http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Based on the votes and my own knowledge of earlier positions, I’m surprised at the number of pols who were _not_ consistent with their own earlier views. That, too, could have more than one explanation (changing opinion, Hamburg’s letter, push from Administration, anything to pass a bill, etc..).

Anyway, as conveyed through several posts, one can be for or against reimportation for a wide range of political and policy reasons–some of which concur with industry views (as represented by PhRMA) and some of which are anything but.

From my earlier post, I am not bashing Med Part D. I think it was a step in the right direction. However, having launched and sold a very popular drug, I witnessed 2 dozen price increases within 3-4 years. The price at launch was 150% cheaper than what the drug was priced 3-4 years later, at it’s Rx peak. So yes, maybe mom and dad saved a little on the short end, but the American tax payer payed bigtime on the other end. That is the only point I was trying to make.

Please, let’s get one thing straight, Pharma is against reimportation because it will cost them BILLIONS a year in revenue. That is why they are against it - Not for Safety issues as they keep claiming.

If these reimported drugs are so unsafe, then let’s hire an independent lab to randomly order drugs across the spectrum and run tests to see if the drugs are dangerous. The reason you will never see this is because they already know what the results will be. They will find that they are the same as the drugs that are delivered here, just with different lot numbers and maybe P.I.’s depending on the labeling regulations of that particular country.

I said it before and I will say it again, Congrats Big Pharma, Mr. Ponzi would be proud!

And to my elected officials, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!

Shame on me, I guess. I thought this time would really be different.

To Pharmavet, sorry I got on my soap box at you, you did not make all those points. Hey, but thanks for the extra pudding. I love pudding! Merry Christmas.

What you don’t seem to get is that politicians who are “flexible” enough to move to either side of an issue depending on who gives the most to their campaigns are notoriously unreliable since they can just as easily move in a negative direction if the money flows differently. The most reliable means of influencing the debate is to help elect and keep in office those that agree with you, either in philosophy (eg, those with more pro-business stances) or for parochial reasons (eg, congressmen from NJ).

Also, though it is tangential to this discussion, I’ve noticed that the donations tied to pharma have become more diverse. Interestingly, sales forces tend to donate to conservatives, scientists/PhDs to liberals, and home office staff to both, often depending on the location of the home office (eg, Lilly’s HQ staff tends to be more conservative than Pfizer’s). Pharma PAC money is more strategic, targeting very specifically those candidates who align with pharma’s view, balancing this with the political realities.

Atlex

One way of looking at it is that lobbying is basically the use of the power of money to counteract the general public’s votes.

Looking at it from the point of view of freedom of speech which is the justification for lobbying - one side has a megaphone and the other speaks in a whisper.

However, if I was looking around to find some extra money for my lab (if I were a doctor, and under pressure to keep up with the “jones”)or if I were a Senator and needing money for the war chest, I would be looking around for someone who seems to be “flashing the cash” and start to consider their views; after all, who can resist a quick buck?

So Pharma backs people who just “happen” to be thinking like minded with Pharma? Or is it the other way around - Chicken and the egg in deed.

Oh what a wicked web we weave…..

Of course, as you are aware, correlation doesn’t mean causation. In a “chicken or egg” argument, I suggest that those 20 senators you refer to probably carried the same opinion on importation before they were elected. Pharma is very good at choosing which candidates to support and which to continue to support. While most people tend to believe that campaign donations are designed to influence a politician after the election. More often than not, they are to help elect or re-elect a politician who already maintains a certain position on an issue.

Atlex

Here, in Michigan, the Dem Senators split–Levin voting against the bill and Stabenow voting for it. Both get very large contributions from BC/BS. Neither gets much (relatively speaking) from pharma.

That said, if you look at the top 20 Senatorial recipients of pharma contributions over the past six years (to cover Senatorial election cycles), there does appear to be something resembling a correlation. This is hardly surprising, but there it is.