The Booker bashing is why we lose.

[joshcryer]

And why we will continue to lose.

20 million people got their health care removed in a single vote and the biggest story was how a Senator in a state with lots of ties to big pharma voted with his constituents. Wyden makes shitty votes on Trade, Warren made a shitty vote regarding the medical device tax. Shit happens.

The focus is seriously fucking fucked up beyond all recognition. We will not get out of this shit any time soon.

We need another Obama. But one that is able to keep the party from eating its own so easily.

[doxyluv13]

1. It's not bashing to point out when Booker sells out his constituents

Sorry, Corey is no Obama, he's completely in the pocket of the financial services industry and Pharma--the 2 biggest business in NJ.

Have you looked at his contributors page:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=I&cid=N00035267&newMem=N&recs=20&cycle=2014

[pnwmom]

3. Do you have any idea how many of his constituents in NJ are part

of the financial services industry? So they donate to him because they're Dems and they live there.

And most of those individual donors aren't one-issue voters; like the rest of us, who they work for is just one aspect of their lives.

By listing all the donations by employer, OpenSecrets gives the incorrect impression that employees of a corporation vote in lock-step. They do not. But Open Secrets does finally acknowledge:

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

[doxyluv13]

8. Uh, I said they are the states biggest industries so of course I know.

Plus I'm from NJ.

But you logic is wacky. Many more Garden Staters consume pharmaceuticals than produce them, so why is our Democratic Senator siding with Corporate Power? Is it not ok with you to bemoan that?

You may think that's understandable and okay, but I hope you will admit its a matter of opinion. To call someone who points this out a "Basher" or "Throwing Corey Under the Bus" is unfair. And in the "Under the Bus" case if just means the poster doesn't even know want "To throw some under the bus" means. It means causing someone else to take the responsibility for or consequences of someone else's actions.

BTW He also decimated the public education system in Newark, undermining the teachers union, a major support of our Democratic Party.

[pnwmom]

12. We don't have Big Pharma here in WA but our Senators voted against it, too,

because the bill is flawed.

We've already had a problem in Seattle with adulterated drugs coming through Canada. The problem is that while Canada has high standards for the drugs they produce there, they have no regulation of drugs that are produced in other countries and sent through Canada to the U.S. So postal inspectors in Seattle have discovered shipments of fake and adulterated drugs that came from Canada but were produced in other countries.

The bill those 12 Senators voted against wouldn't have solved that problem.

Patty Murray said that she likes the idea of reimportation, but that bill had flaws. But my personal opinion is it won't work, period. The Canadian system is 1/10th the size of ours. Do you really think the drug companies will be cooperative in shipping ten times the product they're now shipping to Canada, so that we can them reimport it at much cheaper prices here? And if they won't greatly increase their exports to Canada, then who will fill the gap? Countries without the standards and regulations that Canada and the US have, who will be happy to sell their fake products at a reduced price.

Our Federal government should be negotiating prices with the drug companies, just like they do in every other civilized country, not trying to piggyback onto the much smaller Canadian system.

[joshcryer]

47. Yeah, it's all theater.

The effect of importation will be minimal at best. But boy do we fall for the shit narrative that the Republicans no doubt orchestrated.

There's bipartisan support for this bill. It'll pass. Have little overall effect.

And we'll have just overlooked that Obamacare got repealed.

[suffragette]

131. Could you share a link about adulterated drugs being found by postal inspectors in Seattle?

Thanks.

[pnwmom]

132. Here. I remembered it from when it happened, but this is a current article.

And I've added a relevant link from the FDA.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2016/03/16/drug-importation-equals-unsafe-drugs-mr-trump/#582b57a6bd3d

In August of 2003, during the earlier drug importation debate, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) examined mail shipments of imported drugs flowing to U.S. consumers through Miami, New York, San Francisco, and Carson, CA. Investigators found that 88% of the drugs they examined did not meet FDA standards. The packages often contained dangerous, unapproved, or counterfeit drugs.

A second inspection blitz in November of 2003—at the Buffalo, Dallas, Chicago and Seattle mail facilities and the Memphis and Cincinnati courier hubs—revealed similar problems: 1,728 “unapproved drugs” among the 1,982 parcels inspected. The unapproved drugs included “foreign versions” of FDA-approved drugs, recalled drugs, drugs requiring special storage conditions, drugs requiring close physician monitoring, and animal drugs not approved for humans.

Former FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan, under whose leadership the investigations took place, warned that drug importation “creates a wide channel for large volumes of unapproved drugs and other products to enter the United States that are potentially injurious to public health and pose a threat to the security of our Nation’s drug supply.”

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115171.htm

From a public health standpoint, importing prescription drugs for personal use is a potentially dangerous practice. FDA and the public have no assurance that unapproved products are effective or safe, or have been produced under U.S. good manufacturing practices. FDA cannot assure the public that re-imported drugs made in the U.S. have been stored under proper conditions or that they are even the real product, because the Agency does not regulate foreign distributors or pharmacies. Therefore, unapproved drugs and re-imported approved medications may be contaminated, subpotent, superpotent, or counterfeit. In addition, some websites based outside the U.S. offer to dispense prescription drugs without a prescription by a licensed practitioner or a physical examination, bypassing the traditional doctor-patient relationship. As a result, patients may receive inappropriate medications due to misdiagnoses, they may fail to receive appropriate medications or other medical care, or they may take a product that could be harmful, or fatal, if taken in combination with other medicines they might be taking.

[azmom]

138. The sad fact is our agencies may be influenced

by political considerations. Case in point, Marijuana being classified as a schedule I drug.

[pnwmom]

145. The fact is that Canada does not regulate or check drugs that flow through

it from one country to another, so we can't know what we're getting if we get it from Canada.

And it just doesn't make sense that US drug companies would cooperate in sending much more product to Canada than Canada needs, so it can be reimported cheaply here.

[azmom]

148. Is it your contention that the 46 Senators

that voted for the amendment are not aware of this or don't care?

[pnwmom]

150. Yes. I don't think they would have deliberately put people at risk,

but I think Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and Cory Booker (among others) were correct. And part of that might be because of the experience here in Seattle, where fake drugs via Canada have already been a problem.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2016/03/16/drug-importation-equals-unsafe-drugs-mr-trump/#582b57a6bd3d


Canadian health authorities have warned the United States that Health Canada will not take responsibility for the safety of drugs exported from Canada to the United States.

“If you think Internet drug sellers are safe because their Web sites display the Canadian flag, you’ve been fooled again,” says Lew Kontnik, co-author of the book Counterfeiting Exposed. “Canadian authorities do not inspect medicines that are transshipped through their country bound for U.S. consumers, which opens a huge loophole for counterfeiters to sell us fake medicines masquerading as Canadian prescription drugs.” These “Canadian” drugs are likely to be produced in India, Bangladesh, or Ghana.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8479306

[Jim Beard]

158. Canada has problems too. Who you gonna trust?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/drug-costs-canada-1.3927989

Canada wasted $15 billion over the last five years on highly priced prescription drugs, in part because of questionable drug company sales tactics, according to exclusive research and a hidden camera investigation by the fifth estate.

The research conducted for the fifth estate by health benefits company Express Scripts Canada shows employer-funded private insurance plans in Canada wasted more than $3 billion per year between 2011 and 2015 by covering the cost of expensive drugs that have cheaper options, as well as paying for unnecessary dispensing fees.

That's nearly 20 per cent of the $81 billion spent on drugs over those five years by private insurance companies in Canada.

[pnwmom]

161. Well, I would trust that their own drugs are produced safely, to standards.

But no one should trust the online drugs that appear to come from Canada.

[Jim Beard]

164. US drugs are made in Haiti. I found 50 gallon drums of Gabapentin

for sale on the internet site that is a huge internet shipper like Amazon.

BTW, the more I have been involved in inspections, the less faith I have. They are only as good as the government that cares and is willing to SPEND THE MONEY to make it work.

[pnwmom]

171. You found an internet site that claimed to send Gabapentin.

How do you know it was the real thing? that's the problem.

[Jim Beard]

172. Yes, it was at one time through "Alibaba Group" that is as big as Walmart.

China proud. 100 Kilogram/Kilograms min.


https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Gabapentin_50025924276.html

[dionysus]

69. i've wondered where the ideal balance between supporting principles and fulfilling the wishes of

your constituents lies. take manchin, for example. i'lltake a guess and wager you're over here with me sayin, look at that friggin DINO, in the pocket of Coal, he might as well be a rethug!

But, as much as it makes us cringe, many ofthose constituents voted for him precisely because of the fact he was forcoal...

so what is the guy really supposded to be doing the most, supporting his party platform (for us it would be renewables, clean energy, ect), or representing what the constituents want (coal, baby coal)?

ostensibly he's supposed to be doing the will of his constituents...

in cases like that, doing what your constituents want can run exacly opposite of your party's platform!

what are your thoughts on my sunday morning ramble?

[BunkieBandit]

71. You are so correct.

Sometimes the good guys are handcuffed.

[HarmonyRockets]

141. If you're talking about Booker

He obviously has way more constituents that would benefit from lower drug costs than constituents that would somehow benefit from higher ones, like CEO's of pharmaceutical companies. I mean seriously, does anyone think NJ really has more pharmaceutical CEOs than poor and middle class citizens? Booker wasn't against the amendment because he has more constituents that would benefit from voting against it. It's because the tiny group that would suffer from the Sanders/Klobuchar amendment has way more $$$.

[JI7]

4. Senators voting to benefit Businesses located in their home state is what they are sent there to do

[doxyluv13]

9. That's the Corporatist (fka Republican) Position

Democrats are supposed to represent the voters, not their bosses.

[JI7]

10. voters want politicians to keep businesses in their state

[aikoaiko]

110. Big Pharam isn't leaving NJ if we get cheaper Rx thru Canada.

[pnwmom]

13. People who work at corporations are voters, too. nt

[seaglass]

23. Yes, wasn't Bernie a big supporter of the F35? n/t

[joshcryer]

25. And no one should fault Sanders for that.

That's a lack of focus. Fuck that shit. If Sanders got shit on for the F35 program as hard as Booker, then the hypocrites who went after Booker might have some integrity. It's still an irrelevant thing that shows a complete and total lack of focus.

[seaglass]

28. I'm not faulting. It is again with Bernie and some of his supporters - do as I say not as I do.

One of the reasons the attacks on Dems from that direction have little credibility.

[joshcryer]

30. It's pure psychological manipulation and we fall for it.

It's extremely effective.

We are so fucking fucked.

[treestar]

192. And it is not mutually exclusive with the

people's interests. Reminds me of when Biden voted for a bill favoring the credit industry at a time a huge bank was here employing a lot of people.

Most people do not knee jerk against "the corporations."

[joshcryer]

24. You know where all his big pharma donations come from?

His constituents. They're individual donations from people in big pharma.

You'll note I'm not making excuses for his vote.

Yes, there are people pissed off about his vote. I'm pissed off about his vote. I was pissed off when Warren voted against the medical device tax, which weakened the ACA. I am pissed off Wyden, one of the most liberal Senators in Congress, supported TPP.

It sucks. But I don't throw them under the buss for their shitty votes.

Singling out those votes is what kills us. It kills us so badly.

Obama banned contributions from lobbyists for 8 years for the DNC. The DNC, then, lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. And no, it wasn't because some head of the DNC defended fucking payday lenders. It's not one single thing.

That's the problem. It's not one single thing but we make it one single thing. We single shit out and our focus is completely fucked because of it. We're fucked because of it.

You gotta fight fire with fire. If the GOP is taking big money, we gotta take it. We damn sure aren't getting the laws changed. So you got to fight back the same way they're completely obliterating us. It's tactical.

It fucking sucks. But what else are you going to do?

[HoneyBadger]

26. Nope, you do not need big money

You need small money and lots of votes

[joshcryer]

48. Obama banned big money from the DNC for 8 years.

Meanwhile the RNC funneled millions into state races and won them hand over fist, one after another, destroying state legislatures for a generation.

[Blanks]

49. I agree with a lot of what you say on this...

but if Booker is going to vote against something that practically all of the democrats voted for, then he needs to make a statement supporting his vote. I voted against this legislation because...

Instead he came out with both guns blaring at Sessions.

This is why we lose.

Yes, they are the representatives of their constituents, but they shouldn't try to overshadow votes that they know are unpopular by bragging on something else. They need to own it.

I'm not a big fan of the 'Canadian drugs' thing anyway (it's a band aid on the problem) it's the trying to distract from an unpopular vote by pointing to something popular (that he is doing) that I am not impressed with.

[joshcryer]

51. His explaination is worse, for me.

Because I know damn well that the FDA thing was just a cop-out. (Yes, there's a legitimate need for the FDA to oversee it, and getting that as part of the bill would be useful, but it's not the reason.)

The bill will pass as part of Trump's mitigation of repealing Obamacare and Booker knows that. So he voted against it as one last nod to big pharma. Drug price negotiation will come next. Booker might vote against it, too. Again, as a nod to his constituents. That's just how it is.

If he really did come out and say "I got 200k in individual contributions from people who work in pharmaceuticals and I voted that way, on a vote that was irrelevant, to send them that I still support them," it would come off so bad optically that it's a joke. It'd be said that he's bought and paid for, etc, etc.

[HoneyBadger]

60. Nod to big pharma?

Do they really need that? How about a shoutout to the little people that actually use drugs to survive til the next day? Because they need that.

[joshcryer]

61. Got the votes for that?

[HoneyBadger]

63. A vote of conscience?

A shoutout to the little people? Yes, that is the vote that we are discussing.

[HoneyBadger]

58. I spend about $200 on prescriptions a month and will for the rest of my life

The cost without insurance would be thousands. There are certain drugs that I don't get because they are not covered and my insurance company has directed me to taking less effective, less proven, newer drugs, with more potential side effects. There are other drugs that I would like to take that are not covered. I would pay for these out of pocket if they were cheaper. I could care less if they came from Canada. So my problems are not your problems. Hopefully you will never get to the point where they are. But isn't fighting for the problems of the little guy the point of being part of something bigger?

[azmom]

144. The Drugs are safe. This is all political bullshit. Nt

[bagelsforbreakfast]

182. Exactly!

But the Corporate Democrats don't care. And obviously the Republicans don't. But keep on being Trump-lite fellow-travelers Bookerites.

[GreenPartyVoter]

99. +1,000,000!

[pnwmom]

2. Yup, it sure is. n/t

[betsuni]

5. K&R

[Sienna86]

6. No. The Booker vote is why we lose.

The majority of voters want someone who they feel puts their interests first.

[JI7]

11. the majority of voters in his state voted for Booker

[Sienna86]

17. I know. How do the voters feel about his vote?

I'm open to that discussion.

[joshcryer]

32. I don't know, I wonder how they'd feel if he kept being shit on?

Maybe he'll lose his seat over a vote that was irrelevant and didn't change the outcome one bit. Because that's for damn sure what the game plan is for the Republicans. Keep shitting on Dems. Get Dems to get on Dems. Keep the division going. Keep our eyes off the goal. Keep us unfocused. Keep us lost and in despair.

[HarmonyRockets]

143. What's the point?

What's the point of keeping people like Booker around if they are just going to vote like a Republican? I say primary the guy. The Democratic Party can do better. And I'm sorry your suffering and lost and in despair because people are criticizing Booker. You know who is really in despair? Poor people that are suffering or dying because they can't afford healthcare and medicine.

[treestar]

194. Well poor people are not going to get

anything with Republicans in power. So why does dividing up the Democratic party help?

[joshcryer]

33. When Booker introduces his legislation in reconcillation...

...and it allows for imports every single one of you who singled him out for being "like a Republican" won't apologize, and won't support him.

And the damage will already be done.

That's why we lose.

[bagelsforbreakfast]

183. Would that be before of after pigs fly?

Kinda like voting for the death penalty but offering to amend it to drawn & quartering during some fanciful future reconciliation, when no doubt the trade will be even worse.

[yardwork]

54. I'm sorry, but that is a terribly uninformed attitude.

Look at what Trump is doing. Are you seriously suggesting that Corey Booker is just as bad?

God help us.

[mcar]

89. Are you serious?

Booker is like Trump, Pence, Ryan and McConnell? Are you really saying that?

[treestar]

193. the people in NJ want someone who protects their interests

[Hekate]

7. Amen, joshcryer. It's this kind of thing that makes DU suck -- and makes me despair of the Dem Party

Just for one godsdammed day can the members of my party keep their eyes on the prize?

The GOP, which is now rotten to the core, has leaders and string-pullers and billionaires who maintain a 30 year plan -- and that's how they got where they are. They get their rank and file out to vote every two years, not every four years.

Meanwhile, the Dems not only can't keep their minds on the long game, they can't motivate the rank and file to get out oftener than every four years. So the GOP got to draw the district lines. Hillary WON, but thanks to the GOP's gerrymandering every district from dogcatcher to schoolboard to Congress, we ALL LOST.

As for another Obama in our lifetimes -- we should be so lucky. We abused him when we had him, both the Left and the Right. And it was unbearable at DU.

[betsuni]

14. +1

[secondwind]

19. I have a friend who lives in PA, he says his district is so gerrymandered that even if the candidate

received 98% of the vote, he/she WOULD STILL LOSE.

[Ace Rothstein]

95. That doesn't make any sense.

[crazycatlady]

139. This was the Senate, not the House

So no gerrymandering beyond state lines.

(Bob Casey also voted against it).

[treestar]

195. +1

[tecelote]

15. Maybe the problem is also a strength.

Republicans are sheep. That is their strength.

Democrats are independent thinkers and, therefore, we argue.

A vast majority of America agrees with many of our views. We lose because of messaging.

[uponit7771]

16. +1, its not even purism !!! its always a slanted bash of the, more Russian shit from LPC members !!!

[chwaliszewski]

18. If that is Booker's reason for voting against Bernie's bill...

then why doesn't he propose a bill, like the one Bernie did, but with the changes that would be needed for it to get all Dems on board?

[Stellar]

22. Or perhaps a better bill

He better come up with a better idea. He seems to ph#ck something up at the wrong time like he did when he went on Meet the Press and talked against Obama for going after Mitt Romney about Bain Capital.

[OKNancy]

65. It weakened the ACA

A non- binding amendment anyway

[melman]

21. Bullshit

"Shit happens" ?

Fuck that.

[joshcryer]

27. The ACA got fucking REPEALED.

And you're concerned about a fucking bullshit vote that means nothing on the scheme of things. We're fucked.

[HoneyBadger]

38. If it is a bullshit vote

Then vote right, does not cost anything more.

[joshcryer]

41. You can get something out of it.

We don't know what he got out of it but 13 Republicans crossed the isle. There was obviously some back room discussions about what they wanted to trade off for it. We may never know the exact details and if it does come out, like on an article on The Hill, no one will talk about it or care.

The bill is going to pass.

But we lost Obamacare.

We're more concerned about a non-vote than we are about the repeal of Obamacare.

That's why we lose.

[yardwork]

82. I'm right there with you Josh. The stupid fucking losers are taking us down with them.

[Vinca]

29. No, a Democrat voting like a Republican is why we lose.

[joshcryer]

31. Tell that to Feingold.

Feingold lost because of this pure lack of focus, this politics of the personal. This disregard for party loyalty. This disregard for results. This disregard for achieving goals and focusing on irrelevancies.

Booker's vote had zero relevance to the outcome. Now, instead of being supported, he's got his back against the wall, playing defense, rather than being supported like he should be.


The Republicans have one of the if not the single worst President elect in American history and yet time and time again he is defended for the worst shit he does on social media.

I can't even imagine the political capital Obama would've had if we spent a 10th of the time defending him and supporting him that the Republicans are the worst person to ever hold the office. Instead we shit on Obama for 8 years over shit he never even did, just stuff he proposed, and holy shit, look at what we got for it. We deserve this shit until we learn better.

[Vinca]

35. If Booker becomes more Bernie and less Manchin, he'll have a good chance of being in play in 2020.

I can't support a vote that will prevent me from buying affordable prescription drugs from Canada and I won't support Booker's vote on it. Boo hoo if his back is against the wall. Vote like a Democrat.

[joshcryer]

36. Like I said, this is why we lose.

The vote didn't matter and it obviously came with political trades (13 Dems voted against, 13 Republicans voted for). The bill will pass but instead of giving Booker credit for whatever deals went on that we'll never know about, he will always be remembered as the "horrible Democrat" that voted against it "that one time."

There's bipartisan support for this bill. It will pass.

And guess fucking what? Trump will get credit. And everyone will still shit on Democrats over it.

We will never fucking learn. We will never fucking learn. We will never fucking learn.


Meanwhile, the ACA just got fucking repealed and 20 million people are without health care.

But oh, Booker voted against a bill that one time.

That's why we lose. That's why we will continue to lose.

[Vinca]

88. The point is, it has the appearance that big pharma is more important to Booker than

people who can't afford to buy prescription drugs. That's what the appearance is. That's what affected us in the presidential election. Hillary was unfairly billed as the Goldman Sachs candidate (what irony here). If you haven't learned that facts don't matter from the election of Trump, you haven't been paying attention.

[crazycatlady]

140. He won't be in play in 2020

Unless he abandons the seat for higher office.

Bob Menendez should be more worried about his senate seat due to the charges he's facing.

[BeyondGeography]

34. We lose because we don't loudly and clearly differentiate ourselves from Republicans

Votes like Booker's, to the extent it was driven more by the need to appease campaign contributors rather than sincere policy considerations, don't help. They aren't fatal; voters understand that politicians aren't saints, but they feed cynicism.

Booker's taking a lot of flack because he wants to be the nominee in 2020. That's healthy. People also remember when the Obama campaign made Bain Capital an issue in 2012, Booker initially stood up for Bain. Booker was also among the last Dems to get on board with the Iran nuclear agreement. He needs to understand that people are watching. I have no problem with him getting his butt kicked on this. It will make him a better nominee if he's the guy in 2020 if his own positions becomes less muddled.

[joshcryer]

37. Booker is a party leader so this is orcrastrated to tear him down a notch or two.

There is bipartisan support for this bill and it will obviously pass. It's the "trade off" for the total and complete repeal of Obamacare. The Democrats have their backs against the wall so they want to get something out of it. Having FDA oversight over reimported drugs may or may not be a cop-out but it's not a big deal.

The point is that we have no focus here. We focused on shitting on Booker for 3 fucking days over an irrelevant vote that changes nothing. He'll get his FDA verbiage in there. The bill will pass.

And Donald Trump will get credit for finally repealing Bush's fucking law.

It's all a fucking game.

And we lose because we have failed at playing it.

[BeyondGeography]

50. People have trust issues with Booker; it's not just about this vote

I don't think it's a problem if he's reminded of it. I do think part of the intensity has to do with where we all are at this most unfortunate moment. You just might be overreacting to an overreaction.

[yardwork]

87. This is why this country is fucked.

[randome]

39. Politics 101: You don't pick a losing position when it's avoidable.

Booker's vote made not one whit of difference so it was 'safe' for him to vote for the industry. If political observers on DU don't understand that by now, they don't understand politics. Period.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fast Walker 52]

42. Losing position in what way? He certainly lost in the eyes of many Dems.

But I understand your point about the vote not meaning anything so it was safe. Still, made him look bad.

[randome]

44. He's not stupid so I have no doubt he made the political calculations on how to use his losing vote.

I would think that casting a vote you know will lose is as carefully considered as any other vote.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[joshcryer]

46. He knew it was a bad vote, optically.

But he knows that there's bipartisan support for it so he basically voted one last time for it to give his constituents a nod.

"Hey, we're going to be voting for importing drugs, so here's one last vote to say I got your back."

[joshcryer]

43. And we may never know what gentlemans agreements were made.

He knew he'd get blowback for it. The problem is that we fall for it.

This damn bill is going to pass, there's obviously bipartisan support for it, and there needs to be something done to mitigate the complete repeal of Obamacare. This is part of it.

And of course, DU was all for the SCOTUS repealing Obamacare, so, well, the Republicans won on that count, too. It's insanity land.

I expect liberals to keep losing until they learn.

[randome]

45. Judging ANYONE on the basis of one vote is pointless. Booker is not stupid.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[KittyWampus]

74. I know you are a thoughtful DU'er, therefore I am posting this link re: WYDEN Amendment

It seems there were more than just the one Amendment being voted on. More than Sanders' Amendment.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/13/1620234/-So-the-LEFT-is-outraged-over-votes-against-Klobuchar-Amendment-What-about-the-Wyden-s

From Dailykos User Pentathera:

...Klobuchar’s unbinding amendment to the non-binding Congressional budget resolution, would have done nothing to assure that US citizens could purchase cheaper drugs from Canada. A separate bill would be required for that to happen.

Wyden’s amendment, on the other hand, had it passed, would have prevented any healthcare initiative that did not lower drug prices as part of the initiative from being passed in the Senate without a 60 vote majority. It would have actually accomplished something by making it harder for the repeal of the ACA to happen, and also would have made it much more likely that any initiative would have had to actually lower drug prices IN THIS COUNTRY in order to pass.

All Democrats voted for Wyden’s amendment. Some Democrats were concerned about the safety issue with online drug purchases from Canada. There are also other possible problems with the effort to allow Americans to buy Canadian drugs. Will it negatively effect the supply of drugs in Canada, which has a much smaller population than the US? While Canada has price controls on drugs sold in Canada, would that prohibit Canadian pharmacies from selling drugs to US citizens above those prices. My guess would be not. They could sell for whatever the market would bear in the US, unrestricted by the law in regards to the price for Canadian sales. Thus any bill could potentially have a safety issue due to online sales, plus possibly negatively impact the supply of drugs to Canadians while not producing a significant savings for Americans.

Wyden’s amendment would have tackled the issue of high drug prices in the US, rather than attempting to bypass the problem by allowing Canadian imports. So why are people attacking Senate Dems for disagreements with the Klobuchar amendment when they were unanimous in supporting the Wyden amendment which was much more important and tackled the problem head on? I really wish people would do the research for themselves instead of just blindly believing the latest phony outrage, regardless of who is promoting it.

[oasis]

108. Thanks for posting that very important link. nt

[NewJeffCT]

117. excellent article

the OP should have linked to it as well.

Here's another one:
https://cenlamar.com/2017/01/14/if-bernie-sanders-cares-about-cheaper-drugs-he-should-stop-smearing-his-colleagues-for-rejecting-his-flawed-amendment/


Cory Booker is one of the few charismatic young Democrats out there that could turn out the voters enough to challenge Trump. Is he perfect, no? But, nobody is perfect.

But, the past 40 years have shown that the more charismatic candidate wins the presidential election:
1) Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter in 1980. Carter is smarter and far more competent, but Reagan was the Hollywood "star"
2) Reagan over Mondale in 1984. Mondale was smart, a good guy and very able. However, he got swamped by the more charismatic Republicans of the modern era.
3) In 1988, neither Bush nor Dukakis were charismatic. But, Dukakis was a real dud at the national level.
4) In 1992 and 1996, the charismatic young Bill Clinton managed to beat Bush and then Bob Dole, neither of whom had charisma
5) In 2000, Al Gore was very smart and very able, but aloof, stiff and out of touch vs the "down home" George W Bush
6) In 2004, Kerry was similar to Gore in 2000 - smart, able, but and aloof and stiff elitist vs Bush.
7) In 2008 and 2012, the charismatic young Barack Obama defeated old and stiff John McCain and the out-of-touch elitist Mitt Romney.
8) In 2016, the media loved Trump and built him up. He had that smarmy con-man charisma about him. Clinton was very smart and very capable as well, but like Gore and Kerry, she did not have that charisma.

[randome]

120. It's always more complex than the soundbites we get here.

Thanks for doing the research!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[R B Garr]

124. Thank you for this. It's to the point that anything related to Sanders' has to be parsed

down to reflect reality and not his self-promotion and duplicity.

[Fast Walker 52]

40. I agree... this is part of it

not to excuse Booker but we need to stop this crap

[ismnotwasm]

52. The measure apparently didn't include any safety standards at all.

Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantrell both Democrats from Washington state voted against the measure as well. They both are getting shit for it, but the stated objection seems to be that as it was devoid of safety standards, the bill just wasn't good enough. All the bullshit hyperbole over it is not only why we lose, but jumping right on the "big pharma" owns everything and everyone rolling cart, thus simplifying to cartoon sketches any motivation other that CT woo shit.

Murray, at least, says she wants to work with Sanders to lower drug costs.

[joshcryer]

56. The stupid part is that once it's added in it'll still pass.

But the Democrats that wanted to get something out of it will only be remembered for voting against it to get something for it.

[ismnotwasm]

62. Yup

It was a grandstanding gesture. It's looks like a hastily written sloppy bill (I don't think it was-that's what it came our looking like) that didn't take enough facts into consideration-easy fodder for Republicans, and now, progressives who want their utopia yesterday.

I am NOT afraid to criticize my Democratic senators, BTW, but Murray especially is a powerful voice for liberal values. Not tossing her under the bus for this.

[AllaN01Bear]

53. huwhaheahahahahahah

maor squee attack.

[JNelson6563]

55. Wrong. The Booker sell out is why we lose.

I was not surprised but I know many who were.

[joshcryer]

57. Man, I thought we had a rule against Dem bashing.

[JNelson6563]

66. Ok, aren't you "bashing" his critics?

Those who take issue with his sell out are to be quiet or we lose?? lol

No, that's not how it works.

I knew this sort of thing would happen when I saw all the swooning over his DNC speech (which will forever puzzle me but no matter). He ain't what lefty dreams are made of so I knew rude awakenings would be on the horizon. And here they are!

[KittyWampus]

94. I posted a thread. There was another Amendment that Booker voted "Yes" on. The Klobucher Amendment

that Sanders signed onto was not the only Amendment.

Please read a little more about this. I know you to be a thoughtful DU'er.

[JNelson6563]

121. I will look into this further.

Thank you.

[Crunchy Frog]

101. Criticism and bashing are not the same thing.

If you think they are, then alert on the post.

I don't want to be like a Republican, and be a cipher who mindlessly supports whatever party members do, no matter what. If the price of being a DUer is to be a mindless cheerleader, then I'll be out of here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. I look back at the Clinton-Sanders war with profound regret. What a waste of energy.

Both would have been infinitely better than Drumpf.

[OKNancy]

64. The bashing of Booker is a set-up

-------------------

Some say "So Bernie deliberately introduced an amendment (non-binding) that Cory Booker couldn't vote for just so he could bad mouth him"

[KittyWampus]

73. I just read the thread on Dailykos on this. I didn't know a Wyden Amendment existed.

Looks like Sanders is grandstanding yet again.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/13/1620234/-So-the-LEFT-is-outraged-over-votes-against-Klobuchar-Amendment-What-about-the-Wyden-s

[OKNancy]

75. of course he is. He loves the attention

His ego is just as big as any politician. He's no saint.

[ismnotwasm]

97. It doesn't take that much research to figure it out either

[R B Garr]

123. Wow, this really brings into focus his divisiveness that has been fostered all

through the primary and continues today! At least now Sanders' is being called a fraud, and this great post shows his duplicity yet again. Now he's smearing more good Democrats as being for Big Pharma when the reality is that he is smearing them for his own self-promotion. Where have we seen that before. I so agree with this post -- we cannot do this for four years.

[JHan]

129. People in this very thread are ignoring this information..

they're hooked on outrage.

[CentralMass]

67. We bitched about all those votes too.. I dont distinguish Booker from the other 13

who killed the Sanders bill. Their feet need to be held to the fire on every single bill. Particularly after we have lost control of all 3 branches

[OKNancy]

68. Just to add a little frosting to this thread

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=H04&cycle=2016&recipdetail=S&mem=Y&sortorder=U

[kjones]

174. If that was Booker, or anyone except St. Bernard sitting pretty at third...

It would be plastered everywhere.

And I'm sure it's even more complicated than that, but, ugh, just...
ugh.
I'm so sick of that pandering ego tripper.

[Trust Buster]

70. I think Booker is a "Harold Ford Democrat".

[oasis]

109. Huh? Maybe you expand on that so no one gets the wrong idea. nt

[Trust Buster]

114. Political opportunist. Has nothing to do with race.

[Akamai]

72. Thom Hartmann on Friday defended Booker saying that Corry probably

Had to vote that way to be re-elected, saying he would much rather have Booker in the Senate than any Republican replacement.

[HoneyBadger]

76. Are the little guys of NJ really so aligned with big pharma?

Trust me, more voters want cheaper drugs than want pricier drugs.

[mopinko]

100. they think that drugs are safe, all the time,

and when they find out they are getting drugs that arent safe, their heads are gonna explode. they just assume. like the anti-vaxxers, they forget what it was like to have polio and diphtheria rampant in the country.

and i dont think there is a bigger concern than keeping their jobs.

many here love to bash "pharma", but when they get sick, they depend on them to be there to take care of them.
i know people who work for drugmakers, and they are proud of the work they do. they have beefs w the employers actions sometimes, but they are good hearted people working for a better, healthier world.

their votes count. their senator should represent them.

[HoneyBadger]

102. There is no such thing as a safe drug

Or to paraphrase, perfect is the enemy of better than taking nothing.

I think that I went through 6 kinds of hypertension medication before finding one where the upside outweighed the downside.

People do not know this, but they can be taught.

[ismnotwasm]

126. .

&feature=share

[vi5]

77. If it were just that vote then I'd be fine with him...

...same way I was with Joe Biden's bankruptcy bill vote, given that he represented Delaware.

But Booker also criticized Obama for being too mean to Wall Street and bankers.

He's also a staunch charter school advocate.

This one vote was not the only reason people have issues with Booker.

Also, I am one of his constituents so I have every right to be pissed off by his vote. And I have family who work or these pharmaceutical companies.

This isn't what's best for his constituents its whats best for the shareholders of businesses that happen to be in his home state, many of those shareholders not even living here.

[demmiblue]

93. Those two things, Wall Street and charter schools, are a good reason to be weary.

I didn't like Obama's choice of Arne Duncan for Secretary of Education due to his support of charter schools (as well as Rahm Emanuel). And now we have Betsy DeVos carrying the torch.

I would never vote for Booker in the (hypothetical) primary if there were a more progressive/liberal opponent, but I would vote for him in the GE.

I find it so odd that some feel that we can't have/express opinions regarding members of our party.

[vi5]

111. Same....

I would vote for Booker in the GE but never in the primary.

This whole "clap louder for tinkerbell" approach we have is absurd. I'm fine minimizing complaints and differences during a general election campaign, but forcing people to pretend we don't have legitimate complaints about our candidates is part of the reason we are here. People seem to honestly believe that if we don't say anything bad, then people won't notice certain things and all will be well.

[CanonRay]

78. Booker was tone deaf to the mood of the party in making that vote.

He needed a shot across the bow.

[yardwork]

80. OMG what a stupid inane thing to say!

[intheflow]

79. Dissent within the party must be encouraged.

To say anyone who disagrees with and/or condemns Booker's vote is "bashing" him is akin to suggesting we all walk in lockstep. I'll leave the goose-stepping to the Republicans, thanks you, and welcome true and open dissent in the Democratic party. The idea that we should all walk in lockstep is what made the Democrats lose this election (not that we really lost, but you know what I mean) - we alienated the wing that wants to call us out when our actions don't match our stated ideals.

[demmiblue]

85. The word 'bashing' gets thrown around like candy on Halloween, it seems. n/t

[pnwmom]

96. Why was Booker singled out for special negative attention? n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

107. Probably because he's being talked about for 2020.

And is seen by many as a rising star/torch bearer. Disillusionment makes sense if that's the case.

[pnwmom]

112. Yes, that could be why the Intercept singled him out in their piece.

So the question is why progressives keep falling for the bait Greenwald tosses us from his publication?

[NewJeffCT]

118. I know

there were 11 or 12 other Senate Democrats that voted with Booker... could it be that he's black?

[pnwmom]

119. And the only other two I ever saw mentioned were women,

the 2 female Senators from my state -- who had good reasons for voting against the bill, because Seattle has had a problem with fake drugs being shipped here from Canada.

[intheflow]

136. Because he took the most money, and has been being floated as possible 2020 contender.

The more visible the person is, and how large their transgression is, the more likely they are to be singled out.

[truebluegreen]

81. Booker-type voting is why we lose.

[pnwmom]

98. Democrats believing hype originating in the libertarian Intercept

is why we lose.

Booker and the other 11, including my two Senators, have good reasons for voting against that particular amendment. And they ALL voted for a better amendment by Wyden.

[truebluegreen]

137. "the libertarian intercept"

What does the intercept have to do with a lame-assed vote against importing cheaper (American-made) drugs from Canada? I'm all ears.

You did notice, did you not, that the Wyden amendment failed ON A STRAIGHT PARTY LINE VOTE, whereas on the Klobachar amendment 12 Republicans crossed over to vote for it, and 13 putative Democrats crossed to vote against, and against the American people. It is, and should be embarrassing for those Democrats. imho.

I am sick of fucking excuses for these people. And my Senator just happens to get a shit-ton of money from big pharma, and voted against. I am capable of drawing my own conclusions.

[pnwmom]

146. The Intercept has been pushing this anti-Booker meme. The story has been posted here.

The Democrats who voted against it, like Booker and Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, had sound reasons for doing so.

It's not a workable plan and could put sick people at risk.

[truebluegreen]

147. Haven't read the Intercept on this issue,

or any posts on that subject here.

What would be the danger to sick people? You are not repeating the long-term RW excuse regarding the safety of importing drugs from abroad are you? That's the boilerplate Cory Booker trotted out and it doesn't happen to hold water: Canada is such an unregulated hell hole, don't you think? Especially when they are re-selling American-made drugs that their government negotiates a lower price on.

Would that we had such a government...but I guarantee we won't get it without Democrats standing up to corporations. And that is definitely not what happened here. Again, it is true all Democrats voted for the Wyden amendment--that was a safe vote. They knew it wouldn't pass so they could afford to be principled and unified. But when the rubber hit the road 13 of them bailed. This has happened far too often and for far too long to just let it go because they say they have "sound reasons." I am sure that is very comforting to you. It isn't to me, or to anyone who has to pay highway robbery prices for meds.

[pnwmom]

149. I live in one of the cities, Seattle, where the postal service has discovered

fake drugs that went through Canada on the way here.

What you don't seem to realize is that even though Canada has high standards for its own products, it has no regulations or standards for the drugs that pass through the Canada from one country to another. And it is very easy for these fakes to be sold through online websites with Canadian addresses.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2016/03/16/drug-importation-equals-unsafe-drugs-mr-trump/#582b57a6bd3d

Canadian health authorities have warned the United States that Health Canada will not take responsibility for the safety of drugs exported from Canada to the United States.

“If you think Internet drug sellers are safe because their Web sites display the Canadian flag, you’ve been fooled again,” says Lew Kontnik, co-author of the book Counterfeiting Exposed. “Canadian authorities do not inspect medicines that are transshipped through their country bound for U.S. consumers, which opens a huge loophole for counterfeiters to sell us fake medicines masquerading as Canadian prescription drugs.” These “Canadian” drugs are likely to be produced in India, Bangladesh, or Ghana.

MORE HERE:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8479306

[truebluegreen]

151. OK, I'll check it out and you may change my mind.

I will say this, though: you (apparently) have a knee-jerk reaction to anything from the Intercept but Forbes is OK? And GWB's FDA? That seems odd.

[pnwmom]

152. If you read the article, you will see that Forbes isn't happy with DT

for seeming to back the reimportation idea.

But Forbes is just one source. Did you see Kittywampus's OP today? She and others have also posted information from different sources that explains why this reimportation isn't the panacea some think it is.

And that's why responsible people like Patty Murray -- not from a Big Pharma state -- supported Wyden's amendment and the general concept but not this amendment, because it doesn't deal with safety concerns.

This is on her Facebook page:

I’ve heard from patients and families in Washington state and across the country who are struggling with the astronomical and rising costs of prescription drugs—and that absolutely needs to change. That’s why I strongly support allowing patients to re-import lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada, as well as other steps to bring relief to the many families struggling to make ends meet right now. I’m committed to working with Senator Sanders and others to get this done in a way that maintains the safety assurances families depend on—and I’ll keep you all updated on our progress.

[truebluegreen]

155. Before reading the article:

of course Forbes isn't happy with DT supporting the reimportation idea. Why would Forbes ever go against big corporations? It doesn't take DT's input.

[pnwmom]

156. Why do you think Big Pharma would cooperate in this plan?

Canada only has 1/10th of our market. Why would Big Pharma cooperate in sending to Canada many times the product they need, simply so it can be reimported to the US at lower prices than if it was bought here?

And if they don't succeed in doing that, who is likely to fill the gap? The unregulated producers in the countries who are already shipping fake drugs through Canada.

We should be negotiating our own drug prices with producers, like every other civilized country. This idea of piggybacking on Canada's system just doesn't make sense (and I say this even though I like Patty Murray and she supports the idea.)

[truebluegreen]

160. "we should be negotiating our own drug prices with producers"

Why even offer that up with the current Congress? What a pity that we didn't do that when we could have.

As for big pharma's cooperation, I would welcome putting them on the spot. The bigger the spotlight the better. They deserve it, don't they?

Why are we doing things or not doing things out of fear what might happen? Reacting instead of acting? Are we hoping they will see the error of their ways?

[pnwmom]

162. When could we have done that? Here is the OP by Kittywampus

that I referred to earlier, in case you missed it. I hope you will read it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8477228

[truebluegreen]

163. When we had the Presidency,

a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a huge majority in the House.

Yes, I know it was only for a few months. But somehow, nothing ever gets done that might piss off somebody's donors. Does it?

I don't think it is any mystery that we have been sheddding Senate seats, House seats, governorships etc. almost ever since. Which brings us full circle to where this conversation started, doesn't it. Democrats making self-serving votes.

Gotta go. It is way late here.

[pnwmom]

165. I think they had their hands full trying to get a stimulus bill passed -- remember that?

And the ACA.

Concerning reimportation, I found this article from 2003. We've already seen what Big Pharma will do when Americans get drugs from Canada -- they shut off supply to Canada.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030526&slug=canadadrugs26m0

Both rely on asthma inhalers and other drugs manufactured by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, which in March became the first drug maker to cut back sales to Canadian pharmacies that ship medicine to Americans. A second major pharmaceutical company quickly followed suit, and others are expected to do the same.

Those restrictions are beginning to choke off the supply of some drugs, which means seniors accustomed to Canadian bargains may once again have to pay higher American prices.

SNIP

Though most Canadian drugs are identical to those sold in the U.S., Internet pharmacies are more difficult to regulate than conventional pharmacies and may be getting some of their drugs from foreign suppliers around the world, said Don Williams, executive director of the Washington State Pharmacy Board. That raises the possibility that counterfeit, adulterated or less potent medications may be shipped to American customers.

"As supplies from Glaxo and AstraZeneca dry up, we believe these (Internet) companies will turn to international suppliers — from Eastern Europe, from Asia — places that haven't been approved by the FDA or the Canadian government and don't recognize patents," Williams said.

[truebluegreen]

167. I do remember that. Apparently you don't though,

or not very well since the stimulus passed in the first month of Obama's presidency and the Senate filibuster-proof majority didn't happen until summer (after Al Franken was finally seated and before Teddy Kennedy died).

Eta: do you seriously want to cite the ACA as something proving Democratic care for their constituents above all? After they gave away the public option, early Medicare buy in and a host of other things in order to get Republican votes...how many Republicans voted for that, again? Oh, right: none.

A Heritage Foundation plan passed by Democrats...who then got to defend that very flawed plan. Yea. Better than a sharp stick in the eye, yes. Good, no.

[pnwmom]

169. You don't remember enough. You don't remember that the reason we couldn't

have a public option was because that 60 vote majority we had for a few months included the Independent, Joe Lieberman -- who refused to consider any bill that included it a public option.

We were only able to pass a Senate bill that Lieberman would vote for, and the items on your wish list weren't on his.

After we had that bill passed, the intent was to go to the House where a more liberal bill with a public option could be passed -- and then the conference committee between the two houses were expected to agree on a bill more like the House bill.

But something happened that changed everything: Kennedy died. The ONLY way to get anything passed at that time was to take the Senate bill, INTACT, just as Kennedy had voted on it, to the House, and to get the House to pass it AS-IS.

So that's how we wound up with the more conservative Senate bill. We had no choice because we lost our 60 votes when Kennedy died -- and we were stuck with the version that got approved when he was alive, that was limited by what Lieberman would agree to.

[truebluegreen]

168. BTW, don't you think "negotiating drug prices"

would have been a good fit with the ACA?

We keep coming back to the same old story: Democrats voting along with their donors' wishes, not their constituents. I expect that from Republicans.

[pnwmom]

170. It doesn't matter what I think. It all came down to Joe Lieberman's single vote

and what HE would agree to.

And you might not remember this, but he was an Independent at the time, not a Democrat any longer.

[melman]

185. Nice source

Grace-Marie Turner bio:

President of the Galen Institute, a non-profit research organization focusing on market-driven health policy, and a co-author of Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America (Broadside/HarperCollins, 2011)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Galen_Institute

http://unfashionablesentiments.blogspot.com/2011/01/who-is-grace-marie-turner.html

[pnwmom]

190. Try WHO, CNN, NBC, Consumer Reports, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/health/counterfeit-medications/

The World Health Organization estimates as many as 50% of illicit online pharmacies are selling counterfeit medications.

And in a 2014 annual report, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy in the United States concluded after sampling more than 11,000 Internet pharmacies that a staggering 96% of those pharmacies did not comply with NABP patient safety and pharmacy practice standards, or state and federal laws, and were deemed by the NABP as "not recommended."

SNIP

That heart medication being advertised at a fraction of the price might contain rat poison. The cholesterol lowering drug you are taking could be filled with brick dust. And the antibiotic may be filled with other toxic chemicals such as paint or inkjet material.

SNIP

The online sellers are clever, often advertising themselves as Canadian to ease the consumer's mind about the source of the drugs. But many of those websites are phony, and the drugs are coming from counterfeiters all over the world. The countries topping the counterfeit drug manufacturing list are India and China.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/abc-news-investigation-counterfeit-prescription-drug-operations-us/story?id=31077758

A popular way many customers get cheaper prescription drugs is to try to order them online from Canada. There are numerous small storefronts across the country with names like Canada Drugs or Canada Direct, advertising inexpensive drugs, but there are questions over whether the medicines being sold are pure, or even from Canada.

I was one of several ABC News producers to investigate these stores, using real prescriptions from our doctors for four different drugs -- Viagra, Zocor heart medication, generic Cialis and generic Propecia for hair loss -- to see if what we received from these stores was authentic.

SNIP

But while all of these stores advertised a Canada connection, Howard Sklamberg with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Global Regulatory Operations, who is also a former prosecutor, said in reality only a “small percentage” of drugs coming through these storefronts are actually from Canada. He said most of the medicine ordered from these storefronts do not meet FDA standards.

“They could have dangerous contaminants,” he said. “And that's just a really, really, really big risk to take with your health.” Federal authorities point multiple examples of where these counterfeit drugs actually come from – Columbia, Peru, even China. ABC News had all four drugs – the Viagra, Zocor, generic Cialis and generic Propecia – tested at a variety of labs, from the Custom and Border Protection Lab in Newark, New Jersey, Eli Lilly’s Lab in Indianapolis, Indiana and the University of Montreal’s Department of Chemistry.

The generic Cialis and generic Propecia both arrived in packages from India and both came back containing impurities. In fact, a chemical test on the generic Propecia tablet revealed an unknown ingredient and unknown properties mixed in with the active ones.

SNIP



http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/08/11/Canadian-pharmacy-accused-of-selling-fake-cancer-drugs-to-US-doctors/3611439325784/

HELENA, Mont., Aug. 11 (UPI) -- U.S. prosecutors have accused a Canadian pharmacy of selling some $78 million in counterfeit, misbranded and unapproved drugs -- including those that treat cancer -- to U.S. doctors.

In an indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Montana, the company and its affiliates have been charged with smuggling, money laundering and conspiracy. The indictment was returned by a grand jury in November 2014, but a redacted document wasn't unsealed until July.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/10/save-money-by-ordering-drugs-from-canada-not-so-fast/index.htm

The most prevalent financial problem Americans face month in month out is the inability to afford their medicines. That’s according to a monthly national poll by Consumer Reports National Research Center. Indeed, medication in the U.S. can cost up to twice as much as it does in other parts of the world, so many bargain hunters turn to the Web seeking discounted, name-brand prescription drugs from Canada or other countries. But recent analysis has found that buyers should beware: Only a fraction of online pharmacies are legitimate. Our medical consultants say that given such risks, ordering from foreign websites should be avoided altogether.

Of the more than 8,300 online pharmacies reviewed in July 2011 by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), which accredits online drugstores in addition to representing state pharmacy boards across the U.S., just over 3 percent appear to be sound. It considers the rest to be “rogue” operations.

SNIP


And for those seeking safety by ordering specifically from Canadian websites, there’s something else to consider. “Many of the Canadian sites aren’t Canadian at all,” says Carmen Catizone, NABP’s executive director.

While there are legitimate online Canadian pharmacies regulated by Health Canada, a government agency similar to the FDA, Canadian pharmacies that ship prescription medication to the U.S. aren’t subject to Canadian regulatory authority, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

A spokesperson for Health Canada declined to assess the specific risks posed by these websites to Americans but did point out the Canadian government’s own warnings to its citizens about the risk of purchasing drugs on the Internet.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105729/

Discussion

The issue of counterfeit drugs has been growing in importance in the United States, with the supply of these counterfeit drugs coming from all over the world. Innovation is important to economic growth and US competitiveness in the global marketplace, and intellectual property protections provide the ability for society to prosper from innovation. Especially important in terms of innovation in healthcare are the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries. In addition to taking income from consumers and drug companies, counterfeit drugs also pose health hazards to patients, including death. The case of bevacizumab (Avastin) is presented as one recent example. Internet pharmacies, which are often the source of counterfeit drugs, often falsely portray themselves as Canadian, to enhance their consumer acceptance. Adding to the problems are drug shortages, which facilitate access for counterfeits. A long and convoluted supply chain also facilitates counterfeits. In addition, the wholesale market involving numerous firms is a convenient target for counterfeit drugs. Trafficking in counterfeits can be extremely profitable; detection of counterfeits is difficult, and the penalties are modest.

Conclusion

Counterfeit drugs pose a public health hazard, waste consumer income, and reduce the incentive to engage in research and development and innovation. Stronger state licensure supervision of drug suppliers would be helpful. Technological approaches, such as the Radio Frequency Identification devices, should also be considered. Finally, counterfeit drugs may raise concerns among consumers about safety and reduce patient medication adherence.

[melman]

196. So?

You linked to an op-ed written by a pharmaceutical industry shill. One who wrote a book bashing Obamacare

Did you not? Yes, you indeed did.

[pnwmom]

197. So? Feel free to discount that source, although the incident in Seattle DID happen,

the fake drugs were uncovered, and it was reported at the time.

Fake drugs ARE a problem, as has been fully documented by MSM, Consumer Reports, the NIH, and others.

[JHan]

83. K & Fking R

[coco22]

84. That is the problem..

he thinks he's going to be another Obama and whether he does or not I don't like him.

[mcar]

86. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good

So said President Obama many times.

You are correct, Josh. The demand for purity among some means that no politician will ever gain their support. I firmly believe that, had Sanders won, some of his supporters would now be decrying his cabinet picks and his reaching out to Republicans (which he would be doing).

[nini]

90. Exactly my view on the Booker bashing

There's not one politician I agree with completely and many I really like have disappointed me from time to time. I didn't like his vote either but i will be god damned if I'm going to ignore everything good he does either and want to destroy him.

I've said it before - the purity test for our candidates is toxic to the big picture. It's getting old and quite frankly it's dangerous considering what is going on right now.

[baldguy]

91. Get rid of Booker b/c of his pharma vote, lose his voice defending John Lewis.

Some people are happy with that. They are not Democrats and want to see the Democratic Party defeated.

[Larkspur]

92. I was proud to bash Joe Lieberman and be part of the team that tossed him out of the Democratic

Party in 2006.

We don't need Lieberman type Democrats. Lieberman was a corporate whore Democrat most of his senate career.

[earthside]

103. No, it's not. It is a hopeful sign that we want to win!

Always finding a way to rationalize the pro-corporate votes of Senators and Representatives is why Democrats lose.

The hopeful sign here is that good progressives and liberals are calling out a guy like Brooker early-on in this Trumpian era. Democrats/progressives/liberals want to stand for something: the working people of America.

And we are done with corporate shills of all varieties.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. We are in a war for our very democracy.

These internecine symbolic squabbles aren't helping.

[Bucky]

105. He "voted with his constituents" except the ones who need prescriptions

The PR against him is certainly payback for standing against Sessions, but him helping pharmaceutical companies to screw us is part of the public record. no calls for loyalty can change that, especially when he just showed who he himself is loyal to

[immoderate]

106. Booker should have voted FOR his constituents.

He voted for the insurance companies.

--imm

[Horse with no Name]

113. Booker isn't our guy

He never has been.
We need to keep looking.

[pintobean]

115. Who's we?

Nothing like proving the OP's point.

[uponit7771]

116. Even after the bullshit bashing has been debunked!?!? REALLY?!! How about we never give DEM

... bashing the benefit of the doubt any longer?

[ecstatic]

122. Russian & GOP trolls are already at work

Sowing division and misinformation. SMH. We need to be smarter this time.

[Rex]

125. If we had a media worth a spit they would point this out. nt

nt

[bagelsforbreakfast]

180. Problem is SPIT is all they are worth...

[democratisphere]

128. Booker is a corporate fraud.

Move on!

[doc03]

130. No we lose because too many Democrats are in the pocket for

big business the same as Republicans.

[Ms. Toad]

133. When 20 million people are about to lose health care, it is all the more important

to take what small steps we can to provide assistance. We need to work on demanding ACA not be repealed without an equivalent program in place. BUT we also need to do what we can when there is support to ease the burden as much as we can.

The ability to buy drugs from Canada would save my daughter $13,000 a year on ONE medication - it is not the only medication she takes. Her entire annual income is $13,000.

So sorry if I think calling a Senator to task who voted to prohibit that access to medication - who received substantial contributions from an industry with a vested interest in prohibiting cross-border purchases - isn't "seriously fucked up beyohnd all recognition."

[azmom]

134. We lose when Russians collude with Republicans.

Why are you distracting from the real issue?

[backscatter712]

135. No, sellout Republican-Lite quisling DLC/Third Way DINOs is why we lose.

If the Democrats were standing together fighting for minorities, fighting for women, and fighting for poor and working people, we would never lose.

Instead we have the Cory Bookers, the Joe Liebermans, and the Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes playing footsie with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. We see our principles getting shelved. We see the ritual handwringing, the rotating villain show, the kabuki dances, and here we are, wondering why so many people who should be benefiting from Democratic governance ended up voting for a bullshit artist who's fucking them with no lube.

[dawg]

142. Our nominee will never be pure enough for some.

It's a shame.

Half a loaf is infinitely better than a turd sandwich.

[liberal N proud]

153. republicans back their candidates regardless of how bad they are Democrats do not.

And yes it is why Democrats lose.

[Quixote1818]

184. No, actually the Tea Party has forced Republicans way, way, way to the right and they keep winning.

[apcalc]

154. Booker's vote is correct.

SAFETY ISSUE.

[bagelsforbreakfast]

181. верный

[napi21]

157. It's NOT the left eating it's own as much as we have IGNORED the Pubs! We spend all our time

trying to look fair to our constituents, while the Pubs spend THEIR TIME working on Crosscheck, and getting governorships so they can redraw district lines and guarantee their reelection! Until we are willing to fight them with the same outrageous statements and "fight a knife fight with a GUN", (no I don't mean shoot them) we will continue to lose elections at every level of government.

Start acting like you're pied off, because of your not you SHOULD BE! Get vocal & outrageous so we grab the media coverage!

[HassleCat]

166. It points out a difficulty that goes deeper than bashing.

Our legislators depend on support and money from special interests. Some interests are better than others, of course, but we pay a price, no matter where our representatives get their money. They are sometimes unable to vote in the public intetest, in our interest, because the special interests that made them could also break them. There's not much point in complaining about particular votes. It's much more important to look at patterns of behavior.

[Arazi]

173. Wait wut? I thought we hated Bernie for repping his constituents on the 2A

Now we have to love Booker because he loves Big Pharma?

[jfern]

175. When you vote to the right of Ted Cruz on an issue, you deserve all the criticism you get.

[DemocraticWing]

176. Cory Booker is bad on a whole bunch of issues, and should have lost to Rush Holt.

This is nothing new. He sided with the banks when Obama attacked them during the 2012 election. He's anti-public school. He's pro-privatization in a lot of contests. His positions are bad and he is not a good Democratic representative.

[killbotfactory]

177. I bet you love Putin, too

If the lesson democrats have learned from this election is that we should all march in lockstep and never question or criticize a democratic politician, then we have lost our goddamned minds.

[Quixote1818]

186. That post about RT is ridiculous

As though Thom Hartman's show on RT is the only source attacking Booker for his vote. Never mind practically every liberal news site on the web did the same thing. Here are just a few:



https://newrepublic.com/minutes/139825/cory-booker-not-friend

https://theslot.jezebel.com/for-some-reason-cory-booker-and-12-other-dems-killed-a-1791116094

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/14/14262732/cory-booker-senate-democrats

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-rush-to-prove-trump-right-on-big-pharma_us_5877edd4e4b0b3c7a7b05c29

http://thepoliticus.com/content/4-reasons-why-cory-booker-huckster-fake-progressive-who-needs-be-ridiculed

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/12/americans_want_to_buy_cheaper_medicine_from_canada_why_did_12_democrats.html

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/13/bernie-sanders-pharma-bill-vote-reveals-new-battle-lines-commentary.html

[Quixote1818]

178. Agree, he sold out years ago

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/8/7/1229482/-Cory-Booker-In-the-pocket-of-both-Wall-Street-and-Silicon-Valley

https://concisepolitics.com/category/cory-booker-total-sellout-to-his-race-and-americans-took-most-bribes-from-wall-street/

http://www.cynicaltimes.org/articles/cory-booker-wall-streets-newest-political-hooker

[Renew Deal]

187. Bookers American Conservative Union rating: 2.67 out of 100. 9th most liberal

http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/?year1=2015&chamber=13&state1=0&sortable=7

So you're assertion that Booker "is not a good Democratic representative" is in the words of Joe Biden "malarkey."

And by the way, the infallible Bernie Sanders is 6.31. He's almost 3 times more conservative than Booker.

[DemocraticWing]

189. All that score measure is how well he aligns with Democratic leadership.

Measuring ideology is a lot tricker, but sense the Senate Democratic Party occupies the political center (unless you want to argue Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are socialists) then aligning with that doesn't equal a measure of ideology.

Maybe Booker is a good Democrat, if we accept that the Democratic Party is not a Left party.

[bagelsforbreakfast]

179. What do you meant lost?

Trump won@! Right in line with Booker's vote.

[coco22]

188. Booker is why we would lose.

[treestar]

191. Yes we have to quit assuming the worst

and being so unforgiving of one vote. It's not working.