The Senate votes to allow cheaper drugs into the country, the greatest beneficiaries would be our cash strapped seniors, but the Bush Administration says no!
By Stewart Nusbaumer
With the prices of prescription drugs skyrocketing, driving many fixed income seniors into poverty, straining the budgets of other Americans, the Bush Administration promises to veto a bill that would lower drug prices.
Using the war on terrorism as justification, the Administration strongly rejects the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. Many Democratic legislators charge that the Administration is favoring the industry's high profits over the critical needs of Americans.
The Senate vote yesterday, a lopsided 62 to 28, was for a bill that would permit pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from Canada and resell them in the United States. According to the vote, then, Senators overwhelmingly support American consumers and want them to benefit from lower Canadian drug prices.
“The U.S. consumer pays the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs,” said Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, who offered the Senate plan on drug imports. “We should and must put some downward pressure on drug prices.”
For years lawmakers have attempted to ease the strict rules that prohibit drug imports unless they have been authorized by the manufacturer, with Democrats such as Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts leading the effort. Although Republicans generally advocate a free market, in this case they actually want to prohibit the free flow of products.
“The reason the Republicans won’t allow cheaper drugs from Canada,” a Washington lobbyist, who insisted on remaining anonymous, said to this reporter, “is because the pharmaceutical companies make huge financial contributions to their election campaigns. It’s as simple as being bought off.”
This is the second time in less than one year that the Senate has voted to allow the resale of Canadian drugs in this country. The House previously voted for legislation like the Senate bill.
“In both chambers,” the lobbyist said, “many Republicans vote to allow the importation of Canadian drugs to cover themselves politically, while knowing the Bush Administration will reject the bill.”
For the new Senate proposal to become law, it must be declared that the imported drugs would pose no risk to public health, which the Bush Administration says it will not agree to.
The commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Mark Mclellan, informed the Senate in a letter that his agency “cannot guarantee the safety of Canadian drugs.” He wrote that allowing such drugs into the United States would create “a wide inlet for counterfeit drugs and other dangerous products that are potentially injurious to the public health.”
Republican Senators, including Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania, and Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader in the Senate, denounced the proposal to purchase cheaper prescription drugs, objecting to government interference in the free market and risks of terrorists using Canada as a portal into the United States.
The pharmaceutical manufacturers also denounced the plan to allow Americans to purchase cheaper drugs. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the trade association for brand-name drug companies, rejected Senator Dorgan's proposal citing the threat of terrorists and counterfeiters.
A recent report from the Congressional Research Service, however, found that, “The statutory requirements for approving and marketing pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada are, in general, quite similar.” Like the United States, Canada has rules and procedures to control the “chain of custody” of prescription drugs from factory to pharmacy, the report said. This is what Senator Dorgan and nearly all Democrats have been saving: the safety risks to Americans were minimal.
The real reason the Bush Administration rejects cheaper drugs for Americans is not because of any threat, but to insure that it receives more campaign money from drug manufacturers. Again, we are witnessing the best democracy money can buy, and who must pay the high cost is the public, especially our senior citizens.
Stewart Nusbaumer is editor of Intervention Magazine.
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2003
By Stewart Nusbaumer
With the prices of prescription drugs skyrocketing, driving many fixed income seniors into poverty, straining the budgets of other Americans, the Bush Administration promises to veto a bill that would lower drug prices.
Using the war on terrorism as justification, the Administration strongly rejects the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. Many Democratic legislators charge that the Administration is favoring the industry's high profits over the critical needs of Americans.
The Senate vote yesterday, a lopsided 62 to 28, was for a bill that would permit pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from Canada and resell them in the United States. According to the vote, then, Senators overwhelmingly support American consumers and want them to benefit from lower Canadian drug prices.
“The U.S. consumer pays the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs,” said Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, who offered the Senate plan on drug imports. “We should and must put some downward pressure on drug prices.”
For years lawmakers have attempted to ease the strict rules that prohibit drug imports unless they have been authorized by the manufacturer, with Democrats such as Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts leading the effort. Although Republicans generally advocate a free market, in this case they actually want to prohibit the free flow of products.
“The reason the Republicans won’t allow cheaper drugs from Canada,” a Washington lobbyist, who insisted on remaining anonymous, said to this reporter, “is because the pharmaceutical companies make huge financial contributions to their election campaigns. It’s as simple as being bought off.”
This is the second time in less than one year that the Senate has voted to allow the resale of Canadian drugs in this country. The House previously voted for legislation like the Senate bill.
“In both chambers,” the lobbyist said, “many Republicans vote to allow the importation of Canadian drugs to cover themselves politically, while knowing the Bush Administration will reject the bill.”
For the new Senate proposal to become law, it must be declared that the imported drugs would pose no risk to public health, which the Bush Administration says it will not agree to.
The commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Mark Mclellan, informed the Senate in a letter that his agency “cannot guarantee the safety of Canadian drugs.” He wrote that allowing such drugs into the United States would create “a wide inlet for counterfeit drugs and other dangerous products that are potentially injurious to the public health.”
Republican Senators, including Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania, and Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader in the Senate, denounced the proposal to purchase cheaper prescription drugs, objecting to government interference in the free market and risks of terrorists using Canada as a portal into the United States.
The pharmaceutical manufacturers also denounced the plan to allow Americans to purchase cheaper drugs. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the trade association for brand-name drug companies, rejected Senator Dorgan's proposal citing the threat of terrorists and counterfeiters.
A recent report from the Congressional Research Service, however, found that, “The statutory requirements for approving and marketing pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada are, in general, quite similar.” Like the United States, Canada has rules and procedures to control the “chain of custody” of prescription drugs from factory to pharmacy, the report said. This is what Senator Dorgan and nearly all Democrats have been saving: the safety risks to Americans were minimal.
The real reason the Bush Administration rejects cheaper drugs for Americans is not because of any threat, but to insure that it receives more campaign money from drug manufacturers. Again, we are witnessing the best democracy money can buy, and who must pay the high cost is the public, especially our senior citizens.
Stewart Nusbaumer is editor of Intervention Magazine.
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2003
