Sen. Franken (D) and Senate colleagues lead effort to bring down prescription drug prices

[NurseJackie]

Seeing all those Democratic lawmakers who are supporting this effort... it makes me so proud to be a Democrat.

PS: Senator Al Franken TOTALLY ROCKS!!



https://www.pharmacist.com/article/sen-franken-and-senate-colleagues-lead-effort-bring-down-prescription-drug-prices

Sen. Franken and Senate colleagues lead effort to bring down prescription drug prices
March 30, 2017

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and a key group of Senate Democrats launched on Wednesday an effort to lower prescription drug prices. The "Improving Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs Act" would ensure that pharmaceutical manufacturers put patients ahead of profits and bring some relief to families and older adults, many of whom have had to make difficult decisions when paying for essential medications. The measure was introduced by Sens. Franken, Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tom Udall (D-NM), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Cory Booker (D-NJ). The proposal aims to address prescription drug costs by boosting transparency and accountability, increasing access and affordability of key drugs, and increasing choice and competition. "We need to bring down prescription drug prices. No American should have to skip meals or turn off their heat in order to afford needed medications," said Franken. "But right now, that's exactly what's happening."

[bettyellen]

1. I love Franken!

[mcar]

2. Our Dems are doing great!

[George II]

3. Good for him and the other Senators signing on. I wonder if there might be some apologies...

....coming from certain quarters to Senator Corey Booker, who was recently accused of bending over backward to help the pharmaceutical industry and not working to support lower drug prices.

This belies that false accusation.

[JCanete]

4. you understand that won't be happening right? Nobody is certain that the reason he didn't

help to make this happen was because of the bad optics from previously. That doesn't mean that is necessarily the reason, but this hardly disproves that concern.

That said, I congratulate him on his efforts and on being on the right side of this thing when it comes down to it.

[ismnotwasm]

7. My Senator Patty Murray also voted against the earlier bill

A little research and I agreed

[George II]

9. Has nothing to do with the flawed legislation/resolution that she and Booker voted against.

[JCanete]

10. never ever ever does. Well, when the GOP is close to the money that goes without saying. nt

[George II]

13. What the heck does that mean?

[JCanete]

14. That your dismissal of money's influence, when it comes to our side, is bizarre, given that

I hope I can assume, I would never see you saying that a vote by GOP Senators who have clear financial support from certain industries was simply a matter of conscience, entirely irrespective of the money.

Granted, it could be entirely possible. But why would you ever confidently assume it?

[George II]

18. You're drawing quite a few conclusions about things that were not said -

NO dismissal of "money's influence"
NOTHING about "GOP Senators"
NO comment about conscience
And NO "confident assumptions"

Where was ANY of that in my comments?

Lastly, "bizarre"?

[JCanete]

23. you confidently said it had nothing to do with her vote. How is that not making assumptions, or did

I misunderstand you? I know you said nothing about GOP Senators. I did. How did you miss that? I was saying that it would be a double standard for us to assume that our guys, when they seemingly vote against a measure that would likely ruffle pharmaceutical industry feathers, would certainly be doing it on the up and up...but when their guys do it, we're pretty confident, cuz we can follow the money, we know why.

I was saying I hope that you don't always assume the best in GOP Senators, when such ties are so apparent, and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't give them the benefit of the doubt.

[George II]

25. I didn't speculate about Murray's reason for voting against it!

We're applauding Senator Franken's and his colleagues' effort to bring down prescription drug prices. This has been a positive and upbeat thread, from the OP on down.

I saw no reason to mention republican Senators. Again, assuming and judging my (unmentioned) thoughts. Why?

[JCanete]

26. I misinterpreted your comment that somehow her taking money from the industry,

which is what I said, had nothing to do with the flawed legislation that she voted against, which is what you said. That seems like you were saying, and I guess you can correct my interpretation here, that the money was not at all a factor. Yes, or no? "Had nothing to do with." If no, then what were you saying, so that I don't remain in the dark and go away better educated?

I brought up our opinion of the GOP to make a point about that kind of certainty, BUT, if that is never what you meant, then you are right, it is not relevant here.

And what you did see occasion to bring up was to question whether Booker would get an apology, which was NOT talking about Franken and this legislation. There, you have to admit you're being a little loose with recent history. "It's all up-beat, whats you're damage?"

[George II]

29. Corey Booker is one of the Senators who backs this bill, and he was one of 13 Democratic...

...Senators who voted against the one in January.

He was excoriated for his vote, and even though 12 other Democratic Senators voted against it, he was the one who was singled out and criticized for his vote. Even his fellow New Jersey Senator, Menendez, escaped the kind of venom that was directed Booker's way. Why was Booker singled out in these (among many other) articles?

Cory Booker Joins Senate Republicans to Kill Measure to Import Cheaper Medicine From Canada

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/

Progressives Outraged Over Booker, Democrats’ Vote on Prescription Drugs From Canada

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/pharma-booker-canada

Cory Booker And A Bunch Of Democrats Prove Trump Right On Big Pharma

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-rush-to-prove-trump-right-on-big-pharma_us_5877edd4e4b0b3c7a7b05c29

[JCanete]

30. My guess? Because the party seems to have high hopes for Booker. If he's going to be on a future

Presidential ticket, we want to be damn sure he's working for us, and previously, I know I've been unhappy with his position on other matters. He's still a literal hero, but that doesn't mean that he gets credit across the board for everything, and what some of us want, is a clear separation of our politicians from money. Want to prove money has no influence? Keep performing like he did on this bill, but I don't want to put my support behind someone who ends up being a trojan horse like Lieberman...talking a decent game until it really matters.

And like I said, the vitriol may have been unfair. I'll amend that to say it is unfair, because while questioning the motives and registering serious dissatisfaction is totally justified, "knowing" the motives and pillorying the man is over the top.

[ismnotwasm]

20. Are you saying Patty Murray voted against the bill because

She took bribes from the pharmaceutical industry?

[George II]

21. Looks that way, doesn't it?

[JCanete]

22. no, because I don't really know. I know the pharamceutecal industry gave her money. This

Last edited Fri Mar 31, 2017, 04:47 PM - Edit history (1)

is the problem. It makes it hard, I think you'll agree, for politicians to convincingly assure us that they are entirely fighting for us, even if they are, when they have those ties. It makes me wary. It should always make us wary, even if we ultimately decide to continue to back these politicians and to "trust" but always verify them in their responsibility as our representatives.

And as an addendum, I brought it up, because this person's name was brought up as kind of back-up for Booker and his vote. It just so happened that this person also took money from the industry. It isn't the best cover for a position in-and-of-itself to bring another politician into it who is also supported in some part by that industry that would be targeted.

[JCinNYC]

32. of course you dont know

Thats the problem.
So speculate away rather than listen to his thoughts on the subject that introducing canadian imports coming from other countries left patients without a trusted way to ensure that prescription drugs met quality standards enforced by the FDA.
Why not be balanced in this discussion
Why must it always be 'us vs them'

[JCanete]

33. us versus the money? The money kind of makes it that way. As i've said here,

I'm not into pillorying these people, but I am into making sure we question their decisions and the why's. When the money is there it is our responsibility to be extra diligent, because money has a tendency to taint everything. I heard his reasoning. I didn't buy it. If this was non-binding, it wasn't like it was going to to floor to actually suddenly perform as legislation. It was indicating intent and policy direction. So what made it dangerous as it stood?

[JCinNYC]

39. oh please stop

Us vs the money
Thats it
Thats all you got
It really makes it obvious what your intentions are when u do this
Dems=Rebubs=same thing=all of it is corrupt
Really try harder next thread
U seem hell bent on equivocation

[JCanete]

40. no, I said nothing at all like that. Nothing at all. And I voted for Clinton, and I've never voted

green. I might one day, but I have always voted Dem ticket. I know the parties aren't the same. That doesn't mean we are perfect and that we don't need to police our own. Its the GOP who are the authoritarians who trust their politicians in the face of absurdity, NOT us.

So, you please stop.

[synergie]

42. There is pillorying going on here, not a whole lot of questioning, but

lots of baseless attacks, and assertions , but nothing that shows much diligence or homework. Baseless accusations also have a tendency to taint everything, as we're seeing every day.

I'm not buying the crazy assertions from folks who have repeated these attacks against Democrats before, from those who apparently have no basic understanding of how congress works, or how campaign funding works. They've proven to be rather ignorant of simple facts, and rather quick on the draw when attacking Democrats.

[JCanete]

44. serious unsnarky question: what is a major campaign funding misunderstanding that you see a lot of?

[synergie]

46. It's one of those double standards.

Compiled individual donations contributions based on industry individual works in:

To Candidate 1: Corporate money, epitome of all evil!!11!!!1!1112!!

To Candidate 2: X just has support from the grassroots, people love X! Such purity! Just look at how many individuals support X!


We saw this when people were busy attacking Cory Booker based on his FEC filings, and people compared them to other Senators, found similar, if not more glaring contributions, but the strategy above was used. Anyone suggesting that the numbers disproved the mythology were demonized and denigrated as shills, while a single Senator of the many, was vilified.

It's a common pattern.

[George II]

50. The "pharmaceutical industry" gave her ZERO. People who worked in the pharmaceutical industry....

...gave her money. Those people include those in a whole spectrum of occupations from top to bottom, all of whom just happen to work for companies in the pharmaceutical industry, whatever their occupations.

[George II]

12. Nobody is certain that he didn't even consider the so called "bad optics" either. So...

...you throw out some unsubstantiated "accusation" then qualify it with "That doesn't mean that is necessarily the reason, but this hardly disproves that concern." Yet you got that "reason" on the record again.

In fact, "that concern" was limited to a very small but highly vocal group, not the general public. The fact is that Cory Booker is a very "popular" and well respected Senator among his constituents.

[JCanete]

15. it was so small that Booker did have to do damage control, even if you think it was unfair.

I throw out a concern that I do have about anybody when they take money. It doesn't mean he's a bad person, or that it isn't his conscience talking, but when an industry backs you, there's a reason. Maybe its because your personal philosophy isn't threatening to them. That bothers me too.

You are thinking people should apologize for doing their job as citizens and holding their politicians feet to the fire. Corey Booker has high aspirations. It is just too damn early to assume the very very best because he came to the right side on this after taking heat. But he has time to assuage our doubts.

Granted, others are far more certain they know him, as people here are far more certain they know Sanders and his "selfish schemes."

[George II]

19. No, and no, and no!

First, there was no "damage control", if anything he explained his position but I didn't even see that, although I didn't care to look for it.

Second, the attacks on Booker a month or so ago weren't merely "people doing their job as citizens", they were attacks based on lack of information and knowing very little about his REAL reason for voting against that bill. It was a knee jerk reaction, "he voted against importing drugs so he HAS to be in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry." In fact that was furthest from the truth regarding the REAL reason that he and many other Senators voted against it. A little research goes a long way.

Finally, WHY do you feel the need to drag Sanders into this and falsely claim that "people here" are certain they know Sanders and his (YOUR words!) "selfish schemes". Seems to me you're the only one in this discussion (other than Sanders being among the Senators behind this bill) that even mentioned Sanders. Why is that?

[JCanete]

27. What the fuck? You have so many double standards. You can create innuendo about Booker

needing an apology from unmentioned people, and then every time I mention a name for any reason, if only to draw a comparison, you're like, "why did you bring that person up? We weren't talking about these people, we were talking about Franken and this wonderful come-together legislation!"

Give me a break. That is just so disingenuous.

I did see the damage control from Booker. Again, it may not have been fair for him to take the heat, but I completely understand why he did and why we should be diligent, especially when the money does speak. It just does. It says some mother fucking thing.

[brer cat]

47. So you have that concern about anybody when they take money?

Bernie Sanders ranked 4th among ALL Senators in donations from pharma in 2015-16. Does that mean it bothers you that they backed him because it might mean his personal philosophy isn't threatening to them? After all, Bernie had high aspirations, too.

[George II]

49. Unfortunately people just don't understand the reality of campaign contributions...

First, business entities are prohibited from contributing to any candidate. Period. Second, individuals are limited to only $2700 or $5400 for a married couple per year. Period.

However, if one contributes more than $50 per year he/she has to provide name, address, and occupation. More than $100 per year and they also have to provide their employer.

So, if we see that a candidate, whomever it is, received say $100,000 from any particular "industry", that's based on an aggregate of INDIVIDUALS in a that industry totaling $100,000. It does NOT mean that that industry contributed that $100,000.

That group of individuals could be comprised of upper management in that industry, sales people, clerical people, janitors, bookkeepers, receptionists, or any occupation within that industry.

On the other hand, every campaign committee receives many contributions of less than $50 and the committee doesn't have to report the name, address, occupation, or employer for ANY of those contributors, and those contributions could total the majority of all contributions could be such "small" contributions, immune to full disclosure.

[brer cat]

53. Right, George.

Most of the talk about the money is pure speculation and innuendo with a heavy dose of "I don't know what I'm talking about but I will say it anyway." As most of us know, NJ is home to most of the large pharmaceuticals so it is hardly surprising that Booker would receive contributions from many people in that industry, just as politicians here in GA get a lot of money from employees of Coca-Cola and Delta. No one has suggested that Bernie, who received about 5 times the contributions of Booker last year, was being "bought" by pharma or that it was somehow corporate cash that flowed to his campaign. But with Booker, there is always that "hmmmm, they must be paying him to do their bidding." All that money is coming from the same sources no matter who it goes to.

[George II]

56. I was treasurer for several campaigns over the years (11 in fact) and two very small PACs...

...you learn all the ins and outs of the campaign finance laws and how they work.

If a candidate were to encourage small contributions under $50 they don't need to be documented. Since I didn't want to take any chances and all of our contributors were local, I still insisted that they give me their information (we were never dealing with a campaign of over $30,000 total anyway).

However, not all candidates/committees do that. If all of a candidate's contributions were $49 or lower it is not required to itemize them, and there's no telling how many "repeat" contributions by the same contributor there are. It's not likely but conceivably a single individual could make 1000 contributions of $49 each, totaling $49,000, and there would be no record of who those contributions came from. Now, if that person was a bank president, in reality that candidate received that $49,000 from the "banking industry", yet on the FEC filing that would not be reported at all! A candidate could have a treasury of millions of dollars and not have a single reported contributor from the "banking industry" yet receive millions from that "banking industry".

[brer cat]

60. I have never thought about it that way, George.

I have known people who were told by their employer to make contributions and later received a "bonus" of the equal amount. Multiply that by a lot of employees, and it's the same as your example of a single person making 1000 repeat contributions. I guess as long as campaigns are financed by contributions, there will be people thinking up ways to game the system.

[NurseJackie]

62. You two really helped to explain that well. Thanks! It's certainly frustrating...

... to see how some people try to twist the truth in order to smear good and honorable Democrats. There's an ongoing effort here (and elsewhere) to tarnish the names and to call into question the honesty and reputation of our up-and-coming (as well as our current) Democratic heavy-hitters. They're flooding online threads, tweets, and the airwaves with disinformation and deliberate misrepresentation regarding how things actually work.

I'm grateful to people like you who tirelessly help to set the record straight by shutting down those who'd seek to confuse and mislead.

You're the best!

[ismnotwasm]

5. K&R

[R B Garr]

6. Franken is AWESOME!

His quiet demeanor makes you listen to him more. Like the old saying, It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

Great work, Senators.

[sheshe2]

11. Thank you Al Franken...

and all the rest of the Dems that signed on!

My Senator Warren is there as well.

Thank you all~

[Gothmog]

16. Yeah for Senator Al Franken

He is a great Democrat

[UtahLib]

17. K&R

[tammywammy]

24. k&r

[gademocrat7]

28. K&R!

[Starry Messenger]

31. k&r

There is no "I" in "teamwork," as they say.

[Jamaal510]

34. K&R

[Cha]

35. Thank you for telling us about this,

Jackie!

[NurseJackie]

37. You're very welcome! Actually, the announcement was from yesterday...

... but somehow it got lost in yesterday's flurry (if it was posted here at all) so I thought it was noteworthy enough to be posted now, even if it is a little late.

I really do like Senator Al Franken's (D-MN) statement. He never takes the credit for himself, and whenever he goes on the offensive, it's against the GOP or those who would steal, cheat or otherwise harm the American people. Without the "over-acting" that many politicians get trapped by, it's easy to tell that his concerns are from the heart.

It's always sincere, never forced. His words and demeanor CONVEY his meaning... they don't DISTRACT from it.

I just love him to pieces!

[Cha]

41. Now I love him, too..

Mahalo for shining the Light on him.. he is all those things you describe. I'm so sick of anyone who does the opposite.

[pnwmom]

36. Franken is really one of the greats in the Senate. Thanks for this!

[dalton99a]

38. Kick.

[SunSeeker]

43. K & R

[NastyRiffraff]

45. Thank you Al Franken and all the Democrats who backed this proposal!

Including, happily, my Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

[Madam45for2923]

48. Nicely done!

[Arazi]

51. Bernie Sanders is there too. He also totally rocks!

Especially as the Democratic Party Outreach Leadership Chairman, having this proposed legislation in hand will be great for his outreach work.

[lapucelle]

52. Al Franken reminds me of Lt. Columbo

He seems vague and folksy and exploits preconceptions that others have about his being a lightweight former comedian. He's disarming.

Franken sets the trap, baits his opponent, and then...WHAM! Adversaries continually underestimate him at their own peril.

[NurseJackie]

55. Great observations and excellent comparison...

... i had not thought of that before but i can totally see it now! ❤😊🍷

[SalviaBlue]

54. Oh my, Bernie Sanders!?!

Is that ok with you? You must be so conflicted 😐






It's ok with me!!!

Signed, someone (like Franken, Whitehouse, Warren, etc.) who knows Bernie is with us!!!

[NurseJackie]

57. Why should I be "so conflicted"?

Why would it not be okay with me?

[lapucelle]

58. From the 2016 Democratic Party Platform:

"We will crack down on price gouging by drug companies and cap the amount Americans have to pay out-of-pocket every month on prescription drugs. We will prohibit anti-competitive “pay for delay” deals that keep generic drugs off the market, and we will allow individuals, pharmacists, and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from licensed pharmacies in Canada and other countries with appropriate safety protections. Democrats will also fight to make sure that Medicare will negotiate lower prices with drug manufacturers."

That safety provision was missing in the amendment that Booker refused to vote for. And he was inexplicably slammed as being in the pocket of Big Pharma despite the fact that he voted for a similar amendment that included regulations to insure the safety and purity of imported drugs.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#drug-costs

[NurseJackie]

59. I like Booker...

... he's going places. That's why he's unfairly attacked and smeared.

[still_one]

61. Go Al. Thanks Jackie

[NurseJackie]

63. Well hello there! You're very welcome!