Cory Booker Made the Right Call

[JHan]

From Rationak , DailyKos:

Cory Booker Made the Right Call

From the diary:

"His (Booker's) response was panned and often based on information from a widely shared article from New Republic newrepublic.com/...that portrays the “safety argument” as a disingenuous industry lie. But did Alex Shephard in his article really examine the basic facts, or give Booker the benefit of the doubt he deserves? Not only did he not do that, but he also did not provide any evidence to back up his audacious claims that connect Booker’s vote to him being under the sway of the pharmaceutical industry, and many of Booker’s other votes, including the SA 188, the vote immediately after SA 178 contradict that claim.

Let’s begin by gaining a larger understanding of the safety claim. Mike Enzi (R -WY) responded to the introduction of the amendment by giving some history:

Mr. President, this discussion will be a little different than any we have had because in a bipartisan way we have been defeating this for at least 14 years. Byron Dorgan used to head it up on that side, and I used to oppose it from thisside, but it has always been bipartisan, and that is because we are not sure about the safety of the prescription drugs that come in online.People who drive over the border and go to a pharmacist are probably getting good drugs there, but we are told that for up to 85 percent of what comes in online, we can't tell what country it came from. So we can specify Canada, but it may be from another country altogether, particularly the Middle East. If we want to assure we have the safety of our drugs, being able to get it online from even Canada doesn't have the kind of assurance we need. We have always asked that the Secretary of Health and Human Services specify that the safety is in place. No one has been willing to do that. I ask that we vote against this amendment.

"They actually have a very strong point. This is a budget appropriations bill and thus would not be able to give power for the FDA to regulate these imports. We are asked to believe that there is no concern, because coming from Canada these drugs would allegedly be subjected to the same safety standards as the U.S. and often be coming from the same factories, but this is largely untrue due to some of the regulatory peculiarities concerning how Canada exports drugs. Most importantly, drugs that are marked for export are not actually subject to ANY regulation by the Canadian government. That means any startup company could bring in drugs manufactured in countries with zero regulations, and then directly sell them without oversight from the Canadian government, to pharmacies and hospitals in the U.S. without any regulatory power from the FDA. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/section-37-20161212.html#wb-cont

This reveals the real and potential danger of this amendment, and also why someone like Senator Ted Cruz would be in favor of it. It undermines the FDA, which like any regulatory agency is not without it’s flaws, but which also undeniably plays an important role in maintaining a standard of safety in our prescription drugs. In the so-called “free market” frontier of a post-ACA world people who rely upon complex life saving medicines, hospitals would have an unmitigated ability to distribute medications without any oversight or obligation to disclose where they came from.

This is about so much more than just ordering online prescriptions. When the article in The New Republic uses that comparison, it misses the mark completely. It also ignores the fact that there HAVE been problems with online prescriptions : https://news.vice.com/article/a-canadian-pharmacy-is-accused-of-selling-counterfeit-cancer-drugs-to-us-doctors or http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/31/health/counterfeit-medications/

Regardless of some of the dangers, Americans are able to currently order supplies of less than three months from online pharmacies, and the current policy of the FDA is to “look the other way”.

*SNIP*

"The truth, is that it is nothing more than an optical band-aid for a problem that cannot be addressed under our current health care system. The reason why drugs are cheaper in Canada is because they have a single payer health system that negotiates the prices. In the U.S. we have a differential market system that provides ample opportunity for price gouging. When the “same companies” are manufacturing the drugs that go to both the U.S. and Canada, if large amounts of drugs start being re-imported, then the companies will just limit their exports to Canada. They already have done so in fact. https://hbr.org/2016/02/why-importing-cheap-pharmaceuticals-from-canada-wont-work

Canada has not always in unison welcomed the idea of being America’s pharmacy. They already took steps on their own in 2005 to restrict the flow, properly pointing out that the solution to America’s health care is not to expect a country of 36 million to suddenly provide prescription medications for all of America. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062901632.html

At the heart of this, is the accusation that senators voting against this amendment are “afraid to stand up to big pharm” as Bernie Sanders stormed, or as the Shephard article in The New Republic attempts to prove, that financial incentives from “big pharm” are behind the nay votes. There are some huge errors in this logic, and in the very selected information (or lack thereof) we are presented. Much attention was drawn to pharm donations to Booker, but a lot of other convenient information was left out, but we can fill in the gaps."

And the article goes on.

Also worth reading: https://cenlamar.com/2017/01/14/if-bernie-sanders-cares-about-cheaper-drugs-he-should-stop-smearing-his-colleagues-for-rejecting-his-flawed-amendment/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/16/1621097/-Cory-Booker-Made-the-Right-Call

[LisaM]

1. That was an ugly feeding frenzy.

My senators (from a state that borders Canada) voted the same as Booker and were referred to as " reliable DINOs" that need to be voted out! Cantwell and Murray! Unseating either in the primary would be a way to lose the seat. Not to mention that they apparently were given only ten minutes to look at it. It's ludicrous to make these snap judgements.

[JHan]

2. It was disgusting and will go on...

and on and on.

When a smear job against one of our own isn't obvious to us, after what we saw in 2016, 2020 already looks like it'll be fked up beyond measure.

[politicat]

5. I admit that my D senator is often less than impressive.

And mine made the same call Booker did. But I knew about this regulatory loophole in Canadian law, and I also recognize that my state *does* have a lot of biotech and pharma jobs -- including the ones who fund about 25% of my projects.

I don't think Booker made a bad call, nor did my senator. And I called my senator's local office, thanked him for the vote, and reminded him that his constituents expect him to protect ACA. Because drug importation is not the same as ACA, and never will be.

[Lucinda]

10. Yep. n/t

[LittleBlue]

3. You expect us to believe this?

Booker voted to boost corporate profits at the expense of poor Americans. Nobody believes these lies about Canadian drugs being unsafe no matter the approval procedures. I've got a bridge to sell to anyone who believes these pathetic excuses.

[dembotoz]

4. i am with you

[JHan]

6. The diary is well written and well sourced.

I can't help what you still choose to believe after reading it.

[Lucky Luciano]

8. These dems voted with all the republicans. That is highly suspicious.

Those thugs do not have the interest of the people.

[elmac]

13. Its the same lies about Canadian health care

long waits for care, ect... all rightwing BS.

[JHan]

40. If you read the entire article you'd see it's not an attack on Canadian Health Care.

[pnwmom]

16. Consumer Reports, CNN, ABC, the NIH, and other sources

have reported on how some drugs that only APPEAR to have been made in Canada are sold online and pass through Canada -- without any inspection or regulation by Canadian authorities.

No one is concerned about "Canadian drugs." The concern is for fake drugs that weren't produced in Canada.

[Chimichurri]

33. Agreed

[hollowdweller]

51. Really. I call BS on this

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. Naaaaiiiiiled it!!

[apcalc]

7. Yes,Booker made the right call.

[elmac]

14. Canadian drugs are just as safe

if not safer then those sold in the USA. Their health care is much better also but right wingers tend to disagree.

[pnwmom]

17. The issue is NOT Canadian drugs. The issue is that Canada does not

regulate or inspect drugs that only travel through Canada on the way from another country to the U.S. And that Canada can't regulate the numerous online "pharmacies" that make false claims about being in Canada or selling Canadian pharmaceuticals.

[Quixote1818]

23. Don't fall for the smoke screen. They were working on that exact issue.

This would have fixed any such concerns:

Senators Klobuchar and McCain Introduce the Safe & Affordable Drugs from Canada Act

http://www.businessnorth.com/press_releases/senators-klobuchar-and-mccain-introduce-the-safe-affordable-drugs-from/article_2c4a972a-d6db-11e6-b689-5b30e15e855c.html

Snip> The Sanders/Klobuchar amendment was only a first step, so there was plenty of time to address any lingering concerns. Sen. Klobuchar has already co-sponsored a bill with Sen. John McCain called the “Safe and Affordable Drugs From Canada Act” that specifies how the process could work safely and efficiently.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/01/17/booker-and-big-pharma-dems-have-no-excuse-vote-proves-it

[pnwmom]

24. This bill was pointless. There is no reason they couldn't wait to try to pass a good bill

rather than this one.

[Quixote1818]

28. It wasn't the final bill, it was a first step in a long process.

Funny how those voting against it just happened to be those who get the most money from Big Pharma while the crap load of other Dems who voted for it weren't on Big Pharma's payroll. At least not to the extent these Senators were. Pharma wanted it dead on arrival because they didn't want it to keep evolving to it's final form which would have fixed any issues like the ones mentioned in the OP. Nothing but fucking over hard working Americans to keep the money flowing. And by the way, if it was so meaningless and harmless, why not just vote for it as a show of solidarity for Democrats?

[pnwmom]

29. Senator Maria Cantwell is my Senator and she got a small fraction of the money Bernie did.

Last edited Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Only $26,000 from employees of the pharma industry.

People in Washington are more aware of the potential problems because we've been dealing with the problems of fake drugs traveling through Canada to get here. (Not drugs made in Canada -- drugs from elsewhere.)

[Quixote1818]

32. Again, McCain and Klobuchar were aware of other drugs moving through Canada

which is why they were working on this to add to the bill: http://www.businessnorth.com/press_releases/senators-klobuchar-and-mccain-introduce-the-safe-affordable-drugs-from/article_2c4a972a-d6db-11e6-b689-5b30e15e855c.html

Snip: The Safe and Affordable Drugs from Canada Act would allow individuals to safely import into the United States a personal supply of prescription drugs. Under the legislation, imported prescription drugs would have to be purchased from an approved Canadian pharmacy and dispensed by a licensed pharmacist.

Hint, that would not include drugs from elsewhere!

I would suggest you watch this:

Bill's go through a shit load of changes before they reach the President. Just because an initial bill has some issues, this is absolutely no reason to vote it down if it's based on a good idea. Those issues will be worked out in the process which is why the OP is so misinformed. It's a smoke screen for those who don't understand how slow and thorough the Gov. works.

PS. And Sanders got a lot more money from a lot of places when he became a leading candidate for President. Not before. Nice to see it didn't affect his morals.

[pnwmom]

34. Then they can and should write a BETTER amendment that could be voted on

as this bill goes through its shit load of changes.

From Patty Murray's FB 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.

[Quixote1818]

37. Guess they will have to now so Booker will have to come up with another excuse

But I am sure Booker is just a lot smarter than the close to 40 Democrats who did vote for it. Those dummies, what do they know?

[pnwmom]

38. I don't know why they voted for it. Maybe it was just for show because they all knew

that there wouldn't be enough votes to pass it even if all 13 of the Democrats had voted yes.

I do know that we've had a problem with fake drugs from fake Canadian online pharmacies here in my state and that Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell had good reasons for voting no on a half-baked bill that could worsen that problem.

[DonCoquixote]

30. actually there are several good reasons

if nothing else the whole Democratic Party is trying to start off organized because once Black Friday a.k.a. January 20 comes around, the Republicans will know that they don't have to listen to anyone else. The last thing you want to do in this time is to actually kill are rare, genuine bipartisan legislation, that I can actually help poor people. That is a black diamond, a unicorn. Whenever Cory Booker's reasons were, and let's be honest he need to go ahead and express those reasons clearer and sooner even if he had to get on a YouTube video and say to the American people, the fact is he gave the GOP something they can sell as a victory. So no it is not a matter of waiting to pass a better bill. We are not in surgical mode right now, we are in outright triage. At the very very least Cory should have clarified things as soon as he could, because if there is one lesson the 2016 should of taught us, it is that if you do not define your statements and frame your debate from the get-go the GOP will do it for you.

Believer or not I know only one Cory Booker to get strong, I still think he is a viable candidate in 2020, but he is not going to be able to be the trumps like this, so now is the time to offer critique so that when the right moment comes he comes out swinging clear fast and hard!

[pnwmom]

31. No poor person will benefit from purchasing a cheap FAKE drug.

And Canada does NOT regulate the drugs that pass through Canada on the way to the US from elsewhere; or online pharmacies that purport to be real Canadian pharmacies.

The amendment they were trying to pass wouldn't have addressed those serious problems.


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.

[DonCoquixote]

50. do you have any statistics

to say how much of Canada's drugs turn out to be fake?

There is one the real fact, the fact that drugs from our beloved United States are placed out of the reach of many sick patients. A lot of these drugs happen to be developed in Canada for example many of the diabetic drugs like Metformin were initially developed there or in the UK, which can is still technically a part of.

Also, it sounds very awful to talk about concern for patient safety when we know that there are many people in this country were dying because they do not have access to drugs and we know that one reasons the prices can be safely kept inflated by our beloved pharmaceutical industry is because they have no competition. The same people that brag about the virtues of competition for little people will not allow anyone to go ahead and compete with them. If all the sudden insulin which is becoming more and more expensive were to unattainable thanks to the collusion of the pharmaceutical industry and the people Trump just put in, you really think I will go ahead and say, well at least I died in order to keep those horrible Canadian medicines off American shelves."

Again, if Cory's real opinion is "that this would be a good idea but I do want some safety precautions first" then he could've said that that very evening, and at the very least, you can make it clear that he is open to negotiation on the issue. But no he did not answer until he was pressured; tthat's not the optics you need if you are going to win in 2020.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. Most U.S. / Canadian meds are EXACTLY the same freakin' pill! (There may be slightly differences in labeling, which can be adjusted for.)

[rockfordfile]

55. I agree

[truebluegreen]

9. No, he didn't.

And I hope people remember it in 2020.

[uponit7771]

22. Fuck DEM bashing and RT memes

[truebluegreen]

39. So. Putting a "D" after your name

insulates you from criticism of your policies? Fuck that.

[JHan]

41. you haven't addressed any of the points in the diary.

Your "criticism" hasn't amounted to much.

[truebluegreen]

43. I have elsewhere. So have others.

Responses boil down to the one I replied to.

Clearly my criticisms are deemed woefully inadequate. I'm crushed.

[JHan]

45. No you've ranted.

This isn't about a senator wanting it to stick it to poor people - which is the theme of your criticism.

This isn't about Canadian Health Care but about import restrictions and an amendment being clear about guidelines. Unless you like the idea of people risking their health, getting sick or worse dying, the inevitable spike in lawsuits and the effects of this on insurance.

[uponit7771]

47. +1

[truebluegreen]

48. I repeat, I'm crushed.

[truebluegreen]

59. Posted without comment

except to add that Bill Moyer is hardly alt-left:

The Reason Why Booker and the Big Pharma Dems Have No Excuse
Democrats like this are the reason Democrats keep losing.



It’s devastating, and potentially lethal, when Americans can’t afford life-saving drugs because their elected representatives are in thrall to Big Pharma. It’s disappointing when Democrats offer implausible excuses for their votes, as Sen. Cory Booker and 12 other senators did last week. And it’s downright outrageous when those same Democrats claim their votes were driven by drug-safety concerns, since all 13 voted to lower drug safety standards when they supported the 21st Century Cures Act.



If Booker and the others hadn’t broken with their party and ignored the needs of the American people, a budget amendment from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar would have paved the way for the importation of prescription drugs from Canada, where they cost far less than they do in the United States.



This was a rare opportunity for bipartisan progress. Twelve Republicans broke with their party to support the amendment. If these Democrats hadn’t moved the other way, it would have passed. Their betrayal crushed one of the few remaining rays of hope for the millions of Americans whose health and financial security are endangered by the new Republican Congress.

my bold

http://billmoyers.com/story/reason-booker-big-pharma-dems-no-excuse/

[JHan]

60. It wasn't a rare opportunity for much..as the article I shared explains.

I'm truly amazed that a lightweight amendment is getting all this attention - there's no mention in that article that Booker supported the Wyden amendment.The Sanders-Klobuchar amendment was non-binding and very broad. The Wyden amendment similarly had little teeth, but includes the FDA protocol. If folks want to accuse Booker of not wanting to lower drug prices to appease his Pharma Overlords, they'll have to come up with something more substantial than this amendment and aggregate donations from Pharma.

[dgauss]

11. Something I don't understand.

It doesn't seem to me that this is an amendment to allow drugs to be purchased from Canada, but is an amendment to allow the introduction of a bill that might do so. Basically, is the House even allowed to introduce such a bill? The amendment says yes, voting against it says no, you can't even propose such a thing. Maybe I have this wrong and would appreciate any honest clarification of this.

If that's right, the amendment doesn't even touch on the issue of safety. Whatever bill that might be proposed if the amendment passed could address that. But by voting this amendment down, there is no chance of that because proposing such a bill is not allowed.

There was another post on the subject, quoting from Daily Kos which made me think the same thing, that said:

"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"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028477228

Seriously, I may have this wrong but reading the amendment that's how it seems. Here is the text of the amendment:

SA 178. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Sanders) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the concurrent resolution
S. Con. Res. 3, setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2017 and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2018 through 2026; as
follows:

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO LOWERING
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES FOR AMERICANS BY
IMPORTING DRUGS FROM CANADA.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to lowering prescription drug prices, including
through the importation of safe and affordable prescription
drugs from Canada by American pharmacists, wholesalers, and
individuals with a valid prescription from a provider
licensed to practice in the United States, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2017 through
2021 or the period of the total of fiscal year

[mopinko]

12. this whole idea is bullshit. a race to the bottom.

if you want to fix the pricing discrepancies in drug prices, fucking fix them. this doesnt fix them. it puts a bandaid on the problem by letting people buy drugs that may or may not be safe.
is this really the best we can do?
imho, this lets pharma off the hook by pretending to do something about the problem.

good for senator booker for not buying smoke and mirrors, and a race to the bottom.

[elmac]

15. Yes, its the best we can do in a fascist society

now the poor and elderly will continue to fight over paying the rent or paying for meds.

[LS_Editor]

18. Fuck this.

Voting for imperfect bills is what they do. It's called compromising. And this is Third Way bullshit being promoted.

[Phoenix61]

19. Well, that changes things, doesn't it

Most importantly, drugs that are marked for export are not actually subject to ANY regulation by the Canadian government.
I was not aware of that. But it makes sense, why would they care?

[Quixote1818]

20. That could have easily been patched. A very poor excuse.

Snip>

What’s more, the Sanders/Klobuchar amendment was only a first step, so there was plenty of time to address any lingering concerns. Sen. Klobuchar has already co-sponsored a bill with Sen. John McCain called the “Safe and Affordable Drugs From Canada Act” that specifies how the process could work safely and efficiently.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/01/17/booker-and-big-pharma-dems-have-no-excuse-vote-proves-it

[pnwmom]

25. Then why didn't they "patch" it before putting it out there?

This was such a half-baked bill that Bernie's original version allowed the import of drugs from "Canada and other countries" -- that is, anywhere in the world.

I think they just wanted to be the first to put a bill out so they'd get the attention. But they should have waited till they had a thoughtful, fully considered bill to propose.

[Quixote1818]

35. Please take a civics class and learn how a bill becomes a law.

The issues discussed in the OP were being worked on to be added later and Booker knew this. Initial bills are USUALLY just a basic idea with the more detailed language to be added later. All this is ironed out as it goes from the Senate to the House and back to the Senate again. There may end up several versions of the same bill that go to the rules committee and conference committee etc. All kinds of changes are made through this process before it goes back to both houses and to the President.

Down the line other bills bringing in other countries to compete would be a great idea as long as all the safety measures were put through with those countries as well.

[pnwmom]

36. Please stop with the condescension. There is no reason that a better amendment

couldn't have been proposed later, rather than putting this half-baked one up now.

That is what Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and Corey Booker are working on.

[JHan]

44. Exactly..

I've still to understand why a flawed amendment is being used to excoriate senators.

In what universe does this make sense? ---- Our universe..

[pnwmom]

49. In the universe where a couple Senators want credit for being the ones

to propose an amendment, so they put this one out as soon as they could.

[Quixote1818]

56. Educate me then

I am fascinated to hear all about every bill that became a law that was absolutely perfect when it was first voted on before it went through the house and back to the Senate etc. etc. I think you are going to find very few if any.

[pnwmom]

58. I'll tell you as soon as you can tell me why they couldn't have waited

to propose this amendment till they wrote language addressing the safety problems.

[uponit7771]

21. +++++++++NO DEM BASHING SHOULD BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!!!!+++++++

[CentralMass]

26. I think thst these Senators made the right call

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---46
Baldwin (D-WI)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (D-OH)
Cardin (D-MD)
Collins (R-ME)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cruz (R-TX)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harris (D-CA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kennedy (R-LA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Nelson (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)m

[Cha]

27. Thank you for this enlightening piece, JH

!!!!

[JHan]

42. NP :)

[Cha]

46. Nice sig line!

[hollowdweller]

52. I think Booker and the other dems were bought off

If we passed something like this there would still be rules promulgated after that addressed safety.


However all they have to do to prove they really weren't bought off is to pass something, anything that really does lower drug prices.

Trump has repeatedly criticized price gouging by drug companies, so I'm sure Booker and the others will have a second chance to get something passed and prove to us skeptics we are wrong about them.

[JHan]

57. The diary makes the case that the fury over his vote is unwarranted. And he voted for SA 188.