The President's agenda is being blocked by a "moderate" Democrat "defending" Big Pharma

[bluewater]

One panel Democrat, Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) voted against its advance. Peters previously has opposed its inclusion of prescription drug pricing reforms, siding with the pharmaceutical industry in arguing Democrats’ current plan could curtail cutting-edge research. His stance offered a sign of the stakes Pelosi and the rest of the party face in navigating a delicate legislative process with so few votes to spare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/09/26/biden-democrats-infrastructure-reconciliation/

Allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with Big Pharma costs the taxpayers NOTHING, yet it's one of the big stumbling blocks in enacting President Biden's "Build Back Better" agenda.

How, as Democrats, can we allow our party's agenda to be derailed by a handful of people like Rep. Scott Peters?

[FoxNewsSucks]

1. It doesn't just cost taxpayers nothing,

it saves them billions.

People like Peters shouldn't be called "moderate". They're conservadems, or corporate dems. Doing the work of their donors, not their constituents or the country.

The VA negotiates prices, that hasn't affected "research". I read that different versions of this proposed limiting US drug prices to 120% of what other countries pay. And the conservadems rejected that. We're paying a ridiculous amount more than other countries.

Even if it really were an issue of funding research, why can't they be expected to charge other countries more and give the discount to us?

[FalloutShelter]

3. This bill actually mints money.

This is only about the Democrats being denied a win.
It is, however, the American people being denied a windfall.

[msongs]

2. usa is the biggest money maker for pill pushers. they will not stop research or any other thing nt

[Sogo]

4. Back when Hillary Clinton was advocating for universal healthcare,

it was the insurance and pharma industries that began to dog her, which was the basis of the vast right-wing conspiracy that eventually robbed us of her being our 45th President. They are ruthless.

[Hortensis]

5. As it happens, the constitution allocates ZERO powers to political parties,

and its framers would have been horrififed at the very idea that a party apparatus could come between citizens and the public servants they elect to represent them.

They would also be horried to find that some feel free to interfere from outside (usually with money) to derail the interests ("agenda" ) of constituents by subverting their representatives into serving others.

The question is not how can outsiders "allow", i.e., force representatives to comply with outside interests (a shockingly anti-democratic idea), but how can the reps persuade and compromise with each other. and what incentives can they offer, until they develop sufficient consensus to pass legislation?