• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Booker joins Bernie and publicly supports new drug import bill.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Jul 1, 2013
5,451
0
430
Lewisville, TX
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.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,952
2,549
1,360
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.

If they started raising prices in other countries, other countries wouldn't just roll over like the US does and take it. They would fight it every step of the way and Big Pharma would look like the greedy bastards they are the entire time.

Big Pharma are basically against a wall of their own making here. By gouging the unregulated American market for years to subsidize price controls in other nations, they basically came to depend entirely on the American market for the majority of their revenue. Now that TPP and TTIP are dead, there's no way American-style price-gouging will ever make it overseas. Should the day come when any kind of reduction comes to drug pricing in America, their whole house of cards will collapse and good riddance, they've been fucking the American people for too long at this point and they deserve what's coming to them.
 

Auto_aim1

MeisaMcCaffrey
Jul 7, 2010
12,881
54
1,050
Few years ago Americans wouldn't have paid attention to how their senators voted but now it's suicide to something like what Booker did.
 

numble

Member
Apr 22, 2007
28,682
0
0
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?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
45,962
18,733
1,910
Best Coast
I'm legitimately confused. Sanders entire schtick is being anti-trade. Why the hell is he pushing this bill?

Viewing this complex situation though a one dimensional viewpoint would be the first step in identifying why you are legitimately confused.
 

Giant Panda

Member
Jan 17, 2012
3,202
0
0
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.

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.
 

darkace

Banned
Jun 17, 2014
1,562
0
0
Australia
Because his entire schtick isn't anti-trade. Is universal healthcare and free college education an anti-trade schtick?

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.

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.

Needs a global treaty. The US provides >90% of global funding for vaccines. There's no incentive for many countries to sign on, so the US will have to give up some serious concessions.
 

numble

Member
Apr 22, 2007
28,682
0
0
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.

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.
 

Giant Panda

Member
Jan 17, 2012
3,202
0
0
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.
So he's against protectionism for pharma, but why not all industries too then?
 

darkace

Banned
Jun 17, 2014
1,562
0
0
Australia
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.

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.
 
Dec 14, 2008
33,952
2,549
1,360
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.

The real question the Democrats should be asking themselves is how the Democratic Party became the party of supporting the TPP and exporting American jobs.

If they ever figure that one out, they might win an election somewhere again someday.
 

numble

Member
Apr 22, 2007
28,682
0
0
So he's against protectionism for pharma, but why not all industries too then?

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.
 

numble

Member
Apr 22, 2007
28,682
0
0
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, by preserving or expanding the rights of rights holders to prevent parallel importation are not actually free trade deals (Hypocrisy, thy name, etc.).
 

Giant Panda

Member
Jan 17, 2012
3,202
0
0
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.
Making iphones incredibly expensive to import is pretty close to an outright ban for everyone but the rich.
 

guek

Banned
Apr 27, 2011
18,684
1
0
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.

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.
 

darkace

Banned
Jun 17, 2014
1,562
0
0
Australia
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.).

I'm not actually saying any of that. I don't know how much clearer I can make the point.

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.

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.
 

Goodstyle

Member
Feb 22, 2013
3,928
0
0
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

Count me on for this. I see any of these people running for pres and I'll know we've fucking lost.

1. Crazy and Evil person
2. "Fake" seeming + tons of gay rumours (nothing wrong with being gay, but "average" Americans will hate that)
3. Ugh
4. Old news + TONS of brutal oppo on him
5. Mega old news, and kinda sad
 

guek

Banned
Apr 27, 2011
18,684
1
0
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.

Aren't you the one throwing a fit right now that he's backing a trade agreement?
 

numble

Member
Apr 22, 2007
28,682
0
0
I'm not actually saying any of that. I don't know how much clearer I can make the point.

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.
 

darkace

Banned
Jun 17, 2014
1,562
0
0
Australia
Aren't you the one throwing a fit right now that he's backing a trade agreement?

If by throwing a fit you mean I'm pointing out his enormous hypocrisy, I guess so.

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.

His specific reasoning for being against the TPP still pertains to this agreement. It will to all trade agreements. All trade agreements disrupt labour.
 

fauxtrot

Banned
May 10, 2006
2,436
0
0
If by throwing a fit you mean I'm pointing out his enormous hypocrisy, I guess so.

If we go by your logic and treat everything you've said as fact (I'm willing to be generous), it's almost as if he's willing to go against his morals to save some lives. What a monster.
 

guek

Banned
Apr 27, 2011
18,684
1
0
If by throwing a fit you mean I'm pointing out his enormous hypocrisy, I guess so.

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?
 

darkace

Banned
Jun 17, 2014
1,562
0
0
Australia
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 also applies to the TPP and the TTIP. And NAFTA. And every FTA. Free trade agreements reduce price levels of goods. The TPP would have reduced the price of some pharmaceuticals given it contained similar regulatory harmonisation provisions. Probably moreso.

I don't care about him compromising ideals, I'm wondering why he's doing it now given he's never done it before, and that all of the reasons he was against previous trade agreements still apply.

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?

Yea Clinton being against good policy did make me angry. But her stance was at least logically consistent.
 

themaskedndi

Member
Jun 27, 2016
262
0
200
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.

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.
 

numble

Member
Apr 22, 2007
28,682
0
0
His specific reasoning for being against the TPP still pertains to this agreement. It will to all trade agreements. All trade agreements disrupt labour.

How does this disrupt labor? This law requires the medicine to be manufactured in FDA-inspected facilities (which means medicine manufactured in the US).
 

guek

Banned
Apr 27, 2011
18,684
1
0
all of the reasons he was against previous trade agreements still apply.

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.
 

darkace

Banned
Jun 17, 2014
1,562
0
0
Australia
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.

You realise the whole reason labour is outsourced is because international competition on goods increases with reduced barriers from these agreements, right? FTA's don't magically replace Americans with foreigners. They remove the viability of certain industries domestically that make more sense overseas.

How does this disrupt labor? This law requires the medicine to be manufactured in FDA-inspected facilities (which means medicine manufactured in the US).

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.
 

guek

Banned
Apr 27, 2011
18,684
1
0
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.

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.
 

numble

Member
Apr 22, 2007
28,682
0
0
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.

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.
 

darkace

Banned
Jun 17, 2014
1,562
0
0
Australia
->


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.

His actions are hypocritical, he's too stupid to realise. Besides, nobody said anything about degrees. Certainly not Sanders.

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.

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.
 

numble

Member
Apr 22, 2007
28,682
0
0
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.

That's not true. Don't know why you need to lie:
allowing wholesalers, licensed U.S. pharmacies, and individuals to import qualifying prescription drugs manufactured at FDA-inspected facilities from licensed Canadian sellers.
 

numble

Member
Apr 22, 2007
28,682
0
0
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.
 

darkace

Banned
Jun 17, 2014
1,562
0
0
Australia
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.

Oh zzzz I see. I mistyped. Yea you're right.
 

Autoignition

Member
Apr 13, 2016
1,918
367
265
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.

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.
 

zelas

Member
Nov 18, 2014
3,543
0
0
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.

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.

If Booker was merely concerned about angry voters these necessary changes wouldn't have been made.


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.

And? That doesn't mean neither are capable of making good moves for their respective parties. What's wrong with the specific changes? Are they just empty ideas that will have no effect?


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.

Holding people up to purity scales is a lot easier than understanding and creating good, nuanced policy.
 

Frosty Droid

Member
May 30, 2014
530
0
0
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.

U.S. taxpayers pick up most of the tab for new drug research through the National Institute of Health. Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they do on research. We'd be better off if we doubled the NIH's budget and abolished most pharma patents. Pharmaceutical companies could then compete for contracts to manufacture the drugs researched by the NIH.

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.
 

Autoignition

Member
Apr 13, 2016
1,918
367
265
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.

BS. How is that even remotely true, when the GOP is filled with the most corrupt, money-fueled politicians ever? If "failing to run purity tests" is what keeps a party out of power, then wouldn't logic dictate that the Republican party should rightfully be in its death throes?

Gerrymandering and voter suppression is how the GOP gained control. To ignore that is to ignore the struggles of very very large portions of the US population, mainly people of color, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

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. Let's maybe not make the same mistakes moving forward in the future and not vilify someone like Cory Booker, who has a consistent ideology and already has a strong, loyal base.
 

shamanick

Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,735
0
645
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.

Keep playing identity politics, it worked so well for the centrist wing of the Dems last election. Asking for sensible policies like $15 minimum wage isn't a goddamn "purity test".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.