Why did many Democrats, including John Kerry and Chris Dodd vote against drug re-importation?

[VMI Dem]

Did they vote for Lautenberg's watered down version with more stringent requirements? I have seen Lautenberg's version described as a poison pill.

Why would they do this?

[LovinLife]

1. Becuz the WH made them. NT

[Cha]

12. Bullshit. You don't think John Kerry has

a mind of his own.

[Laelth]

27. He may, but Rahm won't let him use it.

Safe seats had to do the President's bidding (kill the amendment because it would breach Obama's agreement with big Pharma). Vulnerable seats were allowed cover from the base. "It's not our fault drug companies are ripping you off!" Kerry's seat is safe, so he had to help kill the amendment. The administration knew this would anger the base.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Cha]

29. You don't know Kerry then.

[Laelth]

31. You don't know Rahm Emanuel then.

:dem:

-Laelth

[polichick]

2. Someone here posted that the admin. pressured them in order to preserve...

...the president's pharma deal.

[Prism]

3. The administration does not pressure people!

It is a completely separate branch of government and has no influence whatsoever over what happens in the Senate.

Except when the corporations ask.

Then I can't really tell them apart.

[polichick]

4. Did you forget your sarcasm thingy? nt

[Prism]

7. Sarcasm no longer suffices

I need some kind of "heavily implied venom" tag these days.

[polichick]

8. I could use one of those too! :)

[valerief]

9. Sounds like we could all use that nowadays! nt

[Cleita]

13. Apparently they did.

PhRMA promised to give them 80 billion or maybe even trillion or something like that to close the donut hole in Medicare Part D. They felt that passing this would make PhRMA renege on that deal with the White House. I believe I heard it on Ed Schultz's show. He had someone on who was privy to the information. Can't tell you if it was pundit or Senator because I was at work and couldn't follow what was going on without interruption. My thoughts at the time were that I felt bad that the Obama administration has gotten hoodwinked by big PhRMA. There is little chance they are going to follow through on the deal because they will find a way to get out of it. If not with this, it will be something else. The last three sentences are my prediction and my opinion so don't make anything out of it that isn't there.

[dgibby]

25. He had Dorgan on. That's who confirmed

the pressure from the WH.

[Cleita]

26. Thanks. n/t

[treestar]

30. Why is it able to pressure Kerry and not Lieberman?

LOL

[valerief]

5. Harkin mentioned that but he said he didn't buy it. Maybe the No's

are getting their Christmas presents from Big Pharma.

[polichick]

That could be it too. nt

[MNDemNY]

6. Ding ding ding!!!

[Laelth]

28. Exactly.

Safe seats had to do the President's bidding (kill the amendment because it would breach Obama's agreement with big Pharma). Vulnerable seats were allowed cover from the base. "It's not our fault drug companies are ripping you off!" Kerry's seat is safe, so he had to help kill the amendment. The administration knew this would anger the base.

:dem:

-Laelth

[ProSense]

10. What was the difference between Lautenberg's and Dorgan's? n/t

[VMI Dem]

14. He added language that would essentially prevent re-importation from happening.

Like I said...a poison pill.

Read the bills. He copied much of Dorgan's language and added a little requirement that would essentially ensure that the legislation was never implemented.

[ProSense]

15. I saw no such language. n/t

[freddie mertz]

17. You need to open your eyes to see things. nt.

[ProSense]

20. To what, your way of thinking? There were two bills, somehow people want to believe

Dorgan's was the better. Some really sleazy Republicans voted for both.

[freddie mertz]

32. I suggest that you read the bills, or some news reports about them.

It is pretty clear that Dorgan's was the "real" bill.

[VMI Dem]

18. That doesn't surprise me.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

11. I don't know - we'll have to ask them and I can't wait to hear the answers. nt

[freddie mertz]

16. The only possible reason is because the president wanted them to.

Another betrayal of a campaign promise, by the way.

[Zodiak]

19. Harkin said that it is the deal with Pharma from the WH that created the "no" votes

He said that voting "yes" was rumored on the floor would interfere with Obama's big Pharma deal. You know, the 80 billion dollars that the corporations are promising over ten year in exchange for "not fighting" against healthcare reform.

Harkin said it sounded like a BS excuse, but word is that the White House, once again, sided with the corporations over the people and just sold them out for 16 billion dollars in exchange for a "promise" from the greediest assholes in the country.

This is turning into a monumental disaster that will drive a gigantic stake in the Democratic party. I am not sure that progressives will recover from this one. I fear that Democrats have just opened a huge power vacuum to their left. Stupid, and frankly, political suicide.

They didn't learn from 2000. They'll get their lesson again, I'm sorry to say.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

22. 80 billion over ten years is chump change for them. If it also excluded

future Medicare negotiation and/or re-importation than it was no deal or "negotiation" for the citizens.

I think the truth of the matter is that we were up against 2 giant foes - insurance and pharma. Insurance is ultimately going to die or be greatly reduced - it has to because it's model, based on outlandish greed and shafting people, will not survive indefinitley and someday, it WILL be replaced by single payer or be highly regulated. Pharma on the other hand will always exist. The two industries together can definitely kill off any reform indefinitley - through ads, Pacs, political contributions, and whatever other devices they have at their control.

I think Pres Obama said to Pharma (the ultimate survivor), help us make this happen and we will give you a free ride for ten years. And they said, ok, because they also know that at some point American outrage at paying higher prices than the rest of the world will catch up to them. Why do you think the drug negotiation was put under the control of HHS in the House(?) bill ( i think that's where that provision is)- TO KEEP A LID ON IT.

The only problem, like I said, is that the deal is not good enough to pass any sniff test. They really should have made at least a little more effort at constructing some deal that looks a little more credible. This non-negotiation combined with no re-importation is pushing the boundaries of what people possible could accept and it also demonstrates a little too clearly who is really running the show.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. They didn't want NAFTA for pharmaceuticals

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

23. GREAT POINT! We'll end up like all the dead Canadians. nt

[asdjrocky]

24. NAFTA for pharmaceuticals.

And I thought I grew good pot.

[Zomby Woof]

33. Where are the Kerry apologists?

I eagerly await their spin, because after all, Kerry can do no wrong in their eyes.

[ProSense]

34. This is what happens when people spend too much time dealing in spin. If

the Lautenberg amendment was so great, why did it fail? If the Dorgan amendment was so perfect, why was Mr. PharMa himself, John McCain. supporting it?

The drug-importation bill was proposed by Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat who allied with some Republicans. Mr. Dorgan and Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) said the measure could save consumers some $80 billion over 10 years if they could buy their drugs from other countries directly via the Internet or mail order.

link

The fact is both measures could have save money, one simply put safety first.

[Kitsune]

35. Because they're just as corrupt as the Republicans.

[wordpix]

36. here is the explanation - thanks to Dana Milbank, who keeps getting better the more he

stays in Washington and sees what's going on. You need to read the whole article to get the FDA letter referral.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

President Obama writes a new health reform prescription

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, December 16, 2009

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to take on the drug industry by allowing Americans to import cheaper prescription medicine. "We'll tell the pharmaceutical companies 'thanks, but no, thanks' for the overpriced drugs -- drugs that cost twice as much here as they do in Europe and Canada," he said back then.

On Tuesday, the matter came to the Senate floor -- and President Obama forgot the "no, thanks" part. Siding with the pharmaceutical lobby, the administration successfully fought against the very idea Obama had championed.

"It's got to be a little awkward," said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).

It's even more awkward for millions of Americans who are forced to pay up to 10 times the prices Canadians and Europeans pay for identical medication, often produced in the same facilities by the same manufacturers, simply because the U.S. government refuses to rein in drug prices. snip

One after the other, the drug industry's friends from pharmaceutical-manufacturing states New Jersey, Delaware and North Carolina went to the floor Tuesday to cite the FDA letter.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-Bristol-Myers Squibb) warned that "you may have a heart attack" because of counterfeit medicine from abroad.

"This is a matter of life or death," agreed Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-Merck).

Carper (D-AstraZeneca) cited "remaining safety and soundness and health concerns," while Sen. Kay Hagan (D-GlaxoSmithKline) voiced "serious doubts that we can adequately ensure the safety of the drug supply."

These arguments don't hold up well, considering that 40 percent of the active ingredients in American prescription drugs come from India and China, and that the latter slipped tainted heparin past the FDA. But fright was about the best argument opponents could use to defeat a popular proposal that would save the federal government $19 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Consumers would save many times that. snip

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

37. Here's the answer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7251258&mesg_id=7251258

sickening.