HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » KHN: Democrats Taking Key...

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:03 PM

KHN: 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.

Three of the lawmakers who will lead the House next year as Congress focuses on skyrocketing drug costs are among the biggest recipients of campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, a new KHN analysis shows.

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 they’d 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.




30 replies, 1888 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply KHN: Democrats Taking Key Leadership Jobs Have Pocketed Millions from Pharma (Original post)
erronis Nov 2018 OP
samnsara Nov 2018 #1
erronis Nov 2018 #2
MineralMan Nov 2018 #3
KPN Nov 2018 #5
MineralMan Nov 2018 #6
KPN Nov 2018 #8
MineralMan Nov 2018 #10
KPN Nov 2018 #17
displacedtexan Nov 2018 #7
KPN Nov 2018 #9
MineralMan Nov 2018 #11
KPN Nov 2018 #18
erronis Nov 2018 #25
MagickMuffin Nov 2018 #4
ismnotwasm Nov 2018 #12
erronis Nov 2018 #15
Demsrule86 Nov 2018 #20
WhiteTara Nov 2018 #13
erronis Nov 2018 #24
WhiteTara Nov 2018 #26
erronis Nov 2018 #14
ismnotwasm Nov 2018 #16
Demsrule86 Nov 2018 #19
erronis Nov 2018 #22
Demsrule86 Nov 2018 #27
TheFarseer Nov 2018 #21
Demsrule86 Nov 2018 #28
WeekiWater Nov 2018 #23
area51 Nov 2018 #29
erronis Nov 2018 #30

Response to erronis (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:04 PM

1. i trust their leadership

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samnsara (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:09 PM

2. I trust their leadership also but I distrust Pharma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:09 PM

3. Their contribution lists are a matter of public record.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:35 PM

5. Good points and questions.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:45 PM

6. Well, their voting records are also public.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:53 PM

8. Yes, as you do I'm sure.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:59 PM

10. You are incorrect.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 02:13 PM

17. This article is about two of our Democratic Party House leaders.

Not people I can or cannot vote for. Big difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:51 PM

7. Here's a source you can use quickly...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to displacedtexan (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:58 PM

9. Thanks. Yeah, I'm aware of opensecrets.org. I just don't have the time to research legislative

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 01:00 PM

11. I believe that you'll discover that pharmaceutical companies, like

most corporations, donate to candidates of both parties. It's called "hedging your bets." Go look, and you'll see that I'm right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 02:16 PM

18. You obviously didn't read my post. But thanks

for playing along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 04:02 PM

25. As we all know imputing causality is very difficult.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 12:12 PM

4. Well if anyone can take on big pharma would be the Democrats


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 01:22 PM

12. Here is an article about drug pricing that is easy to understand

Why drug prices are out of control here—with 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


I’m 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, it’s 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 doesn’t provide drug companies with sufficient profit, so there is less ‘innovation”? Anti-biotics. Apparently it’s not a sexy field to study, even though resistant strains of bacteria are evolving rapidly and kill people every year. Don’t get me started on molds and fungus strains.

So while “something” needs to be done, Democrats are the ones to do it. Republicans aren’t going to do shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 01:54 PM

15. Thanks for the vox link. I try to absorb everything, but there's a lot!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 02:33 PM

20. We need to do a public option for those who can't get Medicaid expansion because the

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 01:40 PM

13. KHN Kaiser Headline News

Sounds like Kaiser Permenante is weaseling here. I'm sure there's more to come. But damn let's get money out of politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 03:56 PM

24. Kaiser Health News is totally separate from Kaiser Permanente

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 04:12 PM

26. Okay, thanks. It's the Foundation

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.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 01:52 PM

14. I worked for a state organization that monitored drug prices.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 02:10 PM

16. For what it's worth

I’m 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 he’s a surgeon, and not a Med doctor. He was well aware of the stranglehold drug companies have on healthcare practitioners

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 02:26 PM

19. I just hate it when Democratic leaders are trashed unfairly in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 02:47 PM

22. The headline was talking about the new House leadership - but it feels weighted

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 12:13 PM

27. I read the article and did not feel it was balanced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 02:36 PM

21. Public financing of elections NOW. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheFarseer (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 12:14 PM

28. Which won't happen given the court rulings.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2018, 03:02 PM

23. I think it makes sense for people like Hoyer to get money from them.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 01:57 PM

29. PNHP has done research into issues regarding Medicare for All & pharma prices.

There is no reason for people in this country to die, or to go bankrupt trying to pay for medical care. Other counties that are first world offer healthcare, by various methods. PNHP link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to area51 (Reply #29)

Fri Nov 30, 2018, 02:06 PM

30. Interesting organization (PNHP). I haven't run across them even though Vermont has been a bit at the

forefront of healthcare payment reform.

Thanks for the reference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread