Patterico's Pontifications

12/11/2009

ObamaCare: Those awful, obstructionist… Democrats?

Filed under: General — Karl @ 1:42 pm



[Posted by Karl]

Savor. The. Irony:

A deal between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry is holding up a bipartisan amendment to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from abroad, according to a member of the Senate Democratic leadership.

The Senate has been debating the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), since Tuesday but has not held a vote, which is contributing to a stall in the floor action on healthcare reform.

But wait… there’s more:

As a result, the Senate health care debate has come to a standstill: Carper has placed a “hold” on Dorgan’s amendment and in response, Dorgan tells HuffPost, he’ll object to any other amendments being considered before he gets a vote on his.

Could it get better? Yes, it could:

Democrats from states with major drug companies strongly oppose the amendment. One of them, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), offered an alternative to address the safety concerns.

In the past, supporters of easier importation have seen similar amendments as “poison pills” — effectively neutering the proposal by requiring U.S. officials to certify in advance that imported drugs would be safe and effective. (Emphasis added.)

Doesn’t the White House — and selected Democratic Senators — realize that their obstructionism is thisclose to supporting slavery?

Throw in the story that Sen. Maj. Ldr. Reid is doing the bidding of evil insurance companies, and you have the makings of a very Frowny Friday for the netroots.

–Karl

17 Responses to “ObamaCare: Those awful, obstructionist… Democrats?”

  1. sheesh, its really the importation of price controls. what they forget is that drug companies, seeing their money fly out the window in canada will do something to stop it: at best refuse to sell above a certain amount in canada. at worst, stop selling to canada.

    The most fundmental thing democrats don’t understand is that regulation changes behavior, usually in ways to defeat the regulation.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  2. There is no way to count the number of ways this legislation will hurt the US and all of its citizens. It will still pass and the worst of it will be implemented even if not actually in the bill. Obama has made that very clear. He’ll just say its a national security issue and “executive order” it.

    dfbaskwill (2c7f7f)

  3. A.W.,

    More likely, Canada would ban exports, as demand would outstrip their supply.

    Karl (0b58c4)

  4. Karl

    could be. it would be a clusterfark regardless.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  5. Btw, we are all racists for opposing this. not sure how, but i assure you we must be. /sarcasm.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  6. A.W., Karl —

    You’re both right, and the addition of the US government will mean that prices go up in both countries.

    Question: Who is responsible when someone is injured or dies due to imported drugs? Certainly not the drug companies, whose distribution contracts flatly forbade selling out-of-market….

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  7. Gee, world pricing of drugs. What a concept. Besides ending the USA as the piggy bank for big pharma sales and leveling prices around the world, what’s not to like?

    oh yeah, no opportunities for graft. That explains Democrat opposition to this drug importation amendment. And if they were so worried about dangerous materials entering our food supply and other aspects of American life, then imports from China would be severely limited. But again, no opportunities for Chicago-style graft.

    How you like that Hoax ‘n Change boyos?

    iconoclast (bfbe36)

  8. They’ll go down to the sea bottom grappling with each other over who gets which spoils and who’s ox is being Gored – FUBAR doesn’t even begin to describe this.

    BTW, anyone else see where Snowe said no way in hell she votes for this thing, no matter what Teh One tells her today in their private, special one – on – one? How about Nelson? Said about the same thing this afternoon. Like rats leaving the ship.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  9. Woah, sorry for the redundancy – just saw the Nelson post. My bad.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  10. If re-importation is authorized, don’t be surprised when the amount of money directed into Research & Development by Big Pharma drops like a stone.
    Without the income provided by the U.S. market, there is no cash-flow to fund R&D.

    AD - RtR/OS! (e54b5e)

  11. “The most fundmental thing democrats don’t understand is that regulation changes behavior, usually in ways to defeat the regulation.”

    The article described the re-importation legislation as “bi-partisan.”

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    imdw (ee9fce)

  12. I think the dom bulb from Searchlight is about to burn out.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  13. dim bulb – damn fat fingers

    daleyrocks (718861)

  14. A deal between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry is holding up a bipartisan amendment to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from abroad,

    The one time I wouldn’t mind the ultra-liberals in the White House and Congress standing on their anti-big-business soap boxes is the one time they act like conventional, protect-big-business traditionalists, or flip-flop capitalists (or Republicans).

    When it comes to wanting the various special pricing opportunities (or protection) for pharmaceutical companies in America to be tossed out the door, I don’t know if that means I’m a liberal or, better yet, a libertarian. And, yep, I’m aware of the saying of “be careful of what you wish for…” (IOW, I know the ability of big pharma to reap big bucks in America supports all the R&D they need to find new cures, or “cures”). But we’ve become a society so overly dependent on prescription drugs, that in too many instances the cure ends up being not much better than the disease.

    After decades and decades of research, and billions and billions of dollars, big pharma still hasn’t really helped as many people as one would assume—super-expensive drugs still don’t extend the life of most person with cancer beyond a few months at best. However, it has turned many Americans into pill-popping robots. Even more so when too many of us, on one hand, run to the pharmacy to fill our latest prescription, and then, on the other hand, run over to the grocery store or McDonald’s to get our daily fix of crappy, overly processed, semi-synthetic, sugar-saturated food.

    Mark (411533)

  15. “When it comes to wanting the various special pricing opportunities (or protection) for pharmaceutical companies in America to be tossed out the door, I don’t know if that means I’m a liberal or, better yet, a libertarian.”

    One that came up during the Medicare Part D discussion (How many trillion added to our future obligations?) was the idea of having the government use it’s buying power under part D to lower prices. That went nowhere.

    imdw (f8211e)

  16. […] in protecting the profits of the drug companies or protecting seniors?”, we already know he’s going to side with drug companies. Waxman can indignantly flare his nostrils, but the reality is that the drug companies already […]

    The Greenroom » Forum Archive » ObamaCare: The unsurprising non-conference (e2f069)

  17. […] in protecting the profits of the drug companies or protecting seniors?”, we already know he’s going to side with drug companies. Waxman can indignantly flare his nostrils, but the reality is that the drug companies already […]

    ObamaCare: The unsurprising non-conference (e7ecf5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3203 secs.