Can we have a democratic party and boot out all the corporate dems - PLEASE.

says it all. They are agents of the oligarchic Big Pharma

Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2017, 02:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Hedge funds, anyone?

But this should have passed easily

Disgusting!!!!

The elected officials wake the fuck up and realize that this isn't gonna be accepted anymore.

contributions vis a vis the loss of voting support and come to the conclusion that they have little to lose given the level of the blueness of their state. It is not like Democratic voting people who are justifiably enraged on this one issue are going to go and switch votes in sufficient numbers to give a Repug the seat. They know a Uglican will be even worse. The only way to really affect the sitting Dems voting on lobbyist-greased issues is to primary them. Good luck with that.

It is so frustrating to see overall good members of Congress so often fold to the biggest of big money lobbies. There is simply no way to make the numbers work for any replacement programme for the ACA that doesn't include dramatic reductions in overhead, which this Amendment would have been a piece of the puzzle. I truly fear that mandated coverage for pre existing conditions are going to jettisoned very soon. The insurance companies only bought into the ACA and accepted pre existing condition coverage because of the universal mandatory purchasing of coverage mandate, and THAT requirement is definitely going to be erased by the Rethugs, as well as the extra tax on the very well off. They have no intention of replacing the ACA with anything that will help the most vulnerable. Millions are going to die earlier than they ever would under a genuine universal health care plan.

for criticizing the vulture capital racket?

Why yes, I believe it is.

Stupid ass headline is fucking deceptive.

Seems like some want to take only certain Senators to task for this.

Booker, who is promising, seems to be in their scope. Also, since when have these "progressives" this cycle given up a chance to beat down on a PoC?

Smh.

The article seems to imply that the Wyden Amendment, which Booker voted for, would be ineffectual. If that is the case, then why did the Republicans all vote against it?

Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2017, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)

concerning drug purity. Because of those safeguards, it was not budget neutral, and Republicans had their excuse not to vote for it on the motion to waive the costs.

The Booker story is misleading at best. Democrats concerned about drug safety voted against the Sanders proposal and for the motion to waive budget neutrality for the Wyden amendment. Framing this as "voting with Republicans" is a tactic that's being employed by BoBs to tar a popular Democrat.

to characterise the Democrats who voted for the Klobuchar/Sanders amendment as somehow caring less about drug and consumer safety than Booker, Casey, etc. Elizabeth Warren is in that group who voted yes, ffs.

Also, as per my post below,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8468340

The Wyden Amemndment was never actually voted on, it was ruled out of order, so it is very misleading for Booker and Casey et al. to claim they voted for it. Also, the text of the Klobuchar plan was actually introduced in November 2016, not 10 minutes before the vote, so that goes out the window as an excuse as well.

I strongly supported Clinton, I am and was opposed to Bernie on multiple issues and approaches, I am a lesbian of colour, but also I do not care much for Booker on a several vital issues. I couldn't care less that Bernie was a co-sponsor of the Amendment. It was a good amendment. In fact, to really show you where I stand, I absolutely believe it is sexist for all these Bernie people to try to hijack credit for it when it was Sen. Amy Klobuchar alone who introduced it.

But my person issues with Booker being against this (and a lot of other people' issues with Booker on this as well, I am sure) have fuckall to do with Bernie.

I'm pointing out that there were alternative proposals that the Democrats in question may have preferred. There was a vote on the motion to waive budget neutrality with respect to Wyden's amendment. Booker voted yes on that waiver, but the motion lost. For that reason, the Wyden amendment itself never came up for a vote. I corrected my original post, which confused the vote on the waiver motion with a vote on the amendment itself.

Sensational and misleading headlines attached to incomplete stories written in the apparent interest of dividing Democrats are not in our best interest.

on the actual Amendment. They both falsely claim to have voted to actually enact it, which they did not. They voted yes to allow it to come to a passage vote. Its typical Senate procedural shenanigans. Secondly, hiding behind alleged safety concerns when people like the LEADING consumer advocate in the entire Senate (Elizabeth Warren) and many of the other wonderful heavyweight Dems had no such concerns and enthusiastically voted yes further compounds it. Finally, the "only had 10 minutes claim" from Booker is also weak sauce, as the Klobuchar language was originally introduced in November and carried over to this new Amendment.

Corporatists and worse over the last year by people extolling the "virtues" of being independent of the supposed boot-heel of the DNC, just because we stressed the need for the Party to stick together, with one message, one face & one voice to counter the fascist Republicans - finding these Dem-hating & Clinton-hating "liberals" criticizing Booker for doing the exact same thing they advocated for is highly amusing.

Not.

They are exactly what is wrong with the party- selling us out for pharma money. Next time it will be selling out for some other corporate reason. This is exactly why people are cynical about politics. Booker is particularly egregious because of his grandstanding on issues that cost him nothing. If there were money in supporting Sessions for AG, he would not have criticized him. I don't believe this guy is in it for anything other than ambition.

Tell me why I should be loyal to a party that is composed largely of sell-outs who care more about where their campaign contributions come from than what people actually need. That whole list reeks. Every last one of them got major bucks from pharma. Booker happens to be third in the list of who took money from them (the top two are Republicans), which is why he is getting criticized for it.

Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2017, 08:31 PM - Edit history (2)

Just so long as the people you are happy with are playing the tune, and just about everyone else can go pound sand?

Sorry, but no. That's not how a political coalition works, my friend. The Democratic Party is made up of a lot of different people with a lot of different views, all pulling in the same general direction with the same general goals. If you're going to ostracize anyone who deviates even the slighted bit from your chosen dogma & treat them as a deadly enemy (as the uninformed and narrow-minded tend to do) you'll never get anything accomplished & never get anywhere.

Which is just what the Republicans want you to do.

You clearly see nothing wrong with that; I see it as the major flaw in the system. When corporate contributions outweigh the needs and desires of individual voters, it is THE problem. It is WHY we lose. Not because people like me criticize the sleazy opportunism.

People who vote for corporate interests in opposition to what the people clearly need and want can indeed go pound sand. So can anyone who waves this away as business as usual. Republicans make no bones of the fact they are sell-outs. Points there for honesty, I guess. But most Democrats at least pretend to do otherwise, but then turn around and vote for their corporate bosses, proving them to be nothing more than hypocrites yet again.

Would go a long way toward preventing shit like this from happening. You call it "business as usual", I call it having a united front to stand up & fight against the fascist Republicans.

But you're perfectly happy to see those fascists run America into the ground if you don't get a pony special delivery from each & every Democratic officeholder, I guess.

It makes no difference to oppose him, while selling out every possible value you have.

I don't give a flying fuck about the "leadership". They do not speak for me. They are supposed to WORK for me and my fellow Americans. Not the other way around.

You demand loyalty at all cost is very right-wing, by the way.

Such policies would destroy the Democratic coalition and the Democratic Paty. So it amounts to the same thing.

And Republicans will love you for it.

This shows he's part of the problem, not the solution.

issues (huge pusher of charter schools) as well. One of the worst Wall St. Democrats.

we are going to disintegrate our base. We need a fine balance between the bedrock of identity politics mixed with strong regulation of banking and oligarchy. That's just my humble opinion.

We need to get back to fighting for those that once made the party strong. That crosses racial, religious & all sectors of our society. Just get back to protecting the average working man & the party might be surprised how strong we all can be together.

Michael Bennet (D-CO) – 2022
Cory Booker (D-NJ) – 2020
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) – 2018
Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) – 2018
Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA) – 2018
Chris Coons (D-DE) – 2020
Joe Donnelly (D-IN) – 2018
Martin Heinrich (D-NM) – 2018
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) – 2018
Bob Menendez (D-NJ) – 2018
Patty Murray (D-WA) – 2022
Jon Tester (D-MT) – 2018
Mark Warner (D-VA) – 2020

All are on the big pharma gravy train.

But cheap drugs from China is just fine?

already for US pharmaceutical companies. It is ludicrous that the US blocks the government from negotiating fair prices with the drug companies. Canada is every bit as diligent (moreso overall IMHO) in terms of its public actions when it comes to healthcare as the US is.

They pay pennies on the pound for the EXACT same drugs compared to the US. So do we here in the UK, same for Germany, Sweden etc etc.

The US will NEVER fix it's healthcare system until tou dramatically remove the profiteering, the fiscal raping of people over what is a fundamental human right.

I still don't trust China's pharmaceuticals, but I do trust Canada's.

I do trust Canada and the UK and other EU countries protections for what they both make and allow to be sold in their own countries.

Also, I did tangentially some other issues into my comment, so apologise for the muddling. I just think it daft that the US pays insanely more than we (other nations, as I live in London) pay. We ofttimes pay 10, 20, 30% of what the USA pays for the exact same drugs from the same plant.

the way Canada does, instead of this re-importation idea. It's really kind of an odd idea -- trying to piggyback onto the much smaller Canadian system, instead of just regulating prices here.

Our market is so much bigger than theirs. Their system isn't made to start handling most of our drugs, too -- and who says the drug manufacturers would send them enough low cost supply to meet the needs of both Canada and the US?

Also, Canada regulates its own manufacturers well, but it doesn't do anything to regulate drugs that pass through Canada , to and from other countries. It's easy for the manufacturers of fake and adulterated drugs to set up a website or an address in Canada -- how would Americans be confident about what they were getting?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2016/03/16/drug-importation-equals-unsafe-drugs-mr-trump/#52fdd78dbd3d

Canada, of course, imposes strict price controls on drugs, squeezing out the margin that finances research on new and better drugs. With a population one tenth the size of the United States, it stretches belief to think enough drugs could be imported from Canada to meet demand. U.S. companies wouldn’t ship 10 times as much product to Canada only to see it turn around and come back to the U.S. in the price-controlled packages.

Canada spent $29 billion on prescription drugs in 2014 compared to $374 billion in the U.S. With Canada’s market less than 8% the size of the U.S. market, it simply is not feasible to expect to run a significant part of the U.S. drug supply through Canada to have its price controls imposed, and then have the drugs shipped back to U.S. consumers. In addition, any savings would quickly be consumed by middlemen and distributors.

SNIP

Canadian health authorities have warned the United States that Health Canada will not take responsibility for the safety of drugs exported from Canada to the United States.

“If you think Internet drug sellers are safe because their Web sites display the Canadian flag, you’ve been fooled again,” says Lew Kontnik, co-author of the book Counterfeiting Exposed. “Canadian authorities do not inspect medicines that are transshipped through their country bound for U.S. consumers, which opens a huge loophole for counterfeiters to sell us fake medicines masquerading as Canadian prescription drugs.” These “Canadian” drugs are likely to be produced in India, Bangladesh, or Ghana.

scale of economy buying power to get the absolute LOWEST drug prices in the world. Instead you have the highest. It's madness!

Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2017, 07:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Plus he has a penis.

He really ain't all that.

If you want to talk about protecting the public.

US taxpayers subsidizing Big Pharma oligarchs---no more!

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this party?

along with what their platform consists of. Not much diversification.

Now, take a look at the makeup of the Dems which consists of pretty much all races, religions, economially all groups then gender, as well as gays or LGBT groups, environmental groups, animal rights, women's rights, unions, education. The list goes on. All of us want the bigger slice of the pie & sometimes forget we are hurting the bigger part of the party for our own desire or main priority.

We will always be fighting more among ourselves then the republicans who are pretty much just one

Remember Will Rogers: I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. Will Rogers

Because even when we win, we lose.

These motherfuckers are going to show everyone how to wield power.

down & deep, we did a lot of it ourselves. I am not going to diss Clinton, I voted for her & I never vote third party or sit at home & don't vote if my candidate of choice does not win. It is my belief that only helps the other guy.

Check out all of the social issues that we won in various states that had them on the ballot. If we get it together, the people are with us, right candidate, right message & we win. After all, it is an important fact that Clinton defeated Trump by 3 million votes or more.

However, I think there were things & issues that came out that show we need to look at our DNC, look at how we choose our primary candidates, who we let on or keep off the debate stage, so many things. Before anything maybe look inward at ourselves with no blame of others, ourselves or anyone but just do a complete of analysis of who we are, what our goals are, get back to what the party really was at one time.

I realize we need to have a lot of money to run candidates but we found out we can raise a lot of money in small amounts with our grassroots with the right candidate too. It may take more, but there is a way I am sure.

This is not good I know & Trump is not normal & I don't like establishment members making excuses of playing nice with him or saying we have to do the give & take thing but I believe there are enough hopefully commonsense republicans & dems that we can stand fast on many things, hopefully, save something but regardless now is now & we need to be ready for the future, midterms if we can.

As opposed to Republicans, who pretty much just have to show up and play to American defaults; the easiest one being "how will this make me RICH?".

..which ones think that voting against this bill would be in their best interests?

Which of those groups advocates for higher drug prices?

That's the thing. None of them.

No group of people in all those "identity groups" or whatever you want to call them, would be against better economic situations especially with regard to healthcare.

This is not an either/or thing. If we do what is right economically, and don't betray our core constituencies there will be no backlash.

The problem is not that we support all of those other causes, the problem is that we've abandoned many of our core economic causes.

I've posted this many times over the past few weeks, but my white bread, blue collar family members were Democrats going way back when. Union joes and janes every one of them. And they always voted and supported Democratic candidates. And even though my family members were not exactly the most culturally and socially tolerant folks, it didn't matter to them that those candidates also supported civil rights, gay rights, womens rights, etc. Because they knew that the common ground we all had was economic justice and standing up to corporations and the oligarchy and all of that. They only started falling out of love with Democrats and being susceptible to the Republican message when Democrats started vying for all of that corporate cash and betraying core economic ideals.

Most of them voted for Obama and could not have cared any less that he supported social justice because they believed his hopeful economic message and the idea that he was a regular guy who would fight for regular people.

Until we get that back we are going to continue to be in bad shape, and if we continue to believe that it is an either/or thing of economics vs. social justice that time is not going to be soon.

Here's the relevant portion:

"The Senate voted down the amendment 52-46, with two senators not voting. Unusually, the vote was not purely along party lines: 13 Republicans joined Sanders and a majority of Democrats in supporting the amendment, while 13 Democrats and a majority of Republicans opposed it."

Statistically speaking, in the 114th Congress, the furthest right Democrat in the Senate voted with the party 75% of the time. The furthest left Republican voted with the Republican party 73% of the time. There really aren't elected officials who break with the party that often on either side.

. . . when I shared this story on FB, I started off the post with these very words.

and politics seal the deal, always no matter who. Canada is as conscientious on med safety as us....no excuse except pharma WINS AGAIN.