No, we just want to buy good which are cheaper.
when you could save a buck? Nice.
Chinese goods are cheaper because of “free market” principles — lower labor costs, most prominently.
<
p>Prescription drugs from Canada, by contrast, are only cheaper because of the very government policies Republicans regularly lambaste as unworkable and “socialist”. So your analogy fails.
<
p>Thank you for confirming what I suspected — that you being hypocritical on this issue, just like many of your fellow Republicans.
BTW… I think we all might have “inconsistencies” in our lives. We know being overweight is bad for our health but even the smartest amongst us has more pounds than we should, I might be against pornography but I would not shy away from a picture from Playboy… and as I said above, Wal-Mart is the anti-Christ to many people… who shop there regularly.
<
p>In my world, I can be open to free market views regardless of why any particular market is cheap. Oil has a street price based on free market demands. I really don’t care why Mongolian oil vs, Saudi oil is cheaper or more expensive. One country could have no regulations, another could have child labor and yet another could have government subsidies (or socialized as you say). I don’t care since I am simply buying the product.
<
p>I’m not a Libertarian… and I’m not a Socialist. I can prefer varying degrees of many ideologies or ideas based on them. You are trying to pigeon hole me by saying if I support “any” aspect of socialism then I am not true to my credo and that simply is not true. I can have it both ways. I am a Republican but would vote for a Democrat if I liked his/her views better than the Republican. I can do this with any of my choices in life without being a hypocrite. I might drink beer regularly and feel like a glass of wine one night because it’s a really good wine… am I a “beer hypocrite”?
<
p>This is the crux of a few posts from last week where the heavy partisans on BMG were saying Dems have to vote party line, regardless of their views on an issue and I say BULL!
and the reason your analogies do not work as applied to this case. The Canadian market for drugs is not a “market” at all; it is a completely price controlled industry. In other words, the exact opposite of a “free market.”
<
p>The hypocrisy comes about because Republicans want to take advantage of this decidedly non-free market arrangement in Canada while suggesting that any move in that direction in the US is tantamount to socialism and the end of the free world.
I have a 52″ SONY flat panel TV. If SONY was selling these in Canada for $100 because the government of Canada was price controlling them then I would not hesitate to buy 6 of them for myself and my friends. And I would not find this “opportunity” in conflict with my feelings of free markets or with my anti-socialism concerns.
becuase it’s true.”
Citigroup gains huge tax break in deal with IRS
<
p>
<
p>Mo money for Wall St (damn I should have bought Citigroup at $1.03 but I didn’t know they were “in” with Obama and not on the “outs”). Even I believed him about that.
said re-importation of drugs would “kill” many Americans – where in the world do kooks like this come from? She said the FDA cannot inspect the plants in Europe therefore they are deemed unsafe – but to say the drugs would “kill” many Americans is way out of line – scare tactics to cover the democrats butts as they take more money from pharma, this is “change we can believe in”
As if our own, American-made drugs don’t kill thousands every year.
<
p>At least admit that you want to preserve the PhRMA agreement, don’t insult us with those lies.
Why did the GOP think that this would be a tough vote for Democrats? Why did some Democrats, Kerry and Kirk included, appear to prove them correct? Reimportation of safe drugs is for me one of the biggest no-brainers on the merits in this whole debate. Unless there is a political calculation or other component I’m completely missing, I would have voted in favor of this amendment without hesitation.
This would enjoy HUGE support from the American people.
I would tell Pharma to go jump in a lake. The only legitimate reason I can think of for supporting them is if they happened to be a huge industry/employer in my own state/district, since then my constituents would be affected. They can take their campaign contributions elsewhere. If you are also correct (and I hope that you are) that it would enjoy the support of the people then that makes up for Pharma. Besides, Kirk’s not running and Kerry is safe so why are they worried about contributions?
We have set up rules that make their jobs harder and consequently our drugs very expensive and the time to market is extremely long.
<
p>Anyone voting against the importing of drugs should have to stand and defend their vote.
The population of Canada is 33 million, but I’m going to use 30 million for easy math. The population of America is 304 million, but I’m going to use 300 million for easy math.
<
p>The US is ten times more populous than Canada. Let’s assume we use 10 times more pharmaceuticals. 10 times more of every single thing. Sure, it’s not that simple, but this is a first approximation.
<
p>Now, consider Drug A. Drug A sells in Canada for $20. Drug A sells in America for $30. For every $20 in revenue from Canada, they get $300 from America, since it costs more and they sell 10 times as much of it.
<
p>Now, we allow re importation from Canada. The revenue is 11x$20, $220. They used to get $320. So, what happens? Drug companies just shrug? Hell no. The next time the negotiation with Canada comes around, they raise prices — they’ve got to make up that lost $100. So, they raise prices from $20 to $29. Now, they get 11x$29 = $319. America now gets our drug $1 cheaper (from $30 to $29) and Canada now gets their drug $9 more expensive ($20 to $29).
<
p>
<
p>So, really… what happens to prices in Canada once America allows re importation and we literally flood their market with buy orders? Because Canada is so much smaller, the price will have to shoot up to (almost) the price in America for pharma to preserve revenues. End result: UPS and FedEx do well, but the final price (including shipping) ends up being awfully close to where it used to be.
From above…
<
p>
<
p>Remember, the drug companies are pretty smart. Instead on concentrating in Canada we should examine the world as a whole. The drug companies sell products to countries at whatever rate they can get. If Pfizer can only sell Viagra in Sweden for 20 Krona than THAT becomes the price. Some countries will of course regulate some prices which trumps market prices but the price is set in America because we (our insurance companies) will pay for it.
<
p>Let Americans buy drugs from wherever they want and let that market price drive costs down to an irreducible minimum in the US.
Or, more accurately, what you say would be true if the sale of prescription drugs in both countries operated as a completely free market. However, Canada places price controls on the drugs through a government board (in partial exchange for longer patent protection, if I remember correctly).
<
p>So if drugs were re-imported, it would not be Canadian drug prices that would rise. I agree the money has to come from somewhere, but the companies are prohibited to simply raise prices (as your example suggests) from $20 to $29. (Yes, there are negotiations about price, but such negotiations are unlikely to result in a Canadian rise in prices to cover the lost drug company profits).
It is about time. No don’t give the excuse that people don’t know because they can only get these things by prescription. Direct to consumer ads also place more emphasis on making profits a priority for big pharma.