William Jennings Bryan Lost-- Can Bernie Win A Century Later And Fighting For The Same Interests Of Everyday Americans?

"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."
-William Jennings Bryan

The presidential election of 1896 could have been a great game-changer. But it wasn't. The urban working class and the rural Americans looked like they were going to united behind Democrat and populist William Jennings Bryan. Rural Americans largely came to the party. The working class in the Northeast and Midwest didn't, selling out their own economic interests to the capitalists, screwing themselves and their families royally for the next 4 decades.

After Bryan won the Democratic Party nomination, the Blue Dogs of the day-- they were called Bourbon Democrats back them-- split off and started the National Democratic Party and ran conservative John Palmer, who switched parties throughout his miserable life, as a third party, likely depriving Bryan of California and Kentucky and possibly Oregon. Republican William McKinley, the candidate of Big Business beat Bryan, the candidate of the workers and farmers, 7,111,607 (51.0%) to 6,509,052 (46.7%). McKinley preached trickle down-- in the middle of a depression and high unemployment no less-- and the workers, swayed by the biggest campaign spending ever up to that point, bought it. Turnout was massive-- the biggest in American history.

It makes me sad that Bryan lost and that McKinley won but we can still absolve ourselves of this great injustice next year-- by electing the guy who said this yesterday:

Today I took people with diabetes across the border from Detroit to Canada to buy insulin-- medication they need to survive.

In the United States, a single vial of insulin costs on average $340. But in Canada, the same exact drug is just $30.

Why? Because the United States is the only major country on earth that lets drug companies charge whatever they want.

One in four people with diabetes ration their insulin because it is so expensive. That means American people die because of corporate greed.

So I took people with diabetes to a pharmacy in Windsor, Ontario-- just a 20 minute drive from Detroit-- to buy the drugs they need to survive.

While we were there, people were able to buy the same drugs at one-tenth of the cost. One family from Indiana told me in the pharmacy that they skip paying their electric bill in order to pay for their son’s insulin. They paid $1,000 today for six months of insulin. It would have cost them $10,000 in the United States.

We have to ask ourselves why this is possible. And it is because of two factors: the greed of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the fact that these companies buy off politicians who will protect their greed.

These lower prices are possible in Canada because that country negotiates drug prices with drug companies. They have the common sense to say that drug company profits are not more important than the lives of their citizens.

The United States must negotiate for lower drug prices, and it must allow cheaper drugs to be imported from other countries.

Our job now is to end the incredible corruption and greed in the pharmaceutical industry.

[T]ell Congress you believe the government should negotiate with drugmakers for lower prices and allow for the importation of less expensive but safe and affordable drugs from other countries.

When we are in the White House, we will take on Big Pharma and we will win.

Bad Medicine (For Us) From The Trump Regime-- Backed By Half A Dozen Conservative Democrats

This week 6 corporate Democrats voted to confirm Alex Azar to be Secretary of Health and Human Services:

• Tom Carper (D-DE)
• Chris Coons (D-DE)
• Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
• Doug Jones (D-AL)
• Joe Manchin (D-WV)

Maine independent Angus King also voted to confirm and Rand Paul was the only Republican to break with his party, cross the aisle in the other direction and vote NO. Paul said he voted against him because Azar opposes drug importation but Heitkamp said she was voting for him because he is "incredibly competent... I don’t share a lot of his philosophy," she said, "but he understands, as someone who has been in the administration, the importance of the rule of law and compliance. I believe I can work with him in the future, especially on Indian health." If she means by that, raising the cost of pharmaceuticals, she's right. He proved he can do that when he was the head of Eli Lilly’s U.S. operation ( 2012 to 2017).

Skyrocketing drug prices are the bain of many people's lives. I think I mentioned when I got back from Thailand a couple of weeks ago. I bought a couple of months worth of one drug I take that costs $3,000 a month here and less than a fifth of that there. I also bough several inhalers for $6 each in Thailand and $70-80 in the U.S. with insurance.

When Azar was running Eli Lilly he tripled the price of insulin for example. Is that what Heitkamp thinks is going to help her American Indian constituents back in North Dakota? Heitkamp and the Republicans are basically using the laughable argument that who's better to fight crime than criminals. That doesn't work with predators like Azar (or Trump or any of his cabinet appointments).

The only part of Medicare that sucks is Bush's Medicare Part D-- the part that insures (badly) drugs. Azar was a key Bush staffer on that. Bush's Health Secretary Mike Leavitt appointed Azar to oversee the department’s regulatory process. Remember when Trump, on the campaign trail, said that firms like Eli Lilly were "getting away with murder?" Now he's put one of the most brutal murderers in charge.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee: "Azar’s nomination is a perfect encapsulation of the president’s broken promises on prescription drugs and health care overall." Almost all the Democratic senators looked at Azars pledge to address rising drug prices in the light of what he did at Eli Lilly significantly raise prices. He opposes the Affordable Care Act and is an anti-Choice fanatic, which probably helps explain why other conservative Democratic women who often cross the aisle to vote for Trump's nominees left Heitkamp other own this time.

Kaylie Hanson Long, a spokeswoman for NARAL: "It is sad, but not surprising, that Donald Trump is so desperate to install another anti-choice ideologue at HHS, an agency that's critical for women's healthcare. HHS has a duty to protect the health, rights, and reproductive freedom of women all across America, and Azar's clear and consistent anti-choice record should disqualify him from such an influential position."

Jenny Marshall in the progressive candidate running for the House seat in northwest North Carolina-- the seat Virginia Foxx occupies. She explained that "It is the job of the Senate to confirm well qualified candidates who will serve the people of this country through their departments. So far President Trump has put forward nominees who despise the departments they would oversee, were completely incompetent and who would stand to make fortunes from the policies they enact. This is not best for the people of this country and it erodes the very fabric of our government. My fellow Democrats and I should be standing strong against these kinds of nominees. Our country deserves better."

Americans Pay More For Prescription Drugs Because Our Politicians Take Bribes From Pharmaceutical Companies

For me, one of the worst-- and longest lasting-- side effects from chemotherapy is peripheral neuropathy. I'll spare you the details but it's gotten worse, and continues to get worse, with time. Yesterday, my doctor told me that there are ongoing studies that show an anti-convulsive compound, lacosamide, which is used to treat epilepsy and seizures, has been effective for some people in treating peripheral neuropathy. She told me that one of her patients had lost the ability to walk and that once he started using lacosamide he began walking again. So... she wrote me a prescription and my insurance company, Humana, said NO. That's what they do... and my doctor is fighting with them as I write this post. Without the insurance the drug, marketed as "Vimpat," would cost me $540/month. I looked the same drug up on Canadian and U.K. websites and found that it costs $187.38 in the U.K. and $236.22 in Canada. That's a lot of dough. A year's worth in the U.S. would be $6,480. A year's worth from Canada would be $2,834.64. That's $3,645.36 right out of my pocket just because conservatives in Congress allow pharmaceutical companies to rip off Americans in return for huge annual contributions to their careers, otherwise known to anyone with two IQ digits to rub together as bribery. First, the dozen worst enablers of the drugs companies among current members of Congress, based on the amount of pharma bribes since 1990:

• Orrin Hatch (R-UT)- $2,564,441
• Richard Burr (R-NC)- $1,512,262
• Anna Eshoo (D-CA)- $1,502,561
• Fred Upton (R-MI)- $1,406,006
• John McCain (R-AZ)- $1,224,519
• Frank Pallone (D-NJ)- $1,147,905
• Mitch McConnell (R-KY)- $1,098,622
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $1,053,483
• Erik Paulsen (R-MN)- $1,004,329
• Roy Blunt (R-MO)- $998,106
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $995,125
• John Shimkus (R-IL)- $981,583

On January 31, Señor Trumpanzee met with pharmaceutical executives, promising them to get rid of regulations and telling them to lower drug prices. Josh Keefe wrote a piece this week for International Business News that explains why it's Bernie, not Trumpanzee who is going to solve the price rip-offs.

While both political parties have denounced the rising cost of prescription drugs, neither Democrats nor Republicans have done much to address the problem. But this summer, a new tool to restrict the rising prices of drugs developed with taxpayer dollars has been introduced by the two U.S. senators who don’t belong to either party.

The mechanism works like this: Drug manufacturers who take federal money to develop drugs must keep their U.S. prices in line with the prices they charge in other economically advanced nations-- typically much lower than drug prices in the U.S.

The system would prevent pharmaceutical companies from effectively double-charging U.S. consumers by using their tax money for research and then charging them some of the steepest prices in the world at the pharmacy. Pharmaceutical companies, who pour millions of dollars into both the Democratic and Republican parties, are against the idea, which is perhaps why the fix is being pushed by Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, the only independents in congress.

The U.S. has the highest level of per capita pharmaceutical spending of any nation on Earth, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). And while Americans spend more than any other country to buy their drugs, they also spend more than any other country to develop those same drugs.

In June, King successfully added language to the 2018 military spending bill (still working its way through congress) that would allow the Department of Defense to take away exclusive patents from drug companies that benefitted from DoD funding if their drug price in the U.S. rises above the median price in seven foreign countries with similar economies.

Then last week, Sanders introduced legislation that would tie the prices of drugs made with government funding to costs in other countries. Unlike King’s language, Sanders’ bill would expand the concept beyond the DoD. The bill requires companies taking federal funds to develop drugs to enter into “reasonable pricing” agreements with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

“Under this insane system, Americans pay twice. First we pay to create these lifesaving drugs, then we pay high prices to buy those drugs,” wrote Sanders in a New York Times op-ed. “Our government must stop being pushovers for the pharmaceutical industry and its 1,400 lobbyists.”

The bill defines a “reasonable price” as no more than the lowest prices charged in countries with GDP and per capita income similar to the U.S. (The bill specifically pegs pricing to countries in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.)

The proposal is the latest salvo in Sanders’ effort to stop the military from granting French pharmaceutical company Sanofi Pasteur the exclusive right to sell a Zika vaccine.

“The days of allowing Sanofi and other drug makers to gouge American consumers after taking billions in taxpayer money must end,” Sanders told HuffPost this week. “That is why I am introducing legislation to demand fairer, lower prices for the Zika vaccine and for every drug developed with government resources.”

...[T]he benefits flow both ways between the pharmaceutical industry and Washington, which is why the Sanders bill faces an uphill battle to reach the floor for a vote. The bill was sent to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, which is chaired by Lamar Alexander. Pharmaceutical and health products companies gave more to Alexander’s campaigns between 2011 and 2016 than did any other industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And even if the bill gets to the floor, it would face opposition from the industry’s 1,350 lobbyists, who don’t come cheap. The pharmaceutical and health products industry has spent a remarkable $144 million on lobbying so far in 2017, more than double what the defense industry has spent over the same time period.

“Proposals to insert a reasonable pricing clause ignore the substantial R&D investments and risks undertaken by the private sector in developing and bringing a new medicine to patients,” the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which has spent $14 million on lobbying so far this year, told IBT in a statement. “Such proposals undermine critical intellectual property rights and incentives, create substantial uncertainty for companies and establish completely arbitrary criteria for taking intellectual property. This could chill critically needed collaborations and investment by the private sector to address some of our most serious unmet medical needs.”

The pharmaceutical industry, which says it costs $2.6 billion to bring a drug to market (while spending more on marketing than research) made a similar argument against “reasonable pricing” more than two decades ago, when it successfully persuaded the Clinton administration to repeal a “reasonable pricing” rule implemented by President George H.W. Bush.

After the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, private researchers could patent intellectual property they developed using federal funding. But by the late 1980s, outrage over the $8,000 annual cost of AIDS drug AZT, which was the only drug approved for treatment of the disease at the time, prompted the Bush administration to implement price control measures. In 1989, NIH was granted the right to review the introductory prices of drugs that were produced with government research, over the objections of the pharmaceutical industry.

“The Bush administration felt it was appropriate to expect some concessions on pricing if the government was involved in the drug and funding research,” James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, told IBT. Love researched the original rule while working for Ralph Nader’s Center for the Study of Responsive Law in the early 1990s.

But unlike the specific criteria for reasonable pricing put forth in the Sanders bill, the Bush rule was a bit ambiguous. “The agreements said something to the effect that it had to show some relationship between price and government’s role in developing the drug... Nobody really knew what it meant,” Love said.

Just six years later, the Clinton administration rescinded the order on the grounds that it was harmful to innovation.

“The pricing clause has driven industry away from potentially beneficial scientific collaborations... without providing an offsetting benefit to the public,” NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus said at the time. “Eliminating the clause will promote research that can enhance the health of the American people.”

By the way, pharmaceutical companies and executives gave Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign $12,137,835 in the 2016 cycle above and beyond they gave her while she was running for the Senate. I wonder what they liked about her. The CBO analyzed Bernie's Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada and other countries and estimated that it would save taxpayers nearly $7 billion over the next 10 years. Bernie introduced the bill at the end of February-- which has a companion bill in the House that was introduced by Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX). He took note of Trump's bullshit on the issue of prescription prices: "I say to President Trump: Talk is cheap. If you really have the guts to take on the pharmaceutical industry, tell your Republican friends in the House and the Senate to pass this legislation. Do it tonight in your address to Congress. Or admit to the American people that you were lying to them during the campaign.

Cummings added, "After he was elected, President Trump said he would bring down drug prices. He also warned that the pharmaceutical industry is 'getting away with murder,' and he was absolutely right. So, if the President really means what he says, he will support our efforts, and he will encourage his Republican colleagues to do the same.”

Over 70% of Americans support this approach and the the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act-- which McConnell and Ryan have bottled up in committees-- "would instruct the secretary of Health and Human Services to put forward regulations allowing wholesalers, pharmacies and individuals to import qualifying prescription drugs from licensed Canadian sellers. After two years, the secretary would have the authority to permit importation from countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with standards for the approval and sale of prescription drugs that are comparable to those in the United States. The bill includes detailed provisions outlining safeguards and consumer protections that ensure the safety of imported drugs, including FDA certification of foreign sellers, a clear definition of what drugs may be imported and supply chain security requirements. Legally imported drugs under the bill must be purchased from an FDA-certified foreign seller and must have the same active ingredient, route of administration and strength as drugs approved in the United States. The new agreement also cracks down on rogue online pharmacies."

There are 29 co-sponsors in the House, predominantly progressives like Ro Khanna (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD). No Republicans and no Blue Dogs. Today we asked a couple of the Blue America candidates for their perspectives on this. Dr. David Gill was the first to say he did. "Practicing emergency medicine provides me the opportunity to witness so many flaws with our health care 'system' here in America. This particular issue, the outrageous cost of prescription drugs in our country, is among the most galling. Before I write a prescription for a patient, I always have to inquire about their insurance status and their ability to actually buy the medication I intend to prescribe. I frequently have to go with my second or third or fourth choice of medication, to provide something to the patient that they'll be able to afford. And it's this way pretty much just here in America-- we're the one so-called first-class nation that treats its citizens in such a disrespectful, uncaring way. Of course it needn't be this way. If we had a Congress which wasn't in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, it wouldn't be this way. Medicare would be negotiating prices with drug companies and we'd be importing drugs from other countries. Ultimately, when we finally have the single-payer system that's been so desperately needed in America for so many decades, this issue will thankfully fade away."

The other medical doctor endorsed by Blue America, Houston oncologist Jason Westin told us that "Prescription drug prices are a huge problem for my patients and people all across America. Many new cancer-fighting drugs cost tens of thousands or more per year, and the prices seem to climb every year even for established drugs. In 2012, 12 of the 13 new drugs approved for treating cancer cost more than $100,000 per year, and it's just getting worse. If we want to have a serious discussion about controlling healthcare costs, prescription drug prices must be on the table. The solutions in the Sanders/Cummings bills are a start to right this wrong."

And then Paul Clements, the southwest Michigan progressive running for the seat occupied by one of Big Pharma's best friends, Fred Upton, told us that "If elected to Congress I will support Bernie Sanders’ and Angus King’s Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act. My opponent, Congressman Fred Upton, helped to create the conditions that let drug companies get away with highway robbery against Americans when we are most vulnerable: when we are sick. He has sponsored legislation making it illegal to import generics from Canada and other countries-- even if they are just as safe as locally produced versions. This is some of the legislation the Sanders-King bill would overturn. And in return Upton has benefited handsomely in campaign contributions from the Big Pharma. This is, sadly, yet another example of how money in politics undermines our democracy, hurts working people, transfers our money to the 1%, and, by raising the cost of health care, undermines the competitiveness of our economy. Money in politics is turning (has turned?) America into a plutocracy. We need to combat price gouging by pharmaceutical companies, and we need deep and comprehensive campaign finance reform. In Congress this will be part of my mission."

What's the Cost to the American People of Keeping Senators Like Patty Murray in Office?

Democrats (!) who voted with Big Pharma and against prescription drug importation, along with "the amount they have taken from drug companies since being elected to federal office" (details here). How much longer should any of these "enemies of the people" be in office? Or do they get at pass because they're our "enemies of the people"?

by Gaius Publius

The answer to the headline question is — across all industries and monopoly protection schemes regulated and allowed by Congress, easily more than $100 billion per year. That's the dollar price of keeping "fake progressives" like Cory Booker and Patty Murray well-fed and happy in Washington, D.C. Over $100 billion. Per year.

Can Progressives Afford to Protect and Defend "Fake Progressive" Senators?

Let's look at the cost to the American people of supporting "fake progressives" like those listed above by looking at just one industry, one monopoly protection scheme — prescription drugs prices.

Readers of DWT recently learned that:

Cory Booker helped the Republican predators kill his drug reimportation bill, a bill killed by Cory and a dozen other Democrats putting their donors before their constituents. Matt Taibbi has been on fire lately. His newest Rolling Stone essay, Republicans and Democrats Continue to Block Drug Reimportation-- After Publicly Endorsing It, makes the not so subtle point that "the one true bipartisan instinct in Washington is caving to rich industries."

The piece accurately calls Booker a "fake liberal." That label also applies to several more on the list above. Patty Murray, for example, is a "fake liberal." So is Maria Cantwell. Both were instrumental, for example, in getting Fast Track, the needed precursor to the horrible TPP trade deal, passed in the Senate.

The question has to be asked. At what price do progressives defend corrupt senators like this and protect their Senate positions, simply because they are our corrupt senators— corrupt Democratic senators? At what point do progressives say No to people like these?

As Matt Taibbi points out in the referenced article (all emphasis mine):

In 2015, for instance, the 20 largest drug companies made a collective $124 billion in profits.

All the industry needs to protect those sums is the continued cooperation of Congress.

So naturally it spends money-- not a lot by industry standards, but a ton by the standards of the ludicrously cheap dates we call federal politicians-- to make sure they always have just enough dependable people in office to block change.

Most of that $124 billion — profit, mind you; not revenue — came out of our pockets. Taibbi again:

The entire pharmaceutical industry is floated by a protectionist racket. Drugs that are in fact very cheap to make are kept artificially expensive-- we have drugs that cost $1,000 a pill here in America that sell for $4 in India, for instance.

This is the price you pay ... per year ... to keep Patty Murray and her kind in office. Do you feel you're getting a fair return for your own investment in her career?

The ROI on Corruption — Are Politicians Like Patty Murray "Ludicrously Cheap Dates"?

Let's look at what Big Pharma gets from us in return for our keeping Patty Murray and her like in office. Taibbi's characterization of the people named in the graphic at the top was "the ludicrously cheap dates we call federal politicians."

Cheap dates indeed. The top dollar figure in the graphic above is "fake progressive" Patty Murray's $900,000. The aggregate number in the graphic is about $5-6 million. That's not even a per-year bribe to these people, but a "for the life of their time in federal office" bribe.

To the industry, these people are for sale for pennies on the dollar, or more accurately mils on the dollar, plastic coins worth less than a penny.

Consider: The return on industry lobbying — let's round up and call it $10 million across several Senate terms — is $124 billion in protected profit per year. Looking at the drug price mark-up in the Taibbi article — from $4 to $1000 — gives a profit increase of 250 times the original (and still profitable) $4 price in India. Let's lower that increase, since I'm sure Taibbi picked an extreme example. Let's say that, on average, the protected U.S. profit is "just" a 100-times increase over what's profitable overseas.

If this is true, it's very safe to say that of that $124 billion in profit, at least $100 billion is bought by lobbying Congress for price protection.

So what's the ROI to the drug companies on its $10 million in bribes (sorry, entirely legal campaign contributions)? If it's $100 billion ... again, per year ... the ROI on campaign contributions is at least $10,000 in profit for each $1 spent to protect it, or more than 10,000 to 1.

If I'm off by a factor of 10, the ROI is ... 1,000 to 1.

Very cheap dates indeed. Corrupt Senators like Patty Murray need a better agent, or at least a union. After all, real agents get 10 percent. Acting as their own agents, politicians like Murray can't manage to squeeze one percent out of one of the most profitable industries in the world.

And her failure to extract more feathers for her nest is worse when you consider that Congress is the sole source for price protection at the national level. Corrupt Senate votes like Murray's can't be acquired anywhere else in the country.

Corrupt Democrats Keep Drug Prices High in Connecticut

Now comes David Sirota to tell a similar story (emphasis mine):

Why Are Drug Prices Going Up? Democratic Power Players Help Pharmaceutical Industry In Connecticut Battle

Wide majorities of voters want public officials to reduce American medicine prices, which are the highest in the world and have become a key driver of skyrocketing healthcare costs. And yet as politicians including Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have continued to call for a crackdown, corporate power players have successfully blocked even minimal reforms — with the help, at times, of industry-connected Democrats, whose party portrays itself as a consumer-defending critic of the healthcare industry.

As Congress holds more hearings on the issue, the fight over drug prices has moved to [state] legislatures — and an intense debate in Connecticut most starkly illuminates the battle lines. There, the House, the governorship and all constitutional offices are controlled by a Democratic Party that has long criticized the pharmaceutical industry for its pricing practices. Connecticut, though, also has America’s highest number of insurance jobs per capita, and a cadre of powerful public officials with financial and familial ties to the insurance industry — a situation that adds to the influence the industry already wields through its campaign cash and lobbyists.

The situation:

Fresh off a presidential campaign that saw both parties’ candidates promising to make prescription medicine more affordable, Connecticut lawmakers in January introduced legislation to bring more transparency to drug prices. The bill, which mirrors similar initiatives in other states, also aims to stop insurance companies from effectively forcing their policyholders to pay more for medicine than it actually costs — a lucrative scheme that critics say allows insurers and their affiliated pharmaceutical benefit managers to pocket the difference.

Despite the pharmaceutical industry’s opposition, the Connecticut legislation initially seemed headed for approval: It was sponsored by the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders and was backed by high-profile officials like the Democratic state comptroller.

Who could make this go wrong? Industry-connected Democrats:

But a few weeks ago, bill proponents say, Connecticut’s insurance commissioner Katharine Wade pressed for changes that would weaken the penalties in the legislation and leave enforcement of its provisions to the healthcare industry itself.

Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy, who appointed Wade, came to her defense. “We must take much greater care in considering the impact our actions have on Connecticut insurers,” he said. House Majority Leader Matt Ritter, a Democrat, suggested lawmakers were not sufficiently listening to insurers — and then sponsored an amendment to implement Wade’s proposals. He also backed an amendment to strip out a separate provision in the bill designed to compel insurers to more explicitly disclose all their fees to policyholders.

It goes on from there. Please read Sirota's good work for the rest. Among the revelations, you'll find a web of interconnected, industry-connected relationships among the Democrats that can only be described as corrupt, considering the outcomes.

For example, "As Wade’s department regulates Cigna and its PBM, her husband is an in-house Cigna attorney and her father-in-law, James Wade, is a partner in a law firm working for the PBM, OptumRX, named as a defendant in the Connecticut price-gouging suit. That same law firm lobbies for Cigna and for the health insurance industry’s trade association in the state."

Also, that Malloy "is the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, which raised more than $6 million from donors in the health insurance and drug industries during the 2016 election cycle," and much much more.

Malloy is good on many issues (read about him here), but he works for people who want to rob you blind when you most need help — when you're sick and need medicine.

"Do You Want Nice Things, or Do You Want Democrats?"

That's a trick question. You can have Democrats or Republicans, but you can't get nice things like reasonably priced prescription drugs from either of them.

Until the Democratic Party is forced to kick corrupt politicians like "fake progressive" Patty Murray and industry lackey Dannel Malloy (and dozens and dozens more) to the curb, you can't have most nice things — Medicare for All, reasonable prescription drug prices, student debt relief, fair internet and telecom prices, all the rest — with or without the Democrats.

The choices are these: Corrupt, political-shipwreck-causing Republicans who will rob you blind — or corrupt, politically competent Democrats ... who will rob you blind.

Did someone say "brand new Congress"? The next chance is 2018.

In the meantime, it's up to you to decide if control of the Senate is important enough to keep the Senators listed above well-fed and free to swan about in D.C. like they own the place. They may indeed own the place, but they're buying it with your money — and in the case of sky-high drug prices, with many of your lives as well.

("Oh, it's you, Senator. Let me take you to your table — the best, of course, as you requested. Allow me to take your coat. Three people died in your state last week to finance how I'm greeting you now. Would you like to see the wine list, or should I decant your usual?")

Of the names listed at the top, only five are not up for re-election in 2018 — Bennet, Booker, Coons, Murray (unfortunately), and Warner. All the rest, including "fake progressive" Maria Cantwell, are vulnerable. If you live in one of the states they represent, their future is in your hands.

GP
 

Is It News To You That Politicians Speak Out Of Both Sides Of Their Mouths On Drug Reimportation?

The video clip above is an allegory-- a pop culture fantasy of how Bernie Sanders felt when fake liberal-- how did he not know?-- Cory Booker helped the Republican predators kill his drug reimportation bill, a bill killed by Cory and a dozen other Democrats putting their donors before their constituents. Matt Taibbi has been on fire lately. His newest Rolling Stone essay, Republicans and Democrats Continue to Block Drug Reimportation-- After Publicly Endorsing It, makes the not so subtle point that "the one true bipartisan instinct in Washington is caving to rich industries."

By taking such a loud and uncompromising stand on drug reimportation-- even personally bringing Vermont seniors up to Canada to show how its done-- Bernie Sanders forced both the horrible conservative presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, and the far more horrible fascist presidential candidate, Donald Trump, to pretend they also favored drug reimportation. And as Taibbi pointed out, "Drug reimportation would be a no-brainer policy move if actual human beings ran our government. Disgust with high prescription drug prices is nearly universal-- 77 percent say drug prices are 'unreasonable'-- and 71 percent of respondents favor allowing the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada." 71%... that's a lot. Candidates win elections with far less. So what's the problem? Tabby explains:

The entire pharmaceutical industry is floated by a protectionist racket. Drugs that are in fact very cheap to make are kept artificially expensive-- we have drugs that cost $1,000 a pill here in America that sell for $4 in India, for instance.

The means of keeping prices high vary, but include lengthy patents to push production of generics into the future, the barring of foreign competition (usually on "safety" grounds), and the prohibition of negotiations to lower prices for bulk purchases by both the federal and state governments. Without government intervention, the pharmaceutical industry would be profitable, but it wouldn't be the massive cash factory it is now. In 2015, for instance, the 20 largest drug companies made a collective $124 billion in profits.

All the industry needs to protect those sums is the continued cooperation of Congress.

So naturally it spends money-- not a lot by industry standards, but a ton by the standards of the ludicrously cheap dates we call federal politicians-- to make sure they always have just enough dependable people in office to block change.

Which brings us back to drug importation. Trump announced early in the race that he was in favor of bringing in cheaper drugs from Canada and made it a big stump theme. I remember in New Hampshire last year listening to Trump ridicule Jeb Bush for having a Big Pharma honcho as his campaign finance chairman.

"The head of Johnson and Johnson [Woody Johnson] is Jeb Bush's top fundraiser," Trump crowed. "Do you think Jeb Bush is going to make drug prices competitive?"

Trump continued this theme throughout his candidacy. He said "allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options." Even after the election, in December, Trump sent pharma stocks tumbling when he vowed in Time to "bring down drug prices.

" The Democrats, meanwhile, put allowing importation of drugs from countries like Canada in their platform last summer. There were some ominous caveats in the language ("with appropriate safety protections"), but Clinton seemed to make bringing pharmaceutical prices down a priority in her rhetoric as the campaign progressed.

Along with scandals like the furor over drugmaker Mylan's EpiPen-- a lifesaving injection for sufferers of severe allergies, often children, that was being sold for an outrageous $630 a pop-- the seeming synergy of the two candidates' positions led to the hope that something might actually be done about the problem, no matter who won.

No such luck. Trump's support for drug importation basically went up in smoke from the moment he started filling out his executive appointees. Virtually every Trump nominee who would have influence over the importation question was bluntly opposed to the idea.

His FDA chief, Scott Gottlieb, was not only against importation, he'd written a Forbes editorial in 2016 denouncing then-candidate Trump's position on the issue. Trump's Health and Human Services chief, Tom Price, also has a long history of supporting pharmaceutical industry initiatives. Price's former press secretary, Ellen Carmichael, is now president of a political research firm called the Lafayette Company and just a few weeks ago was penning an anti-importation editorial reprinted by the Partnership for Safe Medicines, a leading industry group lobbying against reform.

Back in January, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar introduced an amendment to a budget resolution that would have paved the way for drug importation. Twelve Republicans, including John McCain, Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, voted for it. But the measure died when thirteen Democrats voted no.

I don't want to offend any anti-purity snowflakes who accidentally wandered over to this blog, but the 13 Democrats who should be tarred and feathered and run out of Washington are corrupt shit-heads

• Michael Bennet (CO)- $533,967
• Cory Booker (NJ)- $392,267
• Maria Cantwell (WA)- $176,305
• Tom Carper (NJ)- $487,324
• Bob Casey (PA)- $706,435
• Chris Coons (DE)- $291,700
• Joe Donnelly (IN)- $297,067
• Martin Heinrich (NM)- $193,579
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)- $95,564
• Bob Menendez (NJ)- $809,900
• Patty Murray (WA)- $906,146
• Jon Tester (MT)- $199,750
• John Warner (VA)- $319,700

The dollar figure next to their names are-- you guessed it-- the amount in bribery, disguised as "contributions," they have taken from drug companies since being elected to federal office. The Democrats all claim to be worried about poisons but the only poison any of them are worried about is the poison of dark money corrupting our political system and the fear Big PhRMA will shut off the spigot to their own accounts.

A Coons spokesperson said the Sanders-Klobuchar amendment "didn't meet the safety standards he believes are necessary." Booker said he wanted to "ensure foreign drugs meet American safety standards." And so on.

But we already do import foreign drugs, and have an established safety certification process. In fact, an astonishing 40 percent of all pharmaceuticals sold in the United States are already imported, as are 80 percent of the chemical ingredients. These imported drugs and drug ingredients arrive by way of more than 300,000 foreign food and drug manufacturing facilities that are regularly certified as safe by the FDA.

These drugs come from manufacturing facilities not just in Canada but across the globe, from the first world to the third, sometimes using the same kind of degraded and underpaid labor forces we bemoan in other industries.

The only difference is that at the moment, the only entities that are allowed to benefit from these foreign imports are drug companies. The important ban only applies to pharmacists and consumers.

That's why the pharmaceutical industry works so tirelessly to keep Congress captured. It's not just to protect its many forms of federal subsidy, but also to keep customers and retailers from benefitting from the same money-saving overseas shopping in which they engage.

...[On May 11] Sanders, along with co-sponsors Elizabeth Warren and Robert Casey, offered an amendment to the user-fee bill that would have allowed for importation of drugs from FDA-approved facilities in Canada. As Casey pointed out in committee, the amendment is laden with protections, requiring patients to have valid Canadian prescriptions, allowing the FDA to shut down bad actors, etc.

Once again, Democratic discipline broke down. The amendment this time was beaten in committee, 13-10. Two Democrats, Patty Murray and Michael Bennet, both of whom accept a lot of pharmaceutical money, voted no.

Interestingly, two Republicans from states bordering Canada who voted for almost exactly the same measure earlier in the year-- Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine-- now voted no as well.

...The history of what's happened with drug importation in the last year is a classic example of how American politics works. Politicians in both parties endorse ideas they know are popular, and often get themselves elected on the strength of them.

But once the ideas get into the weeds of Congress, there are a million tricks that can be employed to keep business flowing as usual while giving politicians political cover. A year ago, it looked like we had a good shot at ramping back this vicious predatory practice of overpricing life-saving drugs. Today, absent a major public uproar, it looks like the idea will have to wait quite a while longer. And people wonder why Congress is so unpopular.

In a note from Dr. David Gill, the progressive running against knee-jerk Republican Rodney Davis in a sprawling downstate Illinois district, he told me, "By no means am I offended by your pointing out the incredible sums of money taken by members of Congress from the pharmaceutical industry. No, what offends me is the fact that they do take it, and that they then turn around and protect the drug manufacturers from reasonable legislation such as drug reimportation. It's a tragic shame that reimportation should even be necessary here in America. It's astounding that the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill passed under George W. Bush actually BARRED us from negotiating on drug prices for seniors; we would have had tremendous bargaining power, given the millions of seniors enrolled in the program. And of course the failure to move forward with Single Payer, as I've long advocated as a 25 year member of Physicians for a National Health Program, has also left us in this current situation in which seniors have to choose between taking their medicines and eating food. Many are the days in the E.R. when I feel as though I live in a third world country. Before I write any prescription, I have to have 'the talk' with my patients: I have to ask about their ability to pay for the prescription, and, if necessary, go to Plan B or Plan C, or Plan D. It doesn't have to be this way forever. When we have a Congress that doesn't bow down before their corporate benefactors, it will no longer be this way."

Watch Ro Khanna making his maiden speech on the floor of Congress. It was about drug reimportation and he told his collegeues that "the pharmaceutical industry is a cancer on this body; the pharmaceutical companies contributions are a cancer."

Does Anyone Really Believe Trump Will Take On The Entire GOP To Give The American People Universal Health Care?

How many times have you heard your friends say something like, "Maybe he won't turn out that bad; after all he was a liberal Democrat his whole life. He's on record supporting Choice, supporting single payer, protecting Social Security and Medicare?" Forget it. Just forget it. He didn't let Pence talk him into appointing Georgia anti-Medicare fanatic Tom Price Secretary of Health and Human Services to do anything but destroy the health care social safety net. Trump doesn't believe in anything but winning-- at all costs... and not winning for a team, winning for Trump.

You probably remember the news reports after the election about Trump supporters who took him at his word when he explicity promised-- over and over again-- to be different from other Republicans and NOT take away their health care benefits and Social Security. Last month, for example, CNN ran an outstanding report (video above) on West Virginia and Kentucky Trump voters now frightened that Trump will sign Republican legislation that further devastates their lives. Trump repeatedly pledged two seemly incompatable approaches to health care during his campaign-- to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to make sure health coverage for poor people is even better. He never-- and has still not-- explained how he would do that. But his overwhelmingly and extraordinarily low-intelligence supporters aren't exactly critical thinkers and aren't used to getting into the weeds or figuring stuff out. They took Trump at his word. And now they're starting to worry.

On December 19 Dante Chinni was reporting for the Wall Street Journal that "more than 20 million Americans now depend on the ACA, also known as Obamacare, for health insurance. Data from Gallup indicate that a lot of those people live in counties that favored Mr. Trump. The Gallup data, analyzed with the county typology from the American Communities Project, show that eight county types have seen increases in health insurance coverage greater than the national average. Six of those types-- representing about 77 million people or 33 million votes, a quarter of the total cast-- sided with Mr. Trump, some by very large margins." Buyers' remorse was setting in-- and the Trumpists knew it.

And they knew it long before Colorado Republican Mike Coffman got a taste of it over the weekend when he snuck out the backdoor of a town hall meeting with angry constituents in Aurora, furious that Coffman had voted last week to repeal Obamacare (without a replacement). Since then, everyone has been buzzing about Bob Costa's Washington Post story about how Trump is promising universal health care again, probably, not in conjunction with the anti-health care fanatics-- Pence, Price, Ryan-- he's surrounded by. Trump told Costa his plan, which includes health insurance for all and overturning Republican Party dogma that prevents Medicare and Medicaid from negotiating fair prices for consumers with Big PhRMA. Referring to the huge bribes they pay Congress Trump said the drug makers have been "politically protected, but not anymore." (Keep in mind that the two top recipients of legalistic bribes from drugs manufacturers during the 2016 cycle have been Speaker Paul Ryan and Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. They have worked diligently to protect the ability of the drug companies to gouge American consumers. Since 1990 Big PhRMA allies in Congress have gotten tens of millions of dollars from the drug makers particularly key committee chairs like Orrin Hatch (R-UT- $2,447,641), Richard Burr (R-NC- $1,466,696), Fred Upton (R-MI- $1,378,506). The two men who will set the agenda for drug pricing have been paid off very well by the drug companies over the leaders:

• Miss McConnell (R-KY)- $1,092,822
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $960,983

It's Trumpanzee so there are no specifics, just vague, contradictory promises. "Trump’s plan," wrote Coasta, "is likely to face questions from the right, after years of GOP opposition to further expansion of government involvement in the health-care system, and from those on the left, who see his ideas as disruptive to changes brought by the Affordable Care Act that have extended coverage to tens of millions of Americans."

The objectives of broadening access to insurance and lowering health-care costs have always been in conflict, and it remains unclear how the plan that the incoming administration is designing-- or ones that will emerge on Capitol Hill-- would address that tension.

In general, congressional GOP plans to replace Obamacare have tended to try to constrain costs by reducing government requirements, such as the medical services that must be provided under health plans sold through the law’s marketplaces and through states’ Medicaid programs. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and other Republicans have been talking lately about providing “universal access” to health insurance, instead of universal insurance coverage.

Trump said he expects Republicans in Congress to move quickly and in unison in the coming weeks on other priorities as well, including enacting sweeping tax cuts and beginning the building of a wall along the Mexican border.

Trump warned Republicans that if the party splinters or slows his agenda, he is ready to use the power of the presidency-- and Twitter-- to usher his legislation to passage.

“The Congress can’t get cold feet because the people will not let that happen,” Trump said during the interview with The Post.

Trump said his plan for replacing most aspects of Obama’s health-care law is all but finished. Although he was coy about its details-- “lower numbers, much lower deductibles”-- he said he is ready to unveil it alongside Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

“It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon,” Trump said. He noted that he is waiting for his nominee for secretary of health and human services, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), to be confirmed. That decision rests with the Senate Finance Committee, which hasn’t scheduled a hearing.

Trump’s declaration that his replacement plan is ready comes after many Republicans-- moderates and conservatives-- expressed anxiety last week about the party’s lack of a formal proposal as they held votes on repealing the law. Once his plan is made public, Trump said, he is confident that it could get enough votes to pass in both chambers.

He declined to discuss how he would court wary Democrats. ...“I think we will get approval. I won’t tell you how, but we will get approval. You see what’s happened in the House in recent weeks,” Trump said, referencing his tweet during a House Republican move to gut their independent ethics office, which along with widespread constituent outrage was cited by some members as a reason the gambit failed.

As he has developed a replacement package, Trump said he has paid attention to critics who say that repealing Obamacare would put coverage at risk for more than 20 million Americans covered under the law’s insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion.

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”

Republican leaders have said that they will not strand people who gained insurance under the ACA without coverage. But it remains unclear from either Trump’s comments in the interview or recent remarks by GOP leaders on Capitol Hill how they intend to accomplish that.

...When asked in the interview whether he intends to cut benefits for Medicare as part of his plan, Trump said “no,” a position that was reiterated Sunday on ABC by Reince Priebus, Trump’s incoming chief of staff. He did not elaborate on that view or how it would affect his proposal. He expressed that view throughout the campaign.

Timing could be difficult as Trump puts an emphasis on speed. Obama’s law took more than 14 months of debate and hundreds of hearings. To urge lawmakers on, Trump plans to attend a congressional Republican retreat in Philadelphia this month.

Moving ahead, Trump said that lowering drug prices is central to reducing health-care costs nationally-- and that he will make it a priority as he uses his bully pulpit to shape policy. When asked how exactly he would force drug manufacturers to comply, Trump said that part of his approach would be public pressure “just like on the airplane,” a nod to his tweets about Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet, which Trump said was too costly.

Trump waved away the suggestion that such activity could lead to market volatility on Wall Street. “Stock drops and America goes up,” he said. “I don’t care. I want to do it right or not at all.” He added that drug companies “should produce” more products in the United States.

Those around Trump trying to paper over the differences between him and every other Republican by claiming his goal is "to get insurance for everybody thru marketplace solutions, thru bringing costs down," which is what Sean Spicer said yesterday-- and which, in practical terms, doesn't mean anything at all. Sunday, thousands of Americans rallied for the Affordable Care Act. Bernie led one in Warren Michigan that included the state's two senators, Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, local congressman Dan Kildee, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Elizabeth Warren-- along with Mayor Marty Walsh, Senator Ed Markey and congressmembers Katherine Clark and Richard Neal-- hosted an overflow capacity rally in Boston's historic Faneuil Hall and there were large rallies in San Francisco, New York (in front of a Trump hotel), Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Tampa, Sacramento, Honolulu, Philadelphia, Waukesha, Richmond, Burlington, Orlando, Chicago, Indianapolis, Des Moines (and 5 other Iowa cities), Newark, Albuquerque Los Angeles and Portland (both of 'em-- Maine and Oregon). And, of course, Pramila Jayapal hosted one at Westlake Park in Seattle.

77% Of Americans Consider Drug Prices Unreasonably High-- But Cory Booker And Most Republicans Don't Care

I never had asthma or needed an inhaler. But then I got treated for cancer. Eventually, one of the side effects was pneumonia and, over a year later, I still have a wretched barking cough. I have to use an asthma inhaler. With the only bad part of Medicare-- the GOP's horrific Part D-- in play it costs me about $70 a month for the medicine, up considerably-- like double-- over last year. I ran out of it while I was in Thailand this month. So I went to a pharmacy there. The price was something like $6.50. I stocked up.

Most Americans-- by far-- are pissed off about high drug prices and want action from Congress. But Members of Congress take massive bribes from the drug companies and consistently refuse to help. Last September a poll from the Kaiser Foundation found that 82% of Americans want Medicare to negotiate prices with the drug companies. Congress refuses. 78% favors limiting the amount companies can charge for high-cost drugs, such as those that fight cancer or hepatitis and Congress doesn't care. And more than two-thirds want to let Americans buy drugs imported from Canada, another divergence with Congress. 77% of Americans consider drug costs unreasonable.

Wednesday night the Senate voted on Amy Klobuchar's and Bernie Sanders' amendment "to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to lower prescription drug prices for Americans by importing drugs from Canada." It failed 46-52 and it was very much not a party-line vote, even if most Democrats backed it and most Republicans opposed it. The power of Big Pharma is immense and it came down strong on this vote, pulling the worst of the corporate Democrats across the aisle into GOP territory.

First the dozen Republicans who decided to stick up for their constituents and who crossed the aisle in the other direction:

• John Boozman (R-AR)
• Susan Collins (R-ME)
• Ted Cruz (R-TX)
• Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
• Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
• Dean Heller (R-NV)
• John Kennedy (R-LA)
• Mike Lee (R-UT)
• John McCain (R-AZ)
• Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
• Rand Paul (R-KY)
• John Thune (R-SD)

Those were the Republicans who understood the appeal-- voiced by Klobuchar-- that "Canadian families right across our northern border pay on average half as much for their prescription drugs, but laws currently on the book prevent American families from buying these cheaper alternatives." These are the 13 Democrats who didn't want to hear it-- and how much they have taken in legalistic bribes from the pharmaceutical industry:

• Patty Murray (D-WA)- $893,626
• Robert Menendez (D-NJ)- $795,895
• Bob Casey (D-PA)- $628,329
• Michael Bennet (D-CO)- $506,067
• Tom Carper (D-DE)- $470,674
• Cory Booker (D-NJ)- $385,678
• Mark Warner (D-VA)- $317,200
• Chris Coons (D-DE)- $292,700
• Joe Donnelly (D-IN)- $272,533
• Jon Tester (D-MT)- $176,550
• Martin Heinrich (D-NM)- $176,039
• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)- $173,625
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)- $69,525

Cory Booker wants to be the Democrats' nominee for president in 2020. It helps explain his unprecedented testimony against a fellow senator, Jeff Sessions, this week. Sessions is a bona fide Democratic bête noire and Booker's self-serving testimony got great reviews-- although not from the far right. On his Facebook page Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote: "I’m very disappointed that Senator Booker has chosen to start his 2020 presidential campaign by testifying against Senator Sessions. This disgraceful breach of custom is especially surprising since Senator Booker just last year said he was 'honored to have partnered with Senator Sessions' on a resolution honoring civil-rights marchers. Senator Booker says he feels compelled to speak out because Senator Session wants to keep criminals behind bars, drugs off our streets, and amnesty from becoming law. He’s welcome to oppose these common-sense policies and vote against Senator Sessions’s nomination, but what is so unique about those views to require his extraordinary testimony? Nothing. This hearing simply offers a platform for his presidential aspirations. Senator Booker is better than that, and he knows better."

New Jersey progressives know Booker as a charter school-backing Wall Street Democrat. But... since getting into the Senate, he's literally amassed a voting record to the left-- as measured by ProgressivePunch-- of Bernie Sanders! These are the 10 lifetime crucial vote scores by 11 senators who have all been rated "A."

• Ed Markey (D-MA)- 97.6
• Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)- 97.01
• Mazie Hirono (D-HI)- 96.43
• Sherrod Brown (D-OH)- 96.03
• Jack Reed (D-RI)- 95.97
• Al Franken (D-MN)- 95.54
• Cory Booker (D-NJ)- 95.28
• Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)- 95.21
• Dick Durbin (D-IL)- 95.15
• Bernie Sanders (I-VT)- 95.01
• Jeff Merkley (D-OR)- 94.50

To be honest, ProgressivePunch isn't finely-tuned enough for the tiny differentials between Ed Markey and Jeff Merkley to be meaningful. But you can say with confidence that these are the senators with the overall most progressive voting records. The worst of the Democratic records belongs to Heidi Heitkamp (56.55), an "F" and most of the senators who voted against the amendment Wednesday have "F" ratings, Booker being the glaring exception.

When Booker ran in 2014, he amassed a war chest of $17,718,139. His Republican opponent, Jeff Bell, only managed to raise $569,770. The Finance Sector was Booker's biggest source of funds-- by far-- but pharmaceuticals were in the top 10 and he's certainly counting on them for his 2020 race for the nomination, even being willing to step all over his own carefully-crafted image as a progressive to please them. The video below shows Bernie Sanders questioning Robert Califf, a Big Pharma lobbyist who was Obama's nominee for FDA Commissioner. This isn't a line of questioning you could ever expect from Heidi Heitkamp-- or Cory Booker.

Bernie yesterday: "The Democratic Party has got to make it very clear that they are prepared to stand up to powerful special interests like the pharmaceutical industry and like Wall Street, and they’re not going to win elections and they’re not going to be doing the right thing for the American people unless they have the guts to do that. That 13 Democrats did not is disappointing. I absolutely hope that in the coming weeks and months you’re going to see many of them develop the courage to stand up to Pharma."

Three Ways a President Alone Can Rein In Prescription Drug Prices

High prescription prices are an industry problem, not a problem of "outliers" (source; click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

Along with many others, we recently wrote about Mylan's predatory price increases on the life-saving prescription drug product EpiPen. Then came the news that the interestingly named Valeant had increased the price of a prescription drug it had purchased, not developed, more than 2700%, apparently anticipating a growing lead poisoning crisis like the one in Flint, Michigan. ("Did your kids get sick from eating lead paint? We'll fix them right up ... for $27,000.")

At the end of the Valeant piece, I added a section that argued for an industry-wide — and Executive Branch-only — fix. Don't play Whack-a-Mole with individual companies, I argued. Whack drug prices industry-wide, or we'll always be chasing a shadow and fixing problems only when they're reported as scandals.

It turns out that Rep. Mark Pocan and a number of his colleagues have the same idea. From a letter Pocan wrote, and dozens of his colleagues signed, here are three specific suggestions that the next president can unilaterally enact, whoever she or he may be.

First, use existing statutory power to make sure that drugs developed in whole or in part by taxpayer funds are not monopoly-priced:

We believe your Administration should issue fair and transparent guidelines to ensure the public has access to lifesaving drugs developed using federally funded research. Specifically, you should instruct the Director of the National Institutes of Health to ensure that drugs researched and developed with taxpayer funds are kept accessible to the public by authorizing new competition for unaffordable, monopoly-priced medications—an existing statutory power granted by the Bayh-Dole Act (Pub. L. 96-517). This is an important step in deterring corporations from holding federally funded patented drugs from setting unreasonable prices.

This applies to a large number of drugs, by the way.

Second, there's existing authority to authorize prescription drug importation under some qualifications. Pocan, and frankly, the vast majority of the public, believes this authority should be used, and now.

Moreover, we also encourage your administration to explore implementing drug importation rules that are already part of U.S. law. Under authority from the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can certify the importation of prescription drugs from other countries under specific qualifications. This regulatory action would pose no risk to public health and safety and could result in a significant reduction in the cost of prescription drugs to American families.

This authority, if used, should not be "triangulated" as a bargaining chip to negotiate just certain drug prices down. It should be applied as quickly, as broadly, and as aggressively as possible.

Put simply: The government is not in the business of making sure businesses make money — that's their job. The government has a Constitutional mandate to "promote the general welfare," the welfare, in other words, of the natural humans whose "consent of the governed" keeps that government in business.

(Remember the phrase "consent of the governed" and what it means. It's the ultimate source of any government's legitimacy. When a government is too captured and too corrupt to be tolerated, consent of the governed will inevitably be withdrawn. What happens next is too painful to contemplate, but once started, it's very hard to stop. In my view, we're nearer that point — the withdrawal of consent of the governed by large groups of people on both the left and the right — than anyone wishes to believe.)

Third, use authority that exists, but since Reagan, is almost never used, to curb monopolies (what used to be called violations of the "restraint of trade" prohibition):

We believe your administration also has the authority to address issues within the Federal Trade Commission [FTC] to more effectively combat monopolies held by pharmaceutical companies and the use of patent settlements to block all other generic drug competition for a growing number of branded drugs, also known as “pay-for-delay.” We are deeply concerned that pharmaceutical companies will continue this unethical and unlawful practice until necessary reforms are developed and implemented.

In the old days, the FTC was quite aggressive in blocking mergers and other monopolistic practices. Reagan simply stopped antitrust enforcement.

Capitalism without competition always leads to monopolies and oligarchies, and thanks to Reagan's refusal to maintain competition in our markets by enforcing the Sherman [Antitrust] Act, these formed in every major industry in America, from telecom to food and even the media.

Today, the Sherman Act is never used against the big boys. Big banks have grown out of control. Megastores like Walmart have wreaked havoc on local businesses, while telecom and cable companies like Comcast and AT&T have all of us in economic chains. Even our media has been consolidated.

Look at some of the companies that dominate the marketplace today. Google has 90% market share of internet search engines. Facebook has a 64% market share of social media sites. And Sirius/XM Radio has an astonishing 100% market share of satellite radio in this country.

The next president (and in fact, the current one, if he were so inclined) can fix that almost instantly. Of course, that president would need to understand her or his duty as being to the people (natural persons) and not to the profiteers.

But I have been told that this, by Hillary Clinton, is a reason for hope. So let's consider what Clinton proposes regarding prescription drug prices.

The Clinton Proposal and Its Problems

It's good that Hillary Clinton has a thoughtful proposal at her website (see link above) to address the problem of high prescription drug prices. The problem with the price aspect of the Clinton proposal (there are other aspects) is that it's mainly focused on "outlier" pricing, with this single exception:

Prohibit “pay for delay” arrangements that keep generic competition off the market. Hillary Clinton would prohibit “pay for delay” agreements that allow drug manufacturers to keep generic competition off of the market – lowering prices for Americans, and saving the government up to $10 billion.

Aside from that general action, none of the rest of what Rep. Pocan and his colleagues propose is included. For example, Clinton believes that Medicare should use its size to negotiate drug pricing down, but doesn't mention that this has been forbidden by Congress.

About prescription drug importation, the only mention is "emergency importation." Is the importation authority in the Pocan letter broader than just "emergency importation"? Perhaps; his letter doesn't address that point. But even so, each of the references to emergency importation in the Clinton proposal would be triggered by "outlier" pricing. The Pocan proposal would make importation the norm in the broadest sense allowed by law.

Lastly, the first Pocan proposal, using the Bayh-Dole Act, is not mentioned by Clinton at all.

It's imperative that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump be put on the record now regarding these three specific proposals — now, before either enters the White House. Remember our Rule 47, which reminds us that we'll never have more leverage with candidates in a close race than before the vote is taken. That means we have not many days to press them both on this life-and-death issue.

GP