General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKHN: Democrats Taking Key Leadership Jobs Have Pocketed Millions from Pharma
https://khn.org/news/democrats-taking-key-leadership-jobs-have-pocketed-millions-from-pharma/Top House Republican also received more than $1 million from drugmakers since 2007.
On Wednesday, House Democrats selected Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland to serve as the next majority leader and Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina as majority whip, making them the No. 2 and No. 3 most powerful Democrats as their party regains control of the House in January.
...
High drug prices surfaced as a major campaign issue in 2018. With almost half of Americans saying they were worried about prescription drug costs last summer, many Democrats told voters theyd tackle the issue in the next Congress. But the large amount of money going to key Democrats, and Republicans, raises questions about whether Congress will take on the pharmaceutical industry.
In the past decade, members of Congress from both parties have received about $81 million from 68 pharma PACs run by employees of companies that make drugs and industry trade groups.
samnsara
(17,569 posts)erronis
(14,941 posts)MineralMan
(146,189 posts)How will they vote on issues having to do with that industry? That can't be predicted from campaign contributions. What are their past voting records on those issues? Do you know?
KPN
(15,585 posts)I sure would like to know their voting records on issues related to the pharmaceutical industry as I don't have faith in the notion that campaign contributions are not necessarily manifested in how a legislator votes. It seems obviously prudent to be skeptical about the influence of contributions in legislators' objectivity when voting.
Lacking the time to personally look up the voting record of these folks in this regard, I'll choose to view them skeptically.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)If you get time to go look at them, please let me know if you find they voted in ways that helped the pharmaceutical companies rip off the public.
Lacking any reason to inquire into that, I'll choose to view them as politicians who accept campaign contributions from many sources.
See how that works?
KPN
(15,585 posts)So essentially, as I interpret that, you choose to accept things as they are whether they are actually okay as far as public policy goes or not. Does that mean you don't care?
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)When it comes to the members of Congress from my district and state, I inquire directly about their attitudes toward issues. I do not offer my support unless they generally align with my own views. Fortunately, I am lucky to have representation that does support my views.
For other elected officials, I use a different principle to judge them. In my 50+ years as a voting adult, I have discovered that Democrats, in general, tend to vote in ways that favor the people, rather than corporations. That's why I'm a Democrat. I have also discovered that the opposite is true for Republicans, generally.
Because of that, I don't really spend a lot of time worrying about Democrats who do not directly represent me. I see how they vote, though, when voting is close. But, since I don't vote for them, I leave the voters in their states and districts to judge them when elections come around.
Democrats do a better job than Republicans in representing people. I like that.
KPN
(15,585 posts)Not people I can or cannot vote for. Big difference.
displacedtexan
(15,694 posts)KPN
(15,585 posts)actions on pharmaceutical issues and relate that back to the specific individuals identified in this Kaiser Health News article.
From a broader standpoint, it's obvious that the industry believes it benefits them to contribute to congressional campaigns. They contribute a significant amount to virtually everyone. That in itself is reason to be skeptical.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)most corporations, donate to candidates of both parties. It's called "hedging your bets." Go look, and you'll see that I'm right.
KPN
(15,585 posts)for playing along.
erronis
(14,941 posts)I suppose if Robert Mueller had some extra time he could track down the cause and effect of contributions. The follow-the-money approach. I'd still prefer to see all political donations go into a great big pot for a formulaic and transparent distribution to contenders, incumbents as well as challengers. With CU and other dark-money conduits, it is probably impossible to figure out why congress-critter X voted for/against bill Y.
MagickMuffin
(15,886 posts)This is why we need corporate money out of politics.
Currently it is a closed loop system: Corporations receive government handouts ( @ taxpayers expense) then the Corporations give the government (Congress) bigly campaign $$$$$ (again @ taxpayers expense)
It is very effective for them, taxpayers not so much.
ismnotwasm
(41,916 posts)Why drug prices are out of control herewith a kind of risks and benefit class on what regulation means for the drug market
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/11/30/12945756/prescription-drug-prices-explained
Im not as concerned about donations as I am about how we are going to obtain Universal healthcare. One of my problems with M4A, is that no, its not just as simple an Medicare expansion. As we saw with the ACA, healthcare is enormously complex. I like to see the ACA fixed, and a public option added. As we insure more people,we need a plan for more healthcare workers, as things stand right now their are not enough of everybody, there are areas and fields where healthcare workers find less attractive than others, so we have incentives added. For instance if you want your nurse practitioners license, the field of Psych is cheaper. If you go and work in remote areas, there is often a pay incentive
Drug companies, with their unregulated pricing, are a huge problem. As the I put up article states, do we regulate at the risk of less innovation? Or perhaps we cap prices?
Do you know what doesnt provide drug companies with sufficient profit, so there is less innovation? Anti-biotics. Apparently its not a sexy field to study, even though resistant strains of bacteria are evolving rapidly and kill people every year. Dont get me started on molds and fungus strains.
So while something needs to be done, Democrats are the ones to do it. Republicans arent going to do shit.
erronis
(14,941 posts)And to your point, the repuglicons aren't going to do shit unless someone pays them a lot. And that's why they do big corp's business.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)states refused to expand Medicaid or are too poor the ACA but too rich for Medicaid. We should not try to put the entire country on Medicare as it would be very very difficult and end the way Clinton care did in the 90's...there are jobs involved and tax implications also. As for Pharma, a start would be to make them negotiate for Medicaid, Medicare, the ACA and any other government entity.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)Sounds like Kaiser Permenante is weaseling here. I'm sure there's more to come. But damn let's get money out of politics.
erronis
(14,941 posts)I've been a Kaiser Permanente client and thought the same. They are totally different organizations.
From https://khn.org/
About Kaiser Health News
Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)and their totally "independent" pr firm. I don't think that Hoyer and Clyburn are the people they think are bad--they want someone bad to the bone, i.e., a republicon.?
erronis
(14,941 posts)My experience is that there is a lot of churn in the drug industry driven by profits that cause the increase in profits.
Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) are a middleman that can obscure true pricing and drive up the costs.
Large pharma buying up generic drug manufacturers as well as tweaking a generic formula to get a new patent are another huge factor.
Not allowing CMS (Medicare) to negotiate prices is a crime that is allowed by the congress.
For most of the developed world, prices are far lower than in the US. The medical "industry" (including pharma) is not run as much as a for-profit corporation as a for-the-good-of-the-people entity. After all, people that aren't constantly getting sick are less of a drain on government than those that can't afford to stay healthy.
And don't get me started on the Sackler murderers who got so many people hooked and dead. The societal costs of the opioid epidemic along with the necessary treatment of comorbidities is staggering.
ismnotwasm
(41,916 posts)Im a Med-surg RN, I randomly asked one of our surgeons about M4A or any other path to universal healthcare. He, like me, thought it needs to me done, but that the right pathway needs to be found.
He also identified the biggest obstacle as Pharmaceutical companies, which is interesting since hes a surgeon, and not a Med doctor. He was well aware of the stranglehold drug companies have on healthcare practitioners
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)erronis
(14,941 posts)against the Democrats. The article is more balanced. I'm glad I don't have to synopsize a full article into a caption (or a twit as we now say.)
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)TheFarseer
(9,308 posts)Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)No doubt it would be a great idea... but is not possible. Thus for the time being until we figure out a way to get rid of United, our people need to raise money.
WeekiWater
(3,259 posts)While Hoyer wants to see rx drug prices come down and his a history showing just that(including on the record votes), he also has and wants to continue to drastically expand the group of people able to have affordable access to their products. Makes sense.
erronis
(14,941 posts)forefront of healthcare payment reform.
Thanks for the reference.