Rice tanked prescription drugs. Dem leaders picked her over AOC

[wellst0nev0ter]

Last edited Wed Sep 15, 2021, 08:44 PM - Edit history (1)

A reminder:

Rep. Kathleen Rice has captured a prized seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee after a contentious showdown with fellow New Yorker, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/17/kathleen-rice-aoc-house-committee-448001

Edit: Apparently, since a lot of people seem to be confused about this post, this is in response to today's news

Democrats suffer blow on drug pricing as 3 moderates buck party


Democrats' signature legislation to lower drug prices was defeated in a House committee on Wednesday as three moderate Democrats voted against their party.

Reps. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Scott Peters (D-Calif.), and Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) voted against the measure to allow the secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower drug prices, a long-held goal of Democrats

(snip)

The three lawmakers had long signaled their concerns with the drug pricing measure, but actually voting it down in the House Energy and Commerce Committee is an escalation.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/572447-democrats-suffer-blow-on-drug-pricing-as-3-moderates-buck-party

[aocommunalpunch]

1. LMAO

What WOULD Occam say about this?

[NH Ethylene]

2. The Dems who spoke against AOC cited her pushing primary challenges

for incumbent Democrats in red states. Also stated was the need to work on bipartisan proposals in the next year, and AOC is an unblinking proponent of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

She still has a lot to learn about working with others. This may be a powerful lesson for her.

[empedocles]

11. 'Bipartisan' capability seems worthwhile

[calguy]

13. She's an energetic young lady with a lot to learn about legislation

She's got a good heart and great intentions, but until she learns how legislation actual gets done, she's nothing more than a loud voice with a GOP target on her back.

[NH Ethylene]

22. I think she'll get there though, someday.

She is smart and ambitious. She will learn from this loss.

[calguy]

74. I hope she does. She's got enormous energy. Just needs to learn how to channel it.

[questionseverything]

29. What should she learn?

Because the 3 representatives in the article evidently have learned there is a lot of money to be made protecting big pharma

[area51]

42. +1 n/t

[George II]

44. On a $/year basis I think you'll be surprised at the "lot of money to be made protecting big pharma"

[lagomorph777]

62. I think she's supposed to give up on the Green New Deal and Medicare For All.

Because we prefer small, feeble ideas.



Weird that these things would be cited here as if they are bad things.

[George II]

71. No one knows if they're "small, feeble ideas" or if they're "bad things" or good things....

Neither one has been fully developed yet or presented in actionable legislation.

[myccrider]

72. +1000

So they put a moderate on an important committee, not AOC, so it would be less divisive? because AOC needed her hand slapped? to appease the moderates?

And the moderates turn around and torpedo one of the most desired Democratic goals of the last 60+ years!?!? Is that how you get legislation done?

[questionseverything]

91. If i was pelosi I would be re assigning those "moderates"

To the dung heap committee

This change would of saved taxpayers millions and made people healthier because they wouldn’t have to skip doses

[NH Ethylene]

75. LOL - definitely not that!

She needs to be able to work with other lawmakers to get things done. She is a force of nature, which is admirable. But if all that passion and single-minded commitment means she is hard to work with on committees, she won't be appointed to them.

[questionseverything]

92. I am guessing you have never had to skip a dose of medicine because you couldn't afford it

Because if you had you wouldn’t be laughing

You are defending these three rep who are doing big pharma’s bidding as “easy to work with “

This won’t be our last try

[NH Ethylene]

113. I'd be laughing all the more.

Because that is the only way I've found to keep my sanity when times are tough.

Get upset at me all you want but the bottom line is that AOC did not get picked for that committee, and that means she can't be as effective as promoting the policies that she cares about.

I think she should learn from that and do better, but hey, she can continue on as-is and just be a progressive figurehead. She still does a lot of good things and gets publicity for Dem causes that is helpful.

[questionseverything]

115. I hope she never becomes a corrupt corporate insider as you seem to wish

President Biden can’t help the country while he has pretend dems in the way

[NH Ethylene]

116. Show me exactly where I said she should become a corrupt corporate insider!

That rudeness is uncalled for.

[questionseverything]

117. You lol at people' s pain was cruel and rude

Over and over you have belittled aoc as ineffective while ignoring the the corrupt actions of the three reps trying to derail drug pricing reform

[Bettie]

3. Those "moderates" always doing what they can for

their constituents.

Apparently hers are pharma companies that don't want to negotiate prices in the US as they do in other nations.

[NH Ethylene]

4. In spite of the headline, there is no mention of drugs in the article.

So I don't even understand what the title means.

[Bettie]

5. It's about this

https://www.speaker.gov/LowerDrugCosts

How The Lower Drug Costs Now Act Works
With the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, House Democrats are taking bold action to level the playing field for American patients and taxpayers, delivering on one of the top priorities of our For The People agenda. This bill:

Gives Medicare the power to negotiate directly with the drug companies, and creates strong new tools to force drug companies to the table to agree to real price reductions, while ensuring seniors never lose access to the prescriptions they need.

Makes the lower drug prices negotiated by Medicare available to Americans with private insurance, not just Medicare beneficiaries.

Stops drug companies ripping off Americans while charging other countries less for the same drugs, limiting the maximum price for any negotiated drug to the average price in countries like ours, where drug companies charge less for the same drugs – and admit they still make a profit.

Creates a new, $2,000 out-of-pocket limit on prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries, and reverses years of unfair price hikes above inflation across thousands of drugs in Medicare.

Reinvests in innovation and the search for new cures and treatments, using some of the savings from lowering the unjustified drug prices that are bankrolling Big Pharma’s stock-buybacks to reinvest billions of dollars in the search for new breakthrough treatments and cures at the National Institutes of Health.

[PatSeg]

8. That article is from last December

[wellst0nev0ter]

19. Please follow current events

Democrats suffer blow on drug pricing as 3 moderates buck party

Democrats' signature legislation to lower drug prices was defeated in a House committee on Wednesday as three moderate Democrats voted against their party.
Reps. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Scott Peters (D-Calif.), and Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.)
voted against the measure to allow the secretary of Health and Human Services to
negotiate lower drug prices, a long-held goal of Democrats.

Rep Peters warned that "government-dictated prices" under the bill would
cause harm to the "private investment" that backs drug development.

The vote is a striking setback for Democrats' $3.5 trillion package. Drug pricing is intended to be a key way to pay for the package. Leadership can still add a version of the provision back later in the process, but the move shows the depth of some moderate concerns.

The three lawmakers had long signaled their concerns with the drug pricing measure, but actually voting it down in the House Energy and Commerce Committee is an escalation. Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) had implored the three lawmakers to vote in favor of the measure to at least keep the process going.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215859304

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. Sounds like some rebels need to join the Majorie Greene club. Nt

[NH Ethylene]

25. Whoa! That is not good.

Thank you for explaining this. I am another DU'er who has not kept up with current events, although in my defense, it did just happen today.

On edit - I don't remember the NYer contest for the committee from last December, so thought that was new news also.

[wellst0nev0ter]

53. When you vote against something supported by 81% of the people

That doesn't make you a moderate or a centrist.

I wish the people caping for Rice in this thread can explain her vote to me like I'm 3 years old

[Doremus]

26. BigPharma is so worried about this legislation they are running TV ads in the Cleveland market

Imploring people to contact their representatives to oppose drug price negotiating, which will have horrible unexpected effects for people suffering from chronic illnesses.

History proves that if they play the message often and loud enough, people will eventually believe it.

[PatSeg]

54. That wasn't mentioned originally in the post

and I do follow current events daily, but I can't always get to every story. I appreciate you updating the post, but there was no need to be condescending.

[lapucelle]

99. The bill wasn't "tanked". Ways and Means voted to advance it.

A separate committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, did advance the drug pricing measures on Wednesday, [September 15] keeping the provisions in play for later in the process.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/572447-democrats-suffer-blow-on-drug-pricing-as-3-moderates-buck-party

Does the House Ways and Means committee voting to advance the bill the qualify as a current event?

[George II]

7. There are no major pharmaceutical companies in her District. There are two major beaches, however.

[wellst0nev0ter]

21. It's not complicated

Link to tweet

[George II]

24. None of them received any contributions from "Pharma", that's illegal. By the way...

....there was no "signature drug pricing bill" to tank.

[wellst0nev0ter]

30. It's all on OpenSecrets

[George II]

33. Exactly, and I gave you those numbers WITH the opensecrets link.

[wellst0nev0ter]

36. Did you overlook this link?

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kathleen-rice/summary?cid=N00035927

Insurance industry second biggest contributor to Rice this election cycle, after lobbyists.

[George II]

38. Wow, a whopping $21,000 from each. Now do the other one, 'kay?

[George II]

27. Correct, it's not complicated:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04&recipdetail=H&sortorder=A&mem=Y&cycle=2020

"The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more."

Peters, Scott (D-CA) $229,973
Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) $144,252
Rice, Kathleen (D-NY) $15,277

Total $389.502

That's a far cry from $2M, wouldn't you say?

I highlighted Kathleen Rice because she's the one you attacked in your OP using a 9-month old article. A whopping $15,277!!!

Oh, one more:

Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria (D-NY) $114,488

[wellst0nev0ter]

31. That's from a single election cycle, sport

[George II]

32. The most recent, sport.

[wellst0nev0ter]

37. $2 million is over entire careers

Like I said, not complicated.

[George II]

39. Why not do $ per year, that would make more sense, dontcha think? Obviously someone....

....in office more years would have "higher" $ totals.

Peters: 8 years
Rice: 6 years
Schrader: 12 years

So, a total of 26 years and $2M, that's $76,00 per year.

Now compare that to the OTHER person you referred to in your OP, 'kay? I think you'll be surprised.

Anxiously awaiting your research. Thanks in advance.

[wellst0nev0ter]

40. AOC is bought by the evil education lobby?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[George II]

43. I was pretty clear in what I said/asked. Let's do a $ per year, 'kay?

[wellst0nev0ter]

46. And Big Education seems to be the winner

I'm stumped. Walk me through it.

[George II]

47. Stumped? Hey, you're the one lecturing about it not being "complicated". C'mon, give it a stab, 'kay

[wellst0nev0ter]

49. I did, but I honestly need help

Help a brother out.

[George II]

6. That happened nine months ago.

[betsuni]

12. Democrats are always expected to know what's going to happen in the future.

This way diabolical both sides bad intentions and plots to stop progress and whatnot can be assumed.

[LanternWaste]

9. "Semantics games. Perfect."

"why can't you see the deeper meaning?"

[George II]

10. I think the "deeper meaning" is ancient history, this is an article from last December.

[mcar]

14. Why are you posting an article from Dec. 2020?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. I prefer real Democrats over members of the Justice Democrats group

I am on the Justice Democrats email list and I occasionally listen to their podcast which is amusingly called “Just Us” Democrats . I had fun laughing at today’s email from Nina about Just Us Democrats The hatred that this group has for regular or establishment/corporate democrats is really sad. I am planning to donate to Hakeem’s Team Blue PAC due to these sad but hateful emails. I note that Nina lost in part due to being a member of the Just Us Democrats. I am glad endorsed by Jim Clyburn. Hillary Clinton and other real Democrats won this primary.

According to the 8 month old article posted in the OP, several members on this committee voted against Cortez due to her membership in the Just Us Democrats and not paying party dues. These are valid reasons for 46 members of this committee to vote for tho other candidate.

[George II]

16. When the Steering and Policy Committee voted on the candidates for that seat way back....

....on December 16, the vote was 46-13 in favor of Kathleen Rice.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

18. There were very valid reasons for these 46 Democrats to prefer Rice over Cortez

Not paying her dues is a big deal

[George II]

20. It wasn't that she didn't pay her dues, it was the reason she gave for not doing so....

...and what she did instead.

[Hortensis]

100. Yes. Many considerations go into assignments, including

achieving geographic balance. Both Rice and Ocasio represent NY. Rice wanted judiciary, but it already had 2 reps from NY.

[PatSeg]

55. "Just Us" Democrats

That's very catchy.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

68. The podcast was very weak

[Sympthsical]

17. Not enough popcorn in the world for this

The attacks on AOC will fly thick in the hopes that everyone will just ignore how moderates screwed over millions of Americans.

But we've already gotten defenses of coal companies and a "journalist" who thinks the Deep State stole the election from Trump from this segment of the party this week. Where we can go from here is anyone's guess.

My expectations are high. If it's not at least, "Why this pharma CEO's corruption is more awesome than AOC's grandmother," I will be severely disappointed.

[NH Ethylene]

28. It looks like you'll be disappointed.

I am willing to criticize AOC when she deserves it, and give her kudos when merited. Overall I like her. I think I am typical of those who make critical comments at times.

The problem is that some people don't appreciate the nuance, and believe that AOC must be adored at all times. I abhor anything resembling a cult and will sometimes put forth a sharp comment just to break the spell.

[Budi]

35. K & R Thank You!

I'm still waiting for them to write a bill for their GND or M4A.
Till then its a worthy slogan.
If change is that big a deal then put it out there, because as legislators, they have been given the power to do so.

[George II]

41. I understand that Saikat Chakrabarti resigned on August 2 2019 to "write the GND", and....

....just a week or so ago on Twitter he was talking about "still working on it"!

On August 2, 2019, Representative Ocasio-Cortez announced that Saikat Chakrabarti "has decided to leave the office to work with New Consensus to further develop plans for a Green New Deal."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saikat_Chakrabarti#Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez_chief_of_staff

[Budi]

50. Wow. So there never was a real GND? Just a borrowed slogan from a previous Democrat?

Who was that? Obama, Kerry...?

[betsuni]

59. Obama, but some people refuse to believe it.

[questionseverything]

45. This op is about how the rep that got the committee assignment

Aoc wanted

The rep from ny that received that assignment refused to back president Biden’s plan for saving. Money by negotiating drug prices

Are you supporting derailing the president’s plan?

[George II]

48. No she didn't, and obviously no one is supporting "derailing" the president's plan.

[wellst0nev0ter]

77. Except she did

What she did was not supportive in any way

[sheshe2]

52. Well stated.

Thank you.

The problem is that some people don't appreciate the nuance, and believe that AOC must be adored at all times. I abhor anything resembling a cult and will sometimes put forth a sharp comment just to break the spell.

[Bettie]

64. ON the other hand some people believe that AOC must be hated at all times

and swarm any thread she is so much as mentioned in to talk about how very much they despise her.

[Nixie]

105. That's where you need to read for content instead of just assuming that anything with AOC

in the headline is a pass to gossip about other DUers --- again. The content of the responses show that this thread was again a completely bogus boatload of misinformation about other Democrats -- something you should expect to see corrected here. U betcha.

[Sympthsical]

114. Looking at the thread

Newp! This went exactly as expected.

Long, luxurious strokes, like an Olympic swimmer on cooldown.

[George II]

34. Aren't you concerned about the attack on Kathleen Rice, which is the subject of the OP?

[Budi]

51. Man, ya just never know what life has in store from one day to the next, huh.

[Vinca]

56. I say we check the Rice family stock portfolio.

[Budi]

57. She's no 'moderate' either.

[George II]

58. Why? Her Financial Disclosure is on file with the House clerk. Are we now going to second guess....

...every legislator on motives for their votes? Most Representatives hold extensive town halls to get the feel for what their constituents want. Not every one does but I'm sure she did.

I don't see any questionable investments in her disclosure.

https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-pdfs/2020/10041918.pdf

[Budi]

61. Better question is, Who Has Big Pharma Contributed To ?

Who in our Senate & House have benefitted from Pharma contributions.

There must be a source for that info as well.

[George II]

65. Yes there is. Opensecrets analyzes and compiles the numbers....

Representatives in the last cycle:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=H04&cycle=2020&recipdetail=H&mem=Y&sortorder=U

1 McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $446,334
2 Hudson, Richard (R-NC) $276,993
3 Scalise, Steve (R-LA) $273,427
4 Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ) $256,925
5 Eshoo, Anna (D-CA) $248,350
6 Peters, Scott (D-CA) $229,973
7 Brady, Kevin (R-TX) $218,000
8 Guthrie, Brett (R-KY) $210,464
9 Neal, Richard E (D-MA) $206,500
10 Carter, Buddy (R-GA) $185,200
11 Bucshon, Larry (R-IN) $184,254
12 Schneider, Brad (D-IL) $175,599
13 Kelly, Robin (D-IL) $169,050
14 Kind, Ron (D-WI) $165,763
15 Rodgers, Cathy McMorris (R-WA) $163,877
16 Ruiz, Raul (D-CA) $155,575
17 Burgess, Michael (R-TX) $155,050
18 Nunes, Devin (R-CA) $154,141
19 Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) $151,122
20 Upton, Fred (R-MI) $146,864

Senators in the last cycle:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=H04&recipdetail=S&sortorder=U&mem=Y&cycle=2020

1 Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $1,264,615
2 Ossoff, Jon (D-GA) $865,823
3 Warnock, Raphael (D-GA) $765,716
4 Warren, Elizabeth (D-MA) $718,163
5 McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $556,990
6 Kelly, Mark (D-AZ) $542,307
7 Perdue, David (R-GA) $535,908
8 Loeffler, Kelly (R-GA) $513,231
9 Tillis, Thom (R-NC) $471,884
10 Peters, Gary (D-MI) $370,562
11 Cornyn, John (R-TX) $326,496
12 Gardner, Cory (R-CO) $323,583
13 Graham, Lindsey (R-SC) $309,666
14 Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $288,988
15 Daines, Steven (R-MT) $282,838
16 Jones, Doug (D-AL) $276,531
17 Hickenlooper, John (D-CO) $255,760
18 Ernst, Joni (R-IA) $249,961
19 McSally, Martha (R-AZ) $249,136
20 Cassidy, Bill (R-LA) $236,547

[Budi]

67. Senators List. WOW? I'd have guessed # 5,6,7,8,9 would be at the Top.

I'm rather stunned to see the Top 4.
1 Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $1,264,615


Hmmm. BIG PHARMA, huh.
Bookmarking this one.

Thanks for the link

[LetMyPeopleVote]

70. Thank you for posting this

[NurseJackie]

73. Wow! Bernie Sanders is #1 !!!

[wellst0nev0ter]

78. And yet he pushes for Medicare For All

Think that's a point in his favor

[betsuni]

81. Evidence that the "beholden" because of contributions thing doesn't exist.

[wellst0nev0ter]

82. It just shows what influences bad actors

Those who buck the trend of donations are the exceptions, sadly

[betsuni]

83. How do you know?

[NurseJackie]

85. Lulz.

[Nixie]

108. Actually it shows your faulty logic. Sadly.

[NurseJackie]

84. No... not really. It's never going to happen. It's a waste of time. Better to strengthen the ACA.

I just know that I couldn't support or trust anyone who's beholden to "big pharma"... so I understand where you're coming from on that point. We don't agree often, but in this instance... we may have found some common ground.

[George II]

86. Joe Biden ran on strengthening and expanding the ACA. He's President today.

[NurseJackie]

87. Well... the people have spoken. Haven't they?

[Just_Vote_Dem]

94. The ACA saved my life

Let's make it even better!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

96. How much will this plan cost and will we pay for it in the real world?

Warren tried to come up with a plan and a way to pay for it that fell apart so fast that it was sad. Plans need to be paid fir in the real world.

[George II]

98. Jacob Javits would be proud:

[wellst0nev0ter]

101. What's the objection again?

[George II]

112. Read what Senator Jacob Javits proposed back in 1970. It's entirely different from what's now....

....being touted under the purloined "Medicare For All" slogan. Javits' plan had meat on it, and it was implementable without drastically uprooting existing plans and systems.

Same as the currently existing ACA with strengthening and expansion.

[betsuni]

80. I don't get the whole "beholden" thing.

As we can see, some senators receive large contributions, yet they don't vote against Pharma price reforms. Money isn't automatically corrupting.

Yet Democrats are constantly accused of being corrupt, bribed, "corporate Dems," of "taking money" from Big Pharma and Wall Street and wealthy donors, etc., and thus immoral and "ideologically bankrupt." The pure just receive contributions, the corrupt "take" money.

Three representatives voted against lower Pharma prices. Why the rush to scream corruption because they received some contributions from people in the Pharma industry? They can be bought off that easily, and on record? They can't just be wrong? More conservative? There has to be some nefarious conspiracy theory?

Tired of it, it's stupid. I blame the person who started it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

102. So why vote against price negotiation?

It's supported by 81% of the people. Being against it makes no sense at all.

[betsuni]

103. Reasons: being wrong, bad advice, incorrect information, being an asshole.

Like a representative voting for a budget bill including funding for ICE and after getting criticism from supporters, voting against the next budget bill, the only Democrat to do so, because of funding for ICE. But that bill didn't include any funding for Homeland Security, no funding for iCE. Oops, wrong. Bad advice, incorrect information, not reading the bill carefully. No CTs necessary.

To be all dramatic and CT, how about blackmail or threats? GOP/Putin love that, and it costs nothing. Bribes cost money. Seems easier and thriftier.

[Nixie]

107. OMG, Bernie Sanders is the No. 1 recipient?? Wow

Just Wow.

I can remember years of nasty assumptions about "wall street speeches" and how just the mere mention of Wall Street brought them running on about "corruption." It's interesting how standards change so quickly.

[George II]

60. A reminder: the "contentious showdown" resulted in Rice getting the seat by a vote of 46-13....

That's 78% of the vote of the members on the Steering and Policy Committee.

You're implying that Representative Rice had ulterior motives for voting against inclusion of that measure.

[Budi]

63. Wow. It's kinda hard to dispute those #'s! 46-13 favored Kathleen Rice.

What's left to argue?

[wellst0nev0ter]

79. Those people clearly made the wrong choice

And we're paying for it now.

[George II]

88. No, and no.

[George II]

69. While you're editing, could you edit the subject? It implies Rice "tanked" the provision and THEN...

....got the seat on the committee, almost as a reward.

It was the other way around, and the two happened nine months apart.

TIA.

[wellst0nev0ter]

76. Not until you can tell me why it makes sense to vote against drug price negotiation

That provision is supported by 81% of the people. How is opposing it in any way moderate?

[George II]

89. I think you should ask those three. Did they give reasons? Perhaps they have....

....a better provision to include in the bill.

PS - you subject line still implies that Rice got that seat on the committee a a reward for "tanking" the provision. That's totally untrue, she got the seat 9 months before the vote took place.

She got the seat because she's far more experienced in her professional career.

[George II]

90. 81% ? I think that number might be somewhat inflated.

[wellst0nev0ter]

93. Answer the question please

[George II]

95. I didn't participate in the vote and haven't seen the wording of the document, so....

....it may be that they haven't done what you're saying they did.

Do you have the text?

[wellst0nev0ter]

97. You can read the statements they put out

Do you need links?

[lapucelle]

104. The subject line is flat-out wrong. The provisions aren't tanked. Way and Means voted to advance

the bill with the provisions in it.

One of the problems is that random people spread bias-confirming misinformation on twitter and then the bogus story lines take hold and are amplified.

House Ways and Means Committee Advances Drug Pricing Reform
September 16, 2021

The House Ways and Means Committee voted 24-19 yesterday to advance the Build Back Better Act with drug pricing reform provisions, shortly after the same reforms failed to make it into the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s version.

https://www.fdanews.com/articles/204435-house-ways-and-means-committee-advances-drug-pricing-reform?v=preview

[Nixie]

106. Great correction post again, lapucelle. This thread should be locked for the completely delusional

track it has taken slamming other Democrats all for gratuitous and unnecessary divisiveness.

[George II]

109. Plus the subject line was written to give the impression that there was a quid pro quo involved:

"Tank the provision and we'll give you the seat", even though the two events happened 9 months apart and in reverse order. It's like Rice was lying in wait for nine months for an opportunity to repay "Dem leaders".

Then there's the dig that the three who voted against it got huge amounts of money, $2M, to do so, as though their votes were "bought" by "big pharma" in their districts. Fact is that's a cumulative number over the entire collective careers of the three - a total of 26 years in office, but Rice doesn't even have any "big pharma" in her district and she received only $21,000.

Then we find out that in just the 2020 cycle a single elected official got more than half that total!

[lapucelle]

110. The subject line is flat-out wrong on another count: Rice was elected to her seat on that committee

by fellow Democrats. Nobody "picked" her.

So, to review, the drug pricing provisions weren't tanked, and Democratic leaders did not "pick" Rice for the committee seat.

This appears to be another instance of divisive disinformation masquerading as "news about current events" on twitter.

[George II]

111. The vote was 46-13, 78% of the members of the Steering and Policy Committee voted for Rice.