Dems Patty Murray and Michael Bennet help GOP kill a Sanders-Warren bill to lower drug prices

[HarmonyRockets]

Sanders, along with co-sponsors Elizabeth Warren and Robert Casey, offered an amendment to the user-fee bill that would have allowed for importation of drugs from FDA-approved facilities in Canada. As Casey pointed out in committee, the amendment is laden with protections, requiring patients to have valid Canadian prescriptions, allowing the FDA to shut down bad actors, etc.

Once again, Democratic discipline broke down. The amendment this time was beaten in committee, 13-10. Two Democrats, Patty Murray and Michael Bennet, both of whom accept a lot of pharmaceutical money, voted no.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-republicans-and-democrats-blocking-drug-reimportation-w485638

[Crash2Parties]

1. American government is the best money can buy.

[onecaliberal]

2. Any rep beholden to corporations over people need to go immediately.

[mhw]

3. Why didn't Matt Tabbi tell us why they voted No?

He makes the comment they both accept a lot of pharam money, implying what? That they voted no because they must be bought by pharma?

Kind of like slipping in a little fake news isn't it?
Perhaps if Tabbi had spent some effort as to finding out why they actually voted no, rather than write one insinuating sentence in rather lengthy article, he would be more credible.

What were their actual reasons for the vote against the ammendment?

He never told that part.

[CentralMass]

54. He told us enough and we thank him for it.

[George II]

91. He didn't say why they didn't vote for it, and their reason(s) made a lot of sense.

[mhw]

4. Found this statement for some clarification. Don't know why Tabbi didn't print this

UPDATE EDIT: "They responded saying that they had some safety concerns that couldn't be resolved in the 10 minutes they had to vote".

Pharma is a big contributor to their campaign, so that raises my eyebrows, but since they do have a history of voting for allowing drugs to come from Canada, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.


Maybe Tabbi should have included this in his article rather than cause readers to raise eyebrows otherwise.

Unless that's precisely what his intention was.

[HarmonyRockets]

5. Safety reasons?

Are gullible enough to actually believe that?

[still_one]

7. That isn't the point. Tabbi is notorious for not presenting a complete story, which would

include the reasoning of those he accuses.

Yes, they may have been influenced by special interests, but that he doesn't present their rebuttal is inherently dishonest.

He did the same crap when he was criticizing those who were concerned about Russian interference in the election, by leaving convenient things out to justify why he thought it was "extremely unlikely that there was Russian interference"

Tabbi, is not an objective reporter, and perhaps it shouldn't be viewed in that light, but instead as an editorial, but even then, he should try to present a complete picture from all side of things

[melman]

15. You clearly didn't read the article

[pnwmom]

17. No you clearly didn't. Taibbi wrote a very misleading article. nt

[still_one]

27. I read the article, and the first 2/3 of the article he makes the case that they voted no because

they accept campaign contributions from Pharma. It was only after 2/3 of the way into the article, he briefly quotes one of the people who voted no, Coons, who expressed safety concerns to justify his vote. He then goes on to opine why those safety concerns have no basis, throws some unsourced data without basic details, but still leaving the reader to wonder if we are talking apples to apples.

What should have been done, is he should have followed through with those who voted no because of "safety concerns", by presenting them with the argument that those safety concerns are already addressed, and why are they still using that as a reason?

As I have stated, Tabbi doesn't always make correct conclusions. The example I used was his view that it is highly unlikely that there was Russian involvement in our election or with members of the trump team. The reasoning he used was because we were lied to about the WMDs. That is comparing apples with oranges.

He should be following through, and if they refused to answer why they still believe there are safety concerns, then that makes the case for Tabbi.

[George II]

94. "the first 2/3 of the article he makes the case that they voted no because....

...they accept campaign contributions from Pharma"

Saying that alone is clearly a lie. They can't accept a penny from Pharma, or banks, or auto companies, or ANY business. It's clearly illegal!

[still_one]

101. They are guilty because the get campaign contributions. Typical Tabbi judgmental arrogance

[George II]

102. Matt Taibbi hates Democrats, no doubt he's a huge disappointment to his father.

[still_one]

105. ....................

[pnwmom]

19. You know what else he has written lately? He thinks the media

is making too much of the Russia hacking story.

Back in March, he was discussing this with David Corn.

KCRW’s Warren Olney interviewed Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone and David Corn of Mother Jones about Monday’s hearing on a possible Russian role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“This is one of the most consequential congressional hearings I’ve been at in a long time,” said Corn.

Taibbi’s take: “This is a highly complex story that has a lot of angles to it. ... There is a political danger ... if there are any holes” [in the Democratic narrative about Russia]. “It’s concerning. The one thing that can save Donald Trump politically right now is any kind of validation of his core accusation of media overreach and establishment bias against him. That’s what I worry about with this story.”

“That’s about 2 percent about what we should be worrying about, or caring about,” countered Corn. “The fact that Moscow attacked political figures here to try to win an election their way is the paramount issue. There is nothing more important than this set of issues. ... We need for there to be a thorough investigation.”

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/collusion_remains_key_unknown_in_russia_story_not_leaking_audio_20170320


And this was published in April:


http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/04/04/matt-taibbis-skepticism-of-the-russian-hacking-coverage-is-all-wrong/

Matt Taibbi’s Skepticism of the Russian Hacking Coverage Is all Wrong

[still_one]

103. What an arrogant ass he is

[nikibatts]

43. Tabbi is a Sanders shill and Hillary hater. Point being no matter what if you go against anything

Sanders is for you are your are shit to him.

[CanSocDem]

52. Do whut now...??? (eom)

[CentralMass]

53. So it sounds like you support the killing of this bill and the ammendment.

Is that the case ?

[LanternWaste]

84. I too would pretend that anyone's belief someone is shill makes it sound

I too would pretend that anyone's belief someone is shill makes it sound "like you support the killing of this bill..." too.

Without a firm argument, or even a hint of objective evidence, that's often all we're reduced to.

[George II]

90. And the "article" doesn't appear to be dated, I think this vote took place a month ago.

[pnwmom]

104. That would explain it. So it's probably just a rehash of earlier hit pieces.

Before they were going after Booker, now it's Patty Murray.

[mvd]

8. It always seems to be the reason

To me, it is getting old. I certainly hope they state their intention to support it next time.

[still_one]

30. If they argue it is safety concerns, then they should be able to explain why they still

have those safety concerns and that Tabbi didn't do that, that is a failing

[mvd]

44. He does point out the pattern well though

No doubt about that. I think the article could have gone deeper in details, but he's right that we have to come together on one of these.

[CentralMass]

56. The issue to me is Pat Murray and Mike Bennetf'ng us over.

[still_one]

66. That's fine, but it is also reasonable to inquire if their concerns on safety are justified.

[pnwmom]

16. The gullible people are the ones who think they can safely order from

any online pharmacy that purports to be based in Canada.

Washington state has had a problem with fake drugs arriving here, after being ordered by people from online pharmacies. Bernie's amendment didn't offer any protections for this problem. The bill Patty Murray supported did.

This particular article is about fake drugs being made in India. The problem is that an online pharmacy with an address in Canada can order these counterfeits from India and then ship them to consumers in the US. Canada does NOT regulate the safety of drugs that are passing through Canada on the way to other countries, including the US.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/fake-medicine-industry-booms-in-india/

[still_one]

33. Tabbi is stating that safety concerns been addressed. Is he right? He lists some unsourced data,

but we really don't know if it pertains to this amendment, which is why we need specifics, including a follow through to those who voted no because of safety concerns. Is there something that is still troubling them?

[pnwmom]

35. He's wrong. What IS true is that many drugs sold by US manufacturers

are produced in other countries, like India, and then imported here -- and there are safety regulations that cover them.

Taibbi says this:

"But we already do import foreign drugs, and have an established safety certification process. In fact, an astonishing 40 percent of all pharmaceuticals sold in the United States are already imported, as are 80 percent of the chemical ingredients. These imported drugs and drug ingredients arrive by way of more than 300,000 foreign food and drug manufacturing facilities that are regularly certified as safe by the FDA."

But this is misleading because there is nothing in Bernie's bill that protects INDIVIDUALS who don't buy from US pharmacies -- i.e, who buy directly from online Canadian pharmacies. Or from non-pharmacies only pretending to be in Canada. The current safety regulations only protect people who buy products from US pharmacies -- not online from other countries. You can see why that would be the case. We can inspect product that arrives at a US pharmaceutical firm and gets distributed to pharmacies here, and from pharmacies to individual patients. But how much more complicated would it be to inspect millions of packages from other countries that get delivered straight to consumers?

Canada regulates the safety of drugs sold to Canadian citizens, but it doesn't regulate drugs that pass through Canada on the way to somewhere else -- like a drug sold on an online "Canadian" pharmacy. So those fake drugs are slipping through a giant loophole, and some of them are already arriving here. Postal inspectors have found them in Seattle, and Patty Murray knows that. It was in the newspapers here.

Here is some more information. Making sure our medication supply is safe is already a major challenge. We shouldn't be passing a bill that could make it even worse.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202523/

[still_one]

37. I realize that pnwmom, the FDA insures drugs sold by US manufacturers that are produced in other

countries, have all kinds of safety regulations that cover them.

https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194989.htm

A lot of those are generic, and those generics need to go through an extensive approval process themselves to demonstrate that they have the same efficacy and dosage as the brand name. A wrong dosage can be just a deadly. It is an involved process, similar to when a new drug is released into the market

You are absolutely right pnwmom

[pnwmom]

38. I just added another link about how difficult a challenge this already is.

We do need less expensive drugs, and there must be a way to do it -- but this is what we're up against.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202523/

The drug distribution system becomes more disordered as the products leak out of regulated distribution chains. The risk increases as drugs move farther from the manufacturer en route to the vendor. Licensed pharmacies and dispensaries can control the quality of their stock, at least insomuch as they can trust their wholesalers. There are no such efforts at quality control in the unlicensed market. Unlicensed vendors are often minimally educated. They may approach medicines dispensing as any other sales job and not want a customer to leave without making a purchase. In general, these vendors exploit the chaos inherent to street markets and dry goods shops in low- and middle-income countries and to online drug stores in middle- and high-income ones. Their stock is poor because the stockists are either unable or unwilling to judge quality.

Their customers are similarly ill-equipped to evaluate the dangers of buying medicine outside of controlled chains. Unlicensed medicine vendors fill a need, especially in poor countries, when time, expense, and distance impede access to registered pharmacies. Internet pharmacies can fill a similar void, appealing to customers eager to save time and money or to purchase discretely. Both types of market are dangerous and more similar than they may appear at first glance. A Chinese military pharmacist described the appeal of unlicensed medicine shops: “There are people who choose to seek medical help from these places, possibly because of lower prices or privacy concerns, which may increase their chances of getting counterfeit products” (Quingyun, 2012). The observation is true of all unregulated pharmacies. Street markets and the internet are a main source of falsified and substandard medicines for patients around the world (WHPA, 2011). The committee believes some changes to medicines retail could improve the world's vast and disorganized pharmaceutical bazaars.

[still_one]

39. That is great information, and just how complicated it is. Thanks

[pnwmom]

40. It sums it up well at the end.

People in the US buying online from foreign countries are at a similar safety disadvantage as people buying in low-income countries.


"The drug distribution system becomes more disordered as the products leak out of regulated distribution chains. The risk increases as drugs move farther from the manufacturer en route to the vendor. Licensed pharmacies and dispensaries can control the quality of their stock, at least insomuch as they can trust their wholesalers. There are no such efforts at quality control in the unlicensed market. Unlicensed vendors are often minimally educated. They may approach medicines dispensing as any other sales job and not want a customer to leave without making a purchase. In general, these vendors exploit the chaos inherent to street markets and dry goods shops in low- and middle-income countries and to online drug stores in middle- and high-income ones. Their stock is poor because the stockists are either unable or unwilling to judge quality.

"Their customers are similarly ill-equipped to evaluate the dangers of buying medicine outside of controlled chains. Unlicensed medicine vendors fill a need, especially in poor countries, when time, expense, and distance impede access to registered pharmacies. Internet pharmacies can fill a similar void, appealing to customers eager to save time and money or to purchase discretely. Both types of market are dangerous and more similar than they may appear at first glance. A Chinese military pharmacist described the appeal of unlicensed medicine shops: “There are people who choose to seek medical help from these places, possibly because of lower prices or privacy concerns, which may increase their chances of getting counterfeit products” (Quingyun, 2012). The observation is true of all unregulated pharmacies. Street markets and the internet are a main source of falsified and substandard medicines for patients around the world (WHPA, 2011). The committee believes some changes to medicines retail could improve the world's vast and disorganized pharmaceutical bazaars."

[LisaM]

127. And why 10 minutes isn't enough time to consider an amendment.

I wouldn't trust any amendment or bill that is rushed.

[brer cat]

114. They don't even pass though Canda, pnwmom.

I used to order my meds from a Canadian pharmacy. None came from Canada; most were manufactured in and shipped directly from India. I don't personally know the best way to protect our drug supply, but I appreciate that we have Senators trying to take the time to institute safe-guards. Cheap drugs that are not effective or that could kill us are not the answer to the problem.

[pnwmom]

115. Right, that's true. But some do pretend to be coming from a Canadian pharmacy

and Canada can't stop that.

[sheshe2]

110. Yes safetly reasons.

Not all of the meds come from Canada...many come from India and other places and NEED TO BE CHECKED for safety. Canada only has the resources to check what goes to their citizens....not ours.

[still_one]

6. Good for you mhw. I was thinking about posting that myself, but seeing that it was a Tabbi story,

It really gets tiresome to try to point out the inaccuracies or incompleteness of Tabbi's stories.

While it could be argued that he makes a legitimate point, the fact that he leaves out their reasons, and instead prefers to characterize it with his own editorial bias, is standard Tabbi fare.

He does this all the time. At the beginning of the year he was critical of those who were concerned about Russian interference in the election. He said no one had provided actual evidence of an interference or collusion with the trump campaign, and in the same breath said because this is coming from the CIA, who "lied to us about Iraq", that is why we shouldn't believe it. Of course that isn't correct either. First, the WMD lie did not come from the CIA, but from the bush administration. Second, because of what happened in Iraq does not negate that their was or was not Russian interference. Those are mutually exclusive events. His reasoning is not sound.

Mr. Tabbi is not an objective reporter, and time and time again, he cannot resist but to frame a story based on his personal bias, which has a tendency to distort the things.

[SunSeeker]

10. Wait, Matt Taibbi doesn't think there is evidence of Russian interference in the election?

Is he deaf, dumb and blind? Did he vote for Trump?!

[still_one]

11. When Tabbi came out with his assertion that we shouldn't believe that there was Russian

involvement in the election, the reasoning he used was because we were lied to about WMDs. It is a straw man argument which exposed Tabbi's bias:

Here was his take on the Russian story:

"Something About This Russia Story Stinks

Nearly a decade and a half after the Iraq-WMD faceplant, the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even then, when he wrote that story, there was plenty of suspicious information regarding Russian involvement. Harry Reid and others in Congress were telling us that there was very concerning information they had seen regarding the Russians, but Mr. Tabbi was telling us we shouldn't believe it because of the WMDs. It was classic Matt Tabbi expossing his personal bias, because it wouldn't fit his view of the world if the Russians interfered with the election, Tabbi couldn't claim that it was all Hillary's fault why she lost the election if there was Russian involvement or collusion, and his dislike of Hillary was so extreme, that he couldn't accept other possibilities.

Not surprisingly, both Greewald and Jill Stein subscribed to the same view, that it was highly unlikely there was any Russian involvement in the election.

Tabbi is not an honest reporter because his personal bias gets in the way of objectivity.

I doubt he voted for trump, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't vote for Hillary, and voted third party. He expressed outrage at the paper he writes for, The Rolling Stone, when they endorsed Hillary, so it is no secret where he is coming from

[mhw]

21. He's just proven himself to be a non-credible source.

He's not even good at hiding his bias.

Senator Murray is a fine Democratic Senator & this is a democratic site.

Tabbi? What is he?

[sheshe2]

111. I trust Tabbi as much as I trust Cenk.

Which is...not at all.

[mhw]

112. And they freak out when anti-Trump messages are posted from Mensch, Taylor, & Palmer.

..they are discredited, but anti-Democratic, anti-Hillary bs pieces are posted as fact.

Makes you wonder whose side some are really on. Anti-Trump = fake left news, but anti-Hillary & Dem Party = fact?!!

Kind of messed up isn't it.

Tabbi couldn't even tell the truth in his spiteful attempt to discredit two very respected Democratic Senators.

I'm calling BS on this ridiculousness.

[pnwmom]

22. I see you are as aware of Taibbi's odd stance on this issue as I am! n/t

[SunSeeker]

74. I just lost all respect for Taibbi. He is not a journalist if he sticks his head in the sand.

Taibbi can go fuck himself.

[mhw]

20. Just look at all the great things Sen Murray is busy with lately:

Reading thru this list I'm more apt to believe Tabbi intended to discredit Sen Murray with his vague accusation without telling Murray's real reason for voting against the amendment. Did he bother to find out? Or did he just rely on his personal bias as the answer.

And some say Bill Palmer is a faker with his writings..
Geez..

Out of fairness, here's some of what the great Dem Senator Murray has been busy with:

June 2017
Senator Murray Denounces President Trump’s Decision to Withdraw from Paris Climate Accord 06/01
May 2017
Senators Murray, Cantwell Announce Funding for Over 1,300 AmeriCorps Positions in Washington State 05/30
Senators Murray, Cantwell Raise Concerns over President Trump’s Cuts to Rural Development 05/30
Members of WA Delegation Announce Major Step Forward for Critical Work on Mud Mountain Dam 05/26
Sen. Murray Challenges President Trump’s Budget Director to Explain Budget’s Drastic Cuts to Investments in Working Families 05/25
Senators Murray, Cantwell Join Colleagues to Introduce $15 Minimum Wage Bill with Broad Support in Senate and House 05/25
Sens. Murray, Cantwell Push Administration to Restore Support for Salmon Recovery Fund 05/25
Sens. Murray, Cantwell Call On GAO To Review Unfinished Work At Hanford Nuclear Reservation 05/24
Sen. Murray Remarks on Newly-Released CBO Score on Trumpcare 05/24
Ahead of G-7 Meeting, Cantwell, Murray Urge President Trump Not to Withdraw from Paris Climate Agreement 05/24---------------

***Sen Murray EVEN joined her collegues and introduced a $15 MINIMUM WAGE BILL..

OMG!! She must be tied to ..to..something oligarchyish.

Tabbi is full of crap with his insinuating hit piece. He really isn't credible enough to be taken seriously.


Sen Murray is one of America's strongest fighters for fairness.
She has the track record to prove it.

Tabbi writes opinion hit pieces, conveniently omitting key facts.

[CentralMass]

57. Well she was the one of only twodemocrats to screw us on this one.

[Demsrule86]

98. She did no such thing...geez...Why do folks want to run Democrats down...

what possible benefit can there be? Hmmm.

[melman]

13. You found that where exactly?

Google finds it nowhere but here.

[Cha]

23. Oh matt taibbi.. I wondered when I

saw Rolling Stone.

I don't believe a word he says.. I've seen his brand of sloppy "journalism" too many times.

Mahalo, mhw

[mhw]

25. And to you also Cha!

[SharonAnn]

55. And yet he wrote what, I think, is the best sentence in the world about Wall Street:

"Goldman Sachs is a giant vampire squid wrapped about the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."

I just think that sentence is perfect!

[Ken Burch]

107. They couldn't just have called Liz or Bernie's staff? or ASKED Liz or Bernie?

Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2017, 04:58 PM - Edit history (1)

It's not as though they'd never seen the bill before or never talked to either of those two.

[customerserviceguy]

9. Did this bill have a chance in hell anyway?

If the GOP doesn't like it (and they accept more money from Big Pharma than anybody), then silly little committee votes have no lasting effect in the real world.

Still, it's a bit disappointing to know who's bought and paid for.

[pnwmom]

14. Taibbi has written a very misleading article. Patty Murray supports a bill

that contains the consumer protections against fake drugs that Bernie's amendment lacks. And Patty Murray represents a state that already has had a problem with fake drugs arriving from online "pharmacies" supposedly based in Canada.

[mhw]

26. Thanks pnwmom. That's the part he omitted.

Appreciate your settling this matter.

This amendment was a dupe of the one they tried to send thru in Jan I think.
The one that Booker voted against. Turned out he was correct in his vote afterall. Even Canada said they can only guarantee safety for their own citizens but do not have the capacity to safe test drugs for all of America also.

He voted no for the same reasons as Sen Murray.
Its good to know we have some in DC looking out for our safety.
That's what we send them there to do.

[pnwmom]

129. Right. As you remember, this was all hashed out months ago,

when they were attacking Cory Booker on the same point.

[mhw]

133. What a bunch of weaklings.

Seriously. This is some desperate bs.
Good lord.

[customerserviceguy]

125. I get at least one of my drugs from a Canadian pharmacy

and I'd be the first to know if it was ineffective. Some years ago, I found that the state of Wisconsin, acknowledging that people from there were dealing with Canadian pharmacies, put out a list of ones that were legit.

Still, it's always going to be a battle of the everyday folks versus Big Pharma, and we have to work harder almost every year to keep from paying artificially inflated prices.

[pnwmom]

128. Well, that's good. But that's like saying "I smoke cigarettes and don't have cancer."

The bottom line is Patty Murray, Cory Booker, and the others who didn't support the Bernie amendment (to a Republican bill), DID support a different bill that included consumer protections.

[customerserviceguy]

131. I guess I don't understand that analogy

Every cigarette takes a bit of life out of you. Whereas, if you get fake drugs, and stop taking them, and make sure you get a real one, then you get the desired result.

Sorry, but I find your analogy to be apples vs. oranges.

On the other hand, if the OP is just a still frame from a movie that is about something other than what the still frame indicates, then I get that point. In any case, it's not worth getting worked up over legislation that is more about posturing than governing.

[pnwmom]

132. I'm saying you were fortunate.. But people have died because they took

a fake drug -- either for not having enough (or any) of the ingredient that they needed or from toxins in the counterfeit.

For example:

http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/police-checking-to-see-if-yakima-fatal-overdose-related-to/article_19c2dca8-1e48-11e6-b88f-83d472b8a45c.html

http://www.safemedicines.org/2017/03/counterfeit-pills-laced-with-fentanyl-are-ravaging-communities-across-north-america.html#WA

[mhw]

24. Murray isn't bought & paid for. Tabbi wants you to think that's why she voted no.

That's why he never bothered to research & print the real reason for her vote.

Gee I wonder where his proof is that she's bought & paid for?
He never researched that either.

[pnwmom]

41. He also thinks the media has been making too much of the Russia hacking story.

His reporting isn't trustworthy.

[lapucelle]

75. This is a Republican bill.

The Rolling Stone story is about a Democratic amendment that died in committee. There is no Warren-Sanders bill.

This is a lot of faux outrage about an amendment to a Republican bill that many Democrats will be voting against.

[Demsrule86]

99. It is a bad bill as all bills by the lose GOP are.

[NastyRiffraff]

116. Don't confuse people with truth!

It's just so much more FUN to believe a "journalist" with an agenda and accuse a good DEMOCRAT of being bought and paid for. Plus, you don't have to do any boring research!

[CentralMass]

60. Not with a select few democrats who seem to be playing tag team to kill it.

Booker, Menendez, Bennet, and Murray. I wonders who's turn it will be next time ?

[pnwmom]

77. It's a sloppy amendment to a Republican bill that never had a chance.

It doesn't do anything to prevent the problem of people getting counterfeit drugs in online transactions, unlike the bill that Booker, Murray,, etc. support.

But it gives its supporters a chance to demonstrate, once again, that they are for lower drug prices -- even if they knew this amendment wasn't really a good way to get there.

[CentralMass]

82. Then why did Murray and Bennet swap places with Booker and Menendez on second vote ?

Are we to believe that the ammendment to the bill to improve safety was sufficient for Booker and Menendez to vote yes the second time but cause Bennet and Murray who voted yes the first time to vote no on the second vote ?

IMO this wreaks.

[pnwmom]

83. They didn't "swap places." This is about a Committee vote on an amendment

to a Republican bill.

It's not a full house vote on the different bill that Murray, Booker, and the other 9 Democrats prefer.

[Demsrule86]

97. No Trump would veto it if it made it through congress...just more pot sots

by the hater who wrote this misleading article.

[customerserviceguy]

126. True

When it comes down to it, there really will be no legislation of any kind passed by Congress for the remainder of the Trump administration. It's all going to be rule by executive order from here on in. And I'm almost certain that the debt limit thing will come to a crashing halt before anything is done on raising it. It'll be the biggest, baddest game of "chicken" ever seen in governmental history.

[Demsrule86]

134. I would agree with that...the GOP is counting on the Dems love for the country to pull their fat out

of the fire...but this time the GOP owns it all and for the good of the country long term...the Dems need to stand firm. It will be a shit show.

[pnwmom]

12. Once again Matt Taibbi has written a misleading article about Democrats.

He seems to have a habit of doing that.

For example, he says:

"But we already do import foreign drugs, and have an established safety certification process. In fact, an astonishing 40 percent of all pharmaceuticals sold in the United States are already imported, as are 80 percent of the chemical ingredients. These imported drugs and drug ingredients arrive by way of more than 300,000 foreign food and drug manufacturing facilities that are regularly certified as safe by the FDA."

The truth is that US pharmaceutical companies do produce drugs under contract with foreign manufacturers, and those drugs get imported into the US. But that' isn't what the Bernie amendment was about. It was about allowing consumers to directly order drugs from online pharmacies in Canada. And Canada does NOTHING to regulate the drugs that pass through Canada on the way to the US (or only pretend to pass through Canada to other countries. Some online pharmacies only purport to be in Canada.) Canada regulates the drugs being sold to its own citizens, but not the drugs or fake drugs that are advertised on online websites purporting to be based in Canada.

Senator Patty Murray comes from a state that has already had a problem of fake drugs being imported from online pharmacies. Bernie's amendment would have made that worse.

Also, Taibbi fails to mention that Patty Murray DID support another healthcare bill that included the protections for consumers that Bernie's bill lacked. So did Cory Booker and the 11 other Democrats who didn't support Bernie's bill.

Here is an article about fake drugs being made in India. The problem is that an online pharmacy with an address in Canada can order these counterfeits from India and then ship them to consumers in the US. Canada does NOT regulate the safety of drugs that are passing through Canada on the way to other countries, including the US.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/fake-medicine-industry-booms-in-india/

[mhw]

28. Exactly. Good read.

Amazing what the truth looks like when one bothers to find out.
Tabbi should have done the same, but he chose not to.

[pnwmom]

29. Makes me wonder about the years he spent living in Russia

and whether he still has connections there -- now that we know what we know about Russian propaganda.

[mhw]

32. Geezus..Tabbi has a past with Russia too? !

It shows in the way he writes.

[CentralMass]

58. The truth is we keep having one or two democrats like Booker and Menendez, or Bennet Murray killing

this bill

[Jakes Progress]

124. Catch up.

You need to learn to recognize propaganda and social disinformation when you see it.

[Doremus]

63. Letting perfect be the enemy of the good? nt

[nini]

73. I am amazed at how many on 'our side' keep getting played by him.

Drives me absolutely nuts.

[Tanuki]

18. Extremely misleading. For more info, please read this:

https://www.google.com/amp/healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/05/15/fda-user-fee-reauthorization-clears-hurdle-in-senate-with-bipartisan-support/amp/

[mhw]

31. Thanks. Explains the topic very well. Quite an interesting read

This is a complex bill.

[still_one]

34. Wow, that is a very good layout of the issues involved. It really isn't as clear cut as the OP

tries to convey.


Thanks for the information

[tirebiter]

36. Sounds like the same thing that went down 5 months ago

[lapucelle]

42. This is not a "Sanders-Warren" bill.

The bill itself was introduced by Republicans. The article is about an amendment that died in committee. The bill is a Republican led effort.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/934?r=8

[Demsrule86]

48. so it was bullshit.

The guy is a liar...what is his agenda. This post should be modified to show the truth.

[justiceischeap]

45. If someone writes a hit piece on Dems these days

you need to consider the source and gather more info. Almost no politician is free from outside interest money but that doesn't mean we should automatically assume they are bought and paid for unless they have a very clear record of such.

Patty Murray has a great record so what is the purpose of Taibi's article? What's the end-goal? As pnwmom has pointed out so well, he appears to have an agenda here. What is it and why?

We need to be asking these questions when it comes to hit pieces on Dems as 2018 comes closer and fracturing the party is a good way to suppress the vote from within.

[Demsrule86]

47. More hits on Democrats...these folks favor Republicans clearly.

[CentralMass]

59. Bullshit. I side with all of the Democrats who voted for this bill and praise Taibbi for writing the

article.

[Demsrule86]

61. It was in January...and he acts like it just happened...it was going nowhere

anyway...I fail to see the importance on how folks vote on bills going nowhere...also too bad the f'ing Greens made it so Dems have to take money by electing Bush which gave us United. You want to get all outrage over something that can't happen...on an old vote ...January...go for it. Fall into the trap again that helped elect Trump...me I will pass ...thanks so much.

[CentralMass]

65. Our political system wreaks and these politicians represent their corporate masters, not us.

Taibbi is a good journalist and not the villian here. The vast majority of the party supported this bill and its ammendment twice. It would apoear that Booker and Menedez couldn't afford the political hit of voting against it again so the the next two "safe" employees of big pharma on the list had to step up.

[Demsrule86]

95. Taibbi is a bad guy and trying to destroy the Democratic Party...I read nothing

he writes. I did read this as it was posted, and as I expected he mislead...this bill would require a Canadian prescription...have to go to Canada...those of us that use a mail order program would be shut down...bad bad idea and Taibbi can fuck himself...he is a Russian Troll in my opinion. Consider that the amendment has no teeth and would not require importation of drugs...thus the drug companies would be thrilled that Americans could not longer get cheaper drugs.

[Demit]

78. No, the amendment under discussion was just considered on May 11.

From the article, in case you didn't read it:

"A few weeks ago, on May 11th, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee met to consider the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017. This little-known piece of legislation would reauthorize the FDA to collect "user fees" from the makers of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. ...

Sanders, along with co-sponsors Elizabeth Warren and Robert Casey, offered an amendment to the user-fee bill that would have allowed for importation of drugs from FDA-approved facilities in Canada. As Casey pointed out in committee, the amendment is laden with protections, requiring patients to have valid Canadian prescriptions, allowing the FDA to shut down bad actors, etc.

Once again, Democratic discipline broke down. The amendment this time was beaten in committee, 13-10. Two Democrats, Patty Murray and Michael Bennet, both of whom accept a lot of pharmaceutical money, voted no."

So Taibbi's coverage is appropriately timely.

[Demsrule86]

93. As I pointed out...it is still the same thing...

and it would not require drug importation but it would require a Canadian prescription... so how exactly does this help us? Shall I drive to Canada and see a doctor there? I have gotten drugs from Canada and this would be a way to shut that avenue down...bad amendment and bad idea.

[Demit]

117. Different amendments. Get them straight.

[Demsrule86]

122. Did you read what I posted? Both amendments are worthless...both.

I looked into it and the article is a hit piece.

[Demsrule86]

96. Bad amendment that would require a Canadian prescription...

many already get drugs from Canada...and this would end it.

[Demsrule86]

46. And if they had voted for it it would have been 13-12...let

me know when such a bill has a chance...sometime after 2020 hopefully.

[Demsrule86]

49. You are promoting a right wing source that is misleading at best and I think an out and

out lie...modify you post or better yet take it down...oh and welcome to DU.

[Demsrule86]

50. This took place in January by the way...

How nice of Matt and others... to help the GOP this way...(sarcasm).

[Demit]

79. It took place May 11. Read the article again.

The amendment that was introduced in January was to a budget resolution and it came from Sanders & Klobuchar. This one is from Sanders, Warren, and Casey, and it is an amendment to a user fee bill that was being considered in committee.

[Demsrule86]

92. Read below ....It was ruled as misleading in January

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/

"There are a couple of issues with considering action against the measure to import drugs from Canada as a vote "against cheaper medicines."

The vote was more symbolic than substantive. It was an amendment to a Senate budget resolution, which is a non-binding measure that doesn’t get signed by the president or become law. Rather, they set a framework for committee chairs to work within when deciding how to spend money.

So the measures shouldn’t be oversold as direct action.

"Simply put, if adopted by the Senate, the amendment would not have required the United States to begin importing drugs from Canada -- period, full stop," said Jeff Giertz, communications director for Booker. "It would have added language into the budget resolution that would have advised the Senate to spend money in a way that would result in this." "Giertz said that Booker supported the same goals, but wanted to see a framework for ensuring the safety of imported drugs included in the amendment."

This latest attempt was a loser proposition because it would have required a Canadian prescription which means going to Canada for medical care. As some one who has used Canadian drugs for expensive drugs...that would ruin everything.

"Sanders, along with co-sponsors Elizabeth Warren and Robert Casey, offered an amendment to the user-fee bill that would have allowed for importation of drugs from FDA-approved facilities in Canada. As Casey pointed out in committee, the amendment is laden with protections, requiring patients to have valid Canadian prescriptions, allowing the FDA to shut down bad actors, etc."

Keep in mind the amendment is not going to require drug importation...so it is really meaningless and many who get their meds today from Canada would be in trouble... I can't believe any Dem supported this.

[Demit]

118. You got the amendments mixed up. Own it.

[Demsrule86]

121. I believed that the article referred to the January one-never denied it...but

as you can see I looked into it...and I don't have a problem with Dems voting against it...I will not trash the Dem party anyway...and decent Senators...we did enough of that in 2016 and look where it got us. The author wrote a misleading article.

[QC]

51. MATT TAIBBI IS A MEANIE MEANIE POOPIE HEAD!!1!!!!!

And he should never be quoted here even when what he says is perfectly true, if embarrassing to party loyalists.

[emulatorloo]

108. No no no Matt Taibbi is a Sacred Cow

and is INFALLIBLE. You just bought yourself ticket straight to HELL by questioning him!!!!

[Eyeball_Kid]

62. As always, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

[ismnotwasm]

64. I remember that this shit--It was used as a "Bash Corey Booker" club

I knew my Senator Murray had voted against it so I looked it up. Now it's being used to bash a couple other Democrats. This is a misleading article, the implication being that Murray is a corrupt Democrat. Which is bullshit.

[CentralMass]

67. Two blown opportunities due to two democrats voting no and those who.

report on it or are upset by it are the villains.

[ismnotwasm]

68. Have you read up on why the no vote?

Plus this is re-reporting. Other interesting things have happened since then

[CentralMass]

71. Yes i have but i find it hard to believe that nearly entire body of the senate, incuding:

Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2017, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Chuck Schumer voted yes twice while a lone two dem senators Pat Murray and Mike Bennet, who voted yes on the first attempt, while Booker and Menendez voted against it for safety concerns, vote against it after a safety ammendment was added that even had Elizabeth Warrens name on it.

I am beyond skeptical that the system is rigged. Importing drugs from Canda has broad support in this country. I think it was 77% of those polled are for it.
The measure has boad support in both parties and yet twice it was killed by democrats voting against their colleagues and the will of the majority of americans.

I would suggest that this is all for show. Nothing that impacts the profits of the companies that put these people in office will ever get passed..

[ismnotwasm]

85. So you believe Senator Murray is corrupt.

Correct?
For a small context, Washington state shared a border with Canada

[George II]

120. Do you understand that many of the Canadian pharmaceutical companies from whom....

....the drugs will be imported are the same companies that you've been railing against here in the United States.

I'm not familiar with the finances of the Canadian divisions and the American divisions, but I would venture to guess that the profit margins on both sides of the border are similar. What may make their drugs cheaper than ours could be the safeguards imposed by the FDA increases the costs (at the same profit margin) to manufacture in the US.

[Trial_By_Fire]

69. But, Murray and Bennet are Democrats so all is well...

I just paid $70 for a tiny bottle of prescription eye drops - thanks so much!

[FSogol]

70. SSDD. Divide, divide, divide. The Republican bill is now a Warren-Sanders Bill?

[Trial_By_Fire]

72. It was a Sanders-Warren amendment to a bill...

[lapucelle]

80. According to Taibbi's revisionist narrative, the bill introduced by Lamar Alexander

Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2017, 10:48 PM - Edit history (1)

somehow morphs into a "Sanders-Warren" bill.

Mission accomplished, Matt.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/934?r=8

[Trial_By_Fire]

81. Did you read the article? Or even the OP's post?

It was the OP who provided the Post Headline.

It was a Sanders-Warren amendment to a bill...

Nice try thou...

[lapucelle]

123. So in other words,

someone (the OP) read the Taibbi piece, and the amendment somehow morphed into a bill.

The OP's headline proves my point.

Like I said, mission accomplished.

[samnsara]

76. murray is our congress person...

....shes never given us a reason to doubt any of her decisions. Shes always with the people of the state.....and she totally against trump and all of his policies. so I will look into this further and then robo-fax her.

[mhw]

113. Thanks. She needs to know where this BS is coming from,

..who is spreading this BS lie & yes she rightfully should know about it.

Who elses hand is in Putin's wallet. The whole smearing of Dems is why we have Trump.

Its BS.

[mcar]

86. Ah, I see it's Patty Murray's turn this week

[disillusioned73]

87. Glad to see this posted..

as they say, if the message is inconvenient - attack the messenger

[mcar]

88. Politifact says "mostly false"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/

[George II]

89. Didn't this vote occur about a month ago, and was vigorously discussed back then?

Why bring this up again, particularly since it's clearly a Democratic hit piece?

And neither of those Senators "accept a lot of pharmaceutical money", they accept ZERO pharmaceutical money, it's illegal to do so.

[Amimnoch]

100. sorry, got better things to do with time these days

Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2017, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

than bash Democrats.

I also don't have time for these purity tests. We kinda have real issues and real politicians (like this thing in the White house) that I'd rather be targeting.

Frankly, and as others pointed out, this is likely a strawman and garbage argument, however, in the current climate..

let me just say..
If there was a video tape of her sitting with pharma executives,
with them rolling around naked in money..
with the evil laughter of Austin Powers villians..

I STILL wouldn't give a shit given what we have to deal with in the white house.

My own decision making tree.

[liberalmuse]

106. I live in Washington State now...

Patty Murray really does vote in the best interests of Americans pretty much every single time. And after years of reading "the scoop" from Matt Taibbi, I've come to the conclusion that he is simply not a credible source.

[George II]

109. Taibbi is lying....see this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/

A viral post circulating recently in some of the more liberal corners of social media accuses 13 Democratic senators of allegedly voting against lower drug prices because they were recipients of big money from drugmakers.

The post included the names and photographs of 13 Democratic senators — Cory Booker and Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper and Chris Coons of Delaware, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington state, Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Warner of Virginia, and Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania. It also listed dollar amounts the senators were said to have received from "big pharma."

Several readers asked us to check the post’s accuracy, so we did. (We’ll set aside the misspelling of Booker’s first name.)

The viral image was created by a group called The Other 98, which says it fights "economic injustice, undue corporate influence and threats to democracy." We were unable to reach a representative of the group. However, we were able to make pretty solid guesses about the underlying reference.

It lines up with the voting results for an amendment voted on by the Senate on Jan. 11, 2017. The amendment is filled with legislative jargon, but it would basically create a mechanism to promote "lower prescription drug prices for Americans by importing drugs from Canada."

(more....)

[Greywing]

119. And politifact rated this claim as mostly false ...

a short time ago there was another thread saying the same about Corey Booker. Bottom line is it's just too easy to setup sites under the guise of being for the working man and in fact those sites just seem to spread misrepresentations as facts.

[Persisted]

130. Taibbi's Russian connections bear looking into. nt