Ziltoidia 9
Member
The way I remember it, Booker didn't go with it the first time because he said the drugs wouldn't be regulated at an American standard. Just paraphrasing.
I would suggest that people in Canada should be freaking out about legislation like this.
I honestly believe that if the US fixes their drug prices through allowing importing or negotiating or a law that requires it to be within a certain percentage of other countries, it will likely crush socialized medicine in many countries. Drugs make up near 20% of US spending in healthcare and is the fastest growing portion. The US has for far too long subsidized the drug industry for the rest of the world. If pharma companies can't continue to recoup their costs through exorbitant US prices, they will be forced to raise newly negotiated prices elsewhere.
I'm legitimately confused. Sanders entire schtick is being anti-trade. Why the hell is he pushing this bill?
I'm legitimately confused. Sanders entire schtick is being anti-trade. Why the hell is he pushing this bill?
Because his entire schtick isn't anti-trade. Is universal healthcare and free college education an anti-trade schtick?
On the other topic, the US has been subsidizing much of the world's drug costs. But just giving the pharma companies less money in the US could lead to less development of new drugs, unless otherwise countries started to pay closer to their share to make up for that.
UHC doesn't seem to be his schtick given he's run against the ACA and railed against the UHC proposal in the Clinton administration. And free college education is just dumb policy.
So, no, but it doesn't have anything to do with Sanders.
I mean he's showing us exactly why free trade is good, because it reduces the price levels of certain goods, but he's also come out against all free trade deals? His head must be about to explode from cognitive dissonance while working on this. This is literally just a free trade deal for the pharma industry. It's like everything he hates wrapped into one.
Need to get the two WA senators on board. Weird that they both voted down the last one.
Today I cosponsored the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act with @RepJayapal and @BernieSanders
So he's against protectionism for pharma, but why not all industries too then?It isn't a free trade deal for the pharma industry. There already is no customs duty applied to medicine: https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter 30?release=basicCorrections2
This is to remove laws that favor the pharma industry that prohibit parallel importation. The medicine could very well be manufactured in the US (a lot of medicine is produced in Puerto Rico due to tax planning) and qualify as US-origin product for customs purposes anyway, and thus wouldn't be considered an import for customs or trade deficit purposes.
I'm confused about Sanders. Is he for globalization again or...?
It isn't a free trade deal for the pharma industry. There already is no customs duty applied to medicine: https://hts.usitc.gov/view/Chapter 30?release=basicCorrections2
This is to remove laws that favor the pharma industry that prohibit parallel importation. The medicine could very well be manufactured in the US (a lot of medicine is produced in Puerto Rico due to tax planning) and qualify as US-origin product for customs purposes anyway, and thus wouldn't be considered an import for customs or trade deficit purposes.
No, he's against the TPP and wants to bring jobs back to America. He and Trump aren't as different as you may think.
That said, Bernie is for business regulation.
So he's against protectionism for pharma, but why not all industries too then?
This is exactly what free trade deals have done for the past 20 years. This is the majority of what deals like the TPP and TTIP are (part of the uproar over the TPP was its controversial parallel importation protections if you recall). Standardising regulations. Reducing non-tariff barriers. Tariffs and the like were pretty much removed from the West after the enormous liberalisation push of the 80's and 90's, so modern trade agreements focus on this.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nontariff-barrier.asp
This is literally just a FTA for pharma. It's probably a good thing (can't see any real impact on prices though), but the fact Sanders is pushing it is hilarious. He didn't let his need to provide cheaper goods override his opposition to NAFTA, the TPP, and every other FTA in existence, so why he's pushing it now is beyond me. Hypocrisy, thy name etc.
Making iphones incredibly expensive to import is pretty close to an outright ban for everyone but the rich.I would believe he is against this form of protectionism for all industries. He would not be in favor of laws allowing Apple and Samsung to prohibit people from importing iPhones and Galaxies from Canada.
This is exactly what free trade deals have done for the past 20 years. This is the majority of what deals like the TPP and TTIP are (part of the uproar over the TPP was its controversial parallel importation protections if you recall). Standardising regulations. Reducing non-tariff barriers. Tariffs and the like were pretty much removed from the West after the enormous liberalisation push of the 80's and 90's, so modern trade agreements focus on this.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nontariff-barrier.asp
This is literally just a FTA for pharma. It's probably a good thing (can't see any real impact on prices though), but the fact Sanders is pushing it is hilarious. He didn't let his need to provide cheaper goods override his opposition to NAFTA, the TPP, and every other FTA in existence, so why he's pushing it now is beyond me. Hypocrisy, thy name etc.
The controversy over the parallel importation provisions in the TPP was the fact that the earlier drafts enforced the right of companies to prohibit people from importing outside of their own channel (Hypocrisy, thy name, etc.) and the final draft preserved the right of countries to prohibit people from importing outside channels authorized by the companies (Hypocrisy, thy name, etc.). If you are saying this allowance of parallel importation is a free trade concept, than you are saying that the free trade deals, but preserving or expanding the rights of rights holders to prevent parallel importation are not actually free trade deals (Hypocrisy, thy name, etc.).
Bernie never wanted to abolish NAFTA, he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. So did Clinton, though she also flip flopped from supporting it strongly to saying it needs fixing once she started running for president in 2008.
People I don't wanna see run for president in 2020:
1. Tulsi Gabbard
2. Corey Booker
3. Andrew Cuomo
4. Bernie Sanders
5. Hillary Clinton
Sanders hates all FTA's. He's said so himself. He's against the fundamentals. His 'renegotiation' would end with the destruction of the agreement.
I'm not actually saying any of that. I don't know how much clearer I can make the point.
Aren't you the one throwing a fit right now that he's backing a trade agreement?
Even if we say this is a trade barrier (which is untrue because this law is primarily focused on US-origin products), the parallel import provisions in the free trade deals Sanders voted against did not remove this specific "trade barrier"-the TPP final language has specific language allowing countries to have this trade barrier-and early drafts actually tried to force this trade barrier on other countries (it may still be in the TTIP draft). It is entirely consistent to be against those free trade deals and to be in favor of this law.
If by throwing a fit you mean I'm pointing out his enormous hypocrisy, I guess so.
If by throwing a fit you mean I'm pointing out his enormous hypocrisy, I guess so.
If we go by your logic, it's almost as if he's willing to go against his morals to save some lives. What a monster.
This isn't an ethical question. Not all trade agreements are the same. Bernie has been consistent about protecting American jobs that would compete with cheap foreign labor just as he's been consistent about wanting to better regulate big pharma. There's no hypocrisy here. Did Clinton changing her stances with time incense you as much or is it just Sanders with which you have an axe to grind?
Booker's explanation sounds reasonable enough that I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I'd need to see a real analysis, instead of just making some dumb, cynical, gut feeling comment on it.
His specific reasoning for being against the TPP still pertains to this agreement. It will to all trade agreements. All trade agreements disrupt labour.
all of the reasons he was against previous trade agreements still apply.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm.This is a great example of how the left is winning the soul of the Democratic party.
Repeating this lie doesn't make it true. Trading to mitigate exorbitant drug prices is not the same as wanting to avoid being undercut by cheap labor. The pharmaceutical industry is not one of cheap, easily outsourced labor. Big pharma has a complete stranglehold on the US market and is able to fix prices unilaterally without any competition. This is not the same as wanting to protect labor for outsourcing.
How does this disrupt labor? This law requires the medicine to be manufactured in FDA-inspected facilities (which means medicine manufactured in the US).
I can't tell if this is sarcasm.
->Mind you I don't think Sanders is being hypocritical, I think he's just enormously economically illiterate.
If by throwing a fit you mean I'm pointing out his enormous hypocrisy, I guess so.
Read above. If you reduce the price level of goods or increase competition then the domestic base will lose out. It's inevitable. The Pharma industry is currently protected from international competition through NTB's. This amendment will change that, and disrupt labour in the process.
Mind you I don't think Sanders is being hypocritical, I think he's just enormously economically illiterate.
->
Make up your mind. You're arguing like this agreement functionally has the same effect on labor as something like NAFTA, in which case the irony of calling anyone economically illiterate is just gold.
The agreement requires that the medicine imported is medicine that is manufactured in facilities regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration. This means that the medicine is medicine that was manufactured in the US and then sold to Canada. It allows Americans to re-import the US-manufactured medicine that was sold into Canada. How does it disrupt US labor?
This is not about international competition, by the way. There already is international competition (many drug companies are German or British). This is saying that you can re-import GSK's US-manufactured goods destined for Canada back into the US. It is not about protectionism of US companies, it is about the extent that pharmaceutical companies can control their own monopoly over their own goods.
His actions are hypocritical, he's too stupid to realise. Besides, nobody said anything about degrees. Certainly not Sanders.
It requires exporters to be inspected by the FDA, it says nothing about exports then importing lol. What are you even on about.
I'm not sure why you guys are reaching so hard to not see what anyone else that isn't blinded by Sanders wonder can see in two seconds.
allowing wholesalers, licensed U.S. pharmacies, and individuals to import qualifying prescription drugs manufactured at FDA-inspected facilities from licensed Canadian sellers.
That's not true. Don't know why you need to lie:
That's literally what I just said. Like the exact words. What are you on about?
The sellers are Canadian pharmacies. The products have to be manufactured at FDA-inspected facilities. The manufacturing facilities are not the exporters. They wouldn't be the exporters anyway because they are controlled by the pharmaceutical companies.
I agree. Booker voted in favor of an amendment to lower drug prices. His position seems consistent with his voting record, and I am not comfortable with how this has been portrayed. Yes, Booker has taken hundreds of thousands from "big pharma," but so has Bernie Sanders.
lol "maybe drugs shouldn't be as stupidly expensive" is a far left idea?
Booker changed his tune because he got a ton of flack for it and his "Canadian drugs might be dangerous" excuse and he doesn't want to have it bite him in the ass in 2020.
I didn't realize Booker was playing 46th dimensional chess! Obama must have gifted him a few Chaos Emeralds.
Real talk though, dude is the Marco Rubio of the Democratic Party... an empty suit who people for some reason see as the the bright star of the next generation that will ultimately crumple under any real pressure.
Came here to say this. Grew up in NJ, helped vote Booker to the Senate, never felt comfy with the sudden vilification of him out of seemingly nowhere. But I've always had huge, huge problems with purity tests, so I'm not sure why I'm surprised.
On the other topic, the US has been subsidizing much of the world's drug costs. But just giving the pharma companies less money in the US could lead to less development of new drugs, unless otherwise countries started to pay closer to their share to make up for that.
It's not, but attacking allies who offer constructive criticism, instead of blindly embracing far left policy has been the domain of the far left lately.
Holding people up to purity scales is a lot easier than understanding and creating good, nuanced policy.
Framing sensible policy as "far left policy" is absurd. And failing to run "purity tests" (i.e. demanding Democrats be more than corporate shills) is how we ended with a white nationalist party controlling the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.
So then you're left with a bunch of pissed off white liberals who demand flawless messianic figures at every level of the government, because they don't realize how much of the country is being oppressed by the GOP. Purity demands of Hillary hurt her campaign, and the purity argument of having to "overthrow" the Democratic party "to weed out corruption" hurt downballots, because it cast the image that the entire party couldn't be trusted.