FSTDT Forums

Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: dpareja on January 12, 2017, 09:50:09 pm

Title: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: dpareja on January 12, 2017, 09:50:09 pm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00020#position

Bernie Sanders wanted you to be able to get cheaper prescription drugs in the US by importing them from Canada, and proposed an amendment to that effect. It was defeated 46-52, with two abstentions. And, no, it was not a party-line vote.

The abstentions were Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

Republicans voting in favour of Sanders' proposal: John Boozman (R-AR), Susan Collins (R-ME), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Dean Heller (R-NV), John Neely Kennedy (R-LA), Mike Lee (R-UT), John McCain (R-AZ), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rand Paul (R-KY), and John Thune (R-SD).

Democrats voting against Sanders' proposal: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Thomas Carper (D-DE), Bob Casey (D-PA), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jon Tester (D-MT), Mark Warner (D-VA).

Shit like this shows two things: One, it shows just how bought some Democrats are. (If you look at campaign contributions, quite a lot of the people on that last list received a fair chunk of change from the pharmaceutical industry.) Two, it gets these positions out in the open, since Sanders insists on roll call votes rather than voice votes so that people have to go on the record supporting or opposing his proposals. If I were in any of the states of anyone on that last list, I'd be looking for someone to primary them (or do it myself) and run attack ads talking about how that person wanted you to pay more for your prescription drugs.

And to those thirteen Senators, just how bought are you that you oppose something that even Ted Cruz thinks is a good idea?
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: Askold on January 13, 2017, 12:34:45 am
...This is basically USA admitting that the high price of drugs in USA is an artificial thing that only works because they prevent foreign competition. (And presumably the same companies sell the same drugs at a cheaper price elsewhere.)
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 13, 2017, 09:42:39 am
But... I thought that the free market was infallible!  Funny that they only support it when its convenient...like everything else.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: Askold on January 13, 2017, 02:17:44 pm
This is usually the point where someone comes in to say how this isn't true free market because of government intereference and how a TRUE free market would fix everything.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 13, 2017, 03:35:10 pm
Funny thing is, I'm not entirely sure that there has ever been a truly free market, unless you go waaaaaaay back to the hunter/gatherer days.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 13, 2017, 06:09:05 pm
The TEA party provide a lesson here, they were indeed crazy, as crazy as most rich American politicians think socialized medicine is, but they were good at forcing their reps to do what they wanted by punishing them at the ballot box if they didn't toe the party line. Democrats who want their reps to not be slimy corporate traitors to their base should do the same.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: Sigmaleph on January 15, 2017, 02:10:11 pm
This is usually the point where someone comes in to say how this isn't true free market because of government intereference and how a TRUE free market would fix everything.


Well... yes? There isn't a free market on drugs, it's regulated to hell and back. For good reasons, obviously, but there definitely isn't.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: niam2023 on January 18, 2017, 03:16:04 pm
This issue is not as clean cut as some and, apparently, Bernie Sanders, want you to believe it is.

Here is someone from Black Lives Matter breaking down why Cory Booker voted this way and that he was actually in favor of a different amendment that would actually lower drug prices instead of assuming that going to Canada with this would result in lower prices.

https://twitter.com/deray/status/821315096420851712

There is some suspicion that Sanders did this to try to cause damage to his perspective 2020 opponents. In which case I say - can't we all focus on the golden horror of a President Elect?
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: The_Queen on January 18, 2017, 03:24:07 pm
This issue is not as clean cut as some and, apparently, Bernie Sanders, want you to believe it is.

Here is someone from Black Lives Matter breaking down why Cory Booker voted this way and that he was actually in favor of a different amendment that would actually lower drug prices instead of assuming that going to Canada with this would result in lower prices.

https://twitter.com/deray/status/821315096420851712

There is some suspicion that Sanders did this to try to cause damage to his perspective 2020 opponents. In which case I say - can't we all focus on the golden horror of a President Elect?

I would like to see Deray McKesson more involved in politics. Not as president, too young and inexperienced, but I like the way he thinks and studies the issues, as well as his charisma. I think he could get a lot done in Congress, if he could ever make it in there.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: dpareja on January 18, 2017, 06:08:08 pm
I still smell bullshit, for two reasons.

One, Cory Booker is the single largest recipient of pharmaceutical company money among all Democratic Senators. Two, if the reason he voted against Sanders' amendment was that he supported a different one that would actually result in savings, he should have explained that and not spun some nonsense about "safety standards." Canada's drug safety standards are just as stringent as the US's, and if anything they're in effect better since they're more strictly enforced.

Does that mean Deray McKesson is wrong? Of course not, but I'm not just going to believe him outright.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: niam2023 on January 18, 2017, 06:36:42 pm
I still smell bullshit, for two reasons.

One, Cory Booker is the single largest recipient of pharmaceutical company money among all Democratic Senators. Two, if the reason he voted against Sanders' amendment was that he supported a different one that would actually result in savings, he should have explained that and not spun some nonsense about "safety standards." Canada's drug safety standards are just as stringent as the US's, and if anything they're in effect better since they're more strictly enforced.

Does that mean Deray McKesson is wrong? Of course not, but I'm not just going to believe him outright.

So, to try to follow your logic here, any person who has received any corporate donations is bad, and anyone who defends someone who is not as pure as Bernie is suspect immediately in your book.

There is functionally no difference between you and the Tea Party trying to Primary people who are not pure enough as Right Wingers.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: dpareja on January 18, 2017, 07:39:30 pm
Taking corporate donations doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you part of the problem, which is not the same thing. Sen. Booker might be a perfectly good person--I don't know him--and might have a different voting record if he couldn't raise money from corporations. But the fact that he takes that money skews his record and obscures his true views.

Quote
In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions--or corporations--to participate in politics. Both were created for economic purposes and their activities should be restricted accordingly.

In fact, when you look at donation records pre-Citizens United, the biggest donors to the Democratic Party were labor unions (which fight for the people against big corporations--and I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to donate to campaigns) and trial lawyers (who fight for the people against big corporations). After that travesty of a decision, that fundraising base was swiftly eclipsed by corporate money.

And you have to remember that whatever you or I might think of the results, what the Tea Party did worked. They did push the Republican Party toward their position and ultimately forced out more respectable Republicans like Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe, and got Arlen Specter to switch parties (which may have been before the term went mainstream, but it was the same sentiment that made him cross the aisle). Challenging sitting members of Congress in primaries is a completely legitimate way of attempting to advance your policy priorities.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: pyro on January 19, 2017, 12:58:36 pm
Isn't forcing politicians to endorse more extreme views, so that the Democratic and Republican parties end up occupying completely parallel universes of political discourse, a bad thing?
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: The_Queen on January 19, 2017, 04:50:22 pm
Judging from Bernie's rehetoric during the confirmation hearings and this latest bit, my money is on him running for President in 2020.

And winning.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: dpareja on January 19, 2017, 04:52:17 pm
Judging from Bernie's rehetoric during the confirmation hearings and this latest bit, my money is on him running for President in 2020.

And winning.

The best indication of that for me was during one of his town halls, where someone asked him if he'd run and instead of confirming or denying it, he said that for now they had to focus on the issues.

Isn't forcing politicians to endorse more extreme views, so that the Democratic and Republican parties end up occupying completely parallel universes of political discourse, a bad thing?

I didn't say it was a good thing. I said it was a legitimate tactic.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: niam2023 on January 19, 2017, 06:02:31 pm
Taking corporate donations doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you part of the problem, which is not the same thing. Sen. Booker might be a perfectly good person--I don't know him--and might have a different voting record if he couldn't raise money from corporations. But the fact that he takes that money skews his record and obscures his true views.

Quote
In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions--or corporations--to participate in politics. Both were created for economic purposes and their activities should be restricted accordingly.

In fact, when you look at donation records pre-Citizens United, the biggest donors to the Democratic Party were labor unions (which fight for the people against big corporations--and I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to donate to campaigns) and trial lawyers (who fight for the people against big corporations). After that travesty of a decision, that fundraising base was swiftly eclipsed by corporate money.

And you have to remember that whatever you or I might think of the results, what the Tea Party did worked. They did push the Republican Party toward their position and ultimately forced out more respectable Republicans like Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe, and got Arlen Specter to switch parties (which may have been before the term went mainstream, but it was the same sentiment that made him cross the aisle). Challenging sitting members of Congress in primaries is a completely legitimate way of attempting to advance your policy priorities.

So basically the only fault of the Tea Party's crusade for purity of ideology in your mind is that they were not your people doing what you want. That speaks of a truly myopic view of the world, and shutting people out who don't have the same "purity" in their voting record or ideology. What the Tea Party did was more than challenge sitting members, they enforced a particularly horrible sort of extremism that permitted no deviance from their hard party line, and as a result elected in people with no idea how to run a government or make compromises with their opposite numbers.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: Art Vandelay on January 19, 2017, 07:31:01 pm
So basically the only fault of the Tea Party's crusade for purity of ideology in your mind is that they were not your people doing what you want. That speaks of a truly myopic view of the world, and shutting people out who don't have the same "purity" in their voting record or ideology. What the Tea Party did was more than challenge sitting members, they enforced a particularly horrible sort of extremism that permitted no deviance from their hard party line, and as a result elected in people with no idea how to run a government or make compromises with their opposite numbers.
Say, weren't you the guy who wanted to economically ruin (more so) the regions where the majority voted for Trump? I believe there's an expression involving glass houses and thrown rocks that may or may not be relevant.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: niam2023 on January 19, 2017, 09:53:10 pm
I make no secret of the fact I am in fact an egoistic sociopath, a morally deficient man who advocates things that most likely nobody else would want to see implemented.

And I admit that readily.

It just seems so odd, for me, to see someone justify and glorify their longing for power and their faction's control over a Party and not have any sort of awareness of any similarities to their enemies or any amorality in their designs.

It seems people with ethical standards bend and waver those standards depending on who they're talking about and with, and what time they're making their argument. For example, being against pushing people out of a Party based upon ideological purity and comparing the Tea Party to ruthless zealots such as the Taliban, but then campaigning for the same kind of purity and, well, all of a sudden its perfectly understandable to seek purity and cast out those who do not match your vaunted standard.

By all means cast down compromise and exist within your own little bubble of ideology. But to act like you're the most noble man for doing something you already decried long ago...that really is remarkable.
Title: Re: Bernie wanted you to have cheaper drugs
Post by: dpareja on January 20, 2017, 12:23:32 am
So here's the thing: I see nothing wrong with what the Tea Party did insofar as how they pushed the Republican Party towards their ideology.

Do I like the results? Hell no. But their tactics were fine. A group of voters with similar interests mobilized and pushed candidates who would support those interests. That they did so in the primaries rather than the general makes no difference.

I don't think incumbents should be safe just because they're incumbents. Defeating them in a primary is every bit as legitimate a way of removing them from office as is unseating them in the general. If a group of corporatist Democrats successfully turfed Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts or Jeff Merkley in Oregon in their primaries, well, I wouldn't like that, but I wouldn't think it's illegitimate.