22 Feb. 2015

Leaked draft of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement includes patenting standards that would delay cheaper drugs, Medical Journal of Australia reports

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/23/medicines-forecast-to-cost-taxpayers-millions-more-in-secret-tpp-trade-deal

the cost of meds in his ACA plan? ACA is working but it will be hurt by the hire cost of drugs.

and yes, it's still there.

where are you getting your information that this is also what will be in the final agreement?

here's one article from Jan of this year. there are fucking numerous articles. do your own research. This is by Joseph Stiglitz

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/opinion/dont-trade-away-our-health.html?_r=0

From your statements, I thought you surely had some new source, but then the article you cite offers nothing more than a subjective opinion piece filled with oblique hints, groundless conjecture and unsubstantiated speculation. Since its impossible to logically form an opinion based on someone else's guesswork, I'll wait until there is actually something tangible to criticize.

Meanwhile, do carry on.

If you made that observation, the USTR has too. And, has a fix for it ... like proposing governmental price negotiating.

he knows about this. Jesus Christ, wake up.

"Even when medications were available as generics, such as Singluair and Urocit-K, the prices for the brand name abroad were cheaper than the generic in the U.S."

http://pharmacycheckerblog.com/american-made-cheaper-abroad-the-conclusion-76-savings-abroad


The above is in a link from from and article in The Huffington Post and Vox.com.

http://pharmacycheckerblog.com/tag/american-made-prescriptions-are-cheaper-abroad


When Obama finishes dazzling you folks with the TPP, he needs to do the same with prescription drug costs here.


If he gets them lowered substantially, what is next on your criticism list?

Don't talk as if the TPP is merely a bunch of hypothetical stuff, and then dispense with one of the bad things with an "IF" Obama does something (he has not ever indicated or hinted that he would do). . Not logical.
I guess we would all be happily surprised, wouldn't we.

It'd be far more likely that the costs would remain the same, and the costs would rise in other countries like mine.

Here's a very recent article about a study done on the likely effects of the TPP

years. Yes it might change slightly for the better or for the worse. But most likely it will be substantially the same. The words might change but you certainly get a feel for what the President is aiming at.

continue the slide into poverty as long as it happens after this season's Dancing With The Stars(?). They are afraid if they stood up for themselves the authorities might get mad at them. They were taught to follow authority no matter what.

so many times before, we've learned the difference between speculation and fact. Now, it may very well be that your worst fears will be proved right. On the other hand, since no one actually knows the context, rehashing what you imagine it might say, or what Obama says is in it, is not a very convincing argument on either side.

before we decide if it is any good. Excellent plan.

How about we wait until there is a final agreement to be released to the public so we can become outraged about something that is; rather than, something that might be.

What good does that do at that point?

Then the argument will be that it is "water over the dam so quit complaining about it."

120 days before it gets to the President. (Did you just forget to mention that part?)

votes on it I would be interested to see that.

If not, it is useless.

info.

it would likely be a release to the public (Congress) 4 months before Congress' vote, followed by (or maybe, running concurrent to the final) 2 months before the President will sign (or not sign) the agreement.

That would make sense because, (from what I understand) the Agreement can become American law, until Congress votes to approves the agreement; and, if Congress doesn't approve the Agreement, there would be nothing for the President to sign (or not sign, even if Congress approves it).

I get that it's easy to be swept away in the moment, but until we know more, until the details are made public, all these terrible prophecies of the impending apocalypse, sound more like the standard Republican version of a doom and gloom augury. We're Democrats, so lets try to look at the issues objectively and not indulge our emotional angst with the same enthusiasm that permeates Republican forums.

We serve our objective view and speculative enthusiasm for republican "victories" and the "positive" stuff putin does.

during the past two years?

not enough to make it palatable. Currently all that we've seen has been 100% in favor of corporations. There is no way it's ever going to get changed to be 100% favorable for the 99%. Your argument is, "it might not be as bad as it looks." isn't much of an argument. Free Trade Agreements are written to make huge profits for corporations at the expense of workers. You must know it won't be the other way round. The AFL-CIO is very concerned about the damage this so-called agreement will cause.

How many times can a person get hit in the face with a "Free Trade" agreement and still hope the next one won't hurt quite so much?

Those that support the TPP haven't provided one single good reason for the agreement. They seem to rely on disparaging those that do object.

We've seen quite a few sections of it. A large number of economists and politicians are against it and have given many good reasons. No one has come forward to explain how it possibly could benefit the 99%. Poor Clinton doesn't know which way to jump.

It's very confusing. People keep telling me LGBT people only care about gay things, not important things like money and boxing. This contradicts the fact that I and other LGBT activists have been protesting the fuck out of pharmaceutical companies since the 80's. The very first ACT UP action ever was on Wall Street, to protest the profiteering of pharmaceutical companies.
And yet here today this whole drug thing is presented as having to do with things that are not actually all that gay, which might concern non homosexuals, perhaps even boxing fans and those who think about money....
Funny stuff. My first thought is that all these passionate people sure would have been useful over the last 25 years or so.

It's a outright lie. Progressives support social equality but ALSO support economic equality.

Of course the Third Way supports social issues but are willing to let the 1% run the economy, the neocons run foreign policy and the NSA/CIA Security State determine our Constitutional rights.

Progressives want social equality AND economic equality. We deserve both.

Using the term "you guys" and then accusing BNW of being "Third Way" rather undercuts whatever point you were trying to make.

I suspect, as with your other exchanges, you will regret engaging him in so facile a manner.

he/she will just wait for the next BNW post to trot out the "you guys" and "third way" and oh yeah "we support social equality (we just don't feel the need to discuss it and rate it below economic equality) claim ... like it's brand new.

Why don't you say what you really mean? Oh yea we know why.

of belittling social issues are obviously "non-progressives". Just because progressives want economic equality AS WELL as social equality the non-progressives repeatedly use the strawman that progressives "smirk" at social equality. It's not true as you know and reveals a certain desperation in those that repeat that nonsense. Why are non-progressives using this strawman?
It seems that those that support Clinton want to flaunt her stands on social issues and ignore her stands on other issues therefore they disparage progressives that want economic equality, control of the MIC, the end of war in the Middle East, regulations on domestic spying AS WELL as social equality.

Progressives are fighting for both social equality and economic equality and are looking for a candidate that will also fight for both.

some countries were objecting to it two years ago?

negotiation this is what they have. It's not apt to change much and certainly not going to change from ghastly to goodness.

No one has given one good reason to support the TPP. Lots of people, including unions have given many good reasons to defeat the piece of crap.

Democrats should be taking the side of unions vs. corporations. Why are you guys siding with the corporations?

wrestling with the TPP since this article, it's possible that there have been significant changes. Otherwise, what have they been doing for two years?

The changes could have made it worse. I am sorry to say you side with corporations. But with all the evidence and all the progressive that have come out against, I would think you would agree with them. If you don't, then I have to wonder.

Not one person has explained how the TPP might possibly help the 99%, while lots of people have come out against. Where do you stand?

If a many people gave you evidence that the TPP train was heading directly at you, yet Pres Obama promised it wouldn't hurt but gave zero evidence, would you step off the tracks?

with the corporations.

It does mean that when I see a supposed leak from two years ago, I take it with a grain of salt.

and you know "what they are trying to do". Although it isn't clear that you're possibly just speaking off the cuff, however, if available, I'd certainly like to read these same documents.

As for letting unions determine my response, I recall that they are also very much in favor of the Keystone pipeline; that's an epic fail in my book. While I fully support strengthening unions, they have their own agenda and that does not necessarily lend them any credence as the bellwether of predicting the outcomes of international treaties, yeah?

It's like folks hold up the Magna Carta or the Articles of Confederation as a basis for condemning the US Constitution ... there are a lot of common language/concepts between the former 2 and the latter 1.

Public citizen is one place to start. EFF is another.

and I'm more looking for something more tuned to the objective category that can actually be quantified and validated.

with people like you who are pretending they haven't made up their minds. don't bother asking me anything else about this. I won't respond to disingenuous crap.

have a nice day. do your own homework. stop playing transparent games.

Why get angry; you made a simple mistake in responding to a post that wasn't for you. It happens, OK, but now you're throwing around all these passive aggressive potshots like there's some sort of personal grudge match. I don't get it, but just as an aside, what could I possibly ask you that wouldn't produce another spate of Internet gossip and C&P doomsayer opinions fraught with unsubstantiated speculation and conjectures?

I'm shocked!

Both of my Senators Franken and Klobuchar along with my congress critter Keith Ellison want more transparency with the TPP and are fighting for it.

So frankly when I see DUer's post crap like " it's a pretty sorry spectacle to see educated adults like Sanders and Warren running around like a couple of Black Helicopter-fearing nutjobs" it really makes me wonder how many of these posters are Democrats.

I'll stick with my elected DEMOCRATIC representatives.

Thanks for your hard work on this Cali. I simply don't have the stomach to engage.

Are negotiations over with a concrete signed trade deal with all countries?

If not, Fast Track needs to disappear.

today...right now the bill is still in the senate....the house awaits it's arrival...for their vote (according to my rep)

A Majority from my district have overwhelmingly Opposed Fast-Track TPP!

CALL YOUR REPS NOW! (if you are so inclined)

Their time is spent on war and the greedy desires of corporations not the welfare of the US people. The only time they focus on a domestic issue is because the issue is a social divider like abortion and lgbt and guns. Mean while the infrastructure and social safety nets are neglected and under attack. I'm about ready to turn off, tune out and drop out.