Today every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus is headed to the White House for yet another pep talk from President Obama in a last-ditch effort to secure passage of some kind of health care bill.
In the last couple days Senator’s Dorgan drug importation amendment has proven a major stumbling block to passing a health care bill.
Whether or not Senator Dorgan is amenable to compromise remains to be seen. This puts President Obama in an incredibly difficult spot. On one hand, the more liberal members of his party are absolutely determined to squeeze more out of those evil pharmaceutical companies. But PhRMA struck a deal early on in this process with the Obama administration and has heavily assisted in promoting the president’s health care agenda.
Will President Obama risk creating another obstacle to passing a bill by challenging Dorgan, or does he throw PhRMA under the bus?
As for Dorgan, if he is truly interested in cost control, then why not focus his efforts on the genuine waste in the system (particularly in Medicare and Medicaid) instead of attacking an innovative industry?
Could it be his only reason for pushing this perpetually nonsensical proposal is that the pharmaceutical industry makes for a politically convenient target that distracts from the really asinine aspects of the Senate bill?
Senator Dorgan needs to ask himself three simple questions:
1. Do prescriptions drugs save the health care system money in the long-term by rendering surgeries and lengthy hospital stays unnecessary?
2. How would Canada respond to US legislation allowing for importation of drugs?
3. Is importing drugs from Canada safe?
On the issue of safety, The Hill reports on FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg’s letter to Senator Sam Brownback:
The Dorgan amendment “as currently written, the resulting structure would be logistically challenging to implement and resource intensive. In addition, there are significant safety concerns,” Hamburg wrote in a letter to Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), related to preventing counterfeit or mislabeled medicines from being sold in U.S. pharmacies.
“We commend the sponsors for their efforts to include numerous protective measures in the bill that address the inherent risks of importing foreign products and other safety concerns relating to the distribution system for drugs within the U.S.,” Hamburg wrote, while emphasizing the legislation does not achieve those objectives.
What was Dorgan's response to the FDA's statement?
He called it "completely bogus."
Wow, now there’s a measured response.
If Dorgan loses re-election next year, maybe he can look into a future position as FDA Commissioner. He apparently has the credentials for the job.
In the last couple days Senator’s Dorgan drug importation amendment has proven a major stumbling block to passing a health care bill.
Whether or not Senator Dorgan is amenable to compromise remains to be seen. This puts President Obama in an incredibly difficult spot. On one hand, the more liberal members of his party are absolutely determined to squeeze more out of those evil pharmaceutical companies. But PhRMA struck a deal early on in this process with the Obama administration and has heavily assisted in promoting the president’s health care agenda.
Will President Obama risk creating another obstacle to passing a bill by challenging Dorgan, or does he throw PhRMA under the bus?
As for Dorgan, if he is truly interested in cost control, then why not focus his efforts on the genuine waste in the system (particularly in Medicare and Medicaid) instead of attacking an innovative industry?
Could it be his only reason for pushing this perpetually nonsensical proposal is that the pharmaceutical industry makes for a politically convenient target that distracts from the really asinine aspects of the Senate bill?
Senator Dorgan needs to ask himself three simple questions:
1. Do prescriptions drugs save the health care system money in the long-term by rendering surgeries and lengthy hospital stays unnecessary?
2. How would Canada respond to US legislation allowing for importation of drugs?
3. Is importing drugs from Canada safe?
On the issue of safety, The Hill reports on FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg’s letter to Senator Sam Brownback:
The Dorgan amendment “as currently written, the resulting structure would be logistically challenging to implement and resource intensive. In addition, there are significant safety concerns,” Hamburg wrote in a letter to Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), related to preventing counterfeit or mislabeled medicines from being sold in U.S. pharmacies.
“We commend the sponsors for their efforts to include numerous protective measures in the bill that address the inherent risks of importing foreign products and other safety concerns relating to the distribution system for drugs within the U.S.,” Hamburg wrote, while emphasizing the legislation does not achieve those objectives.
What was Dorgan's response to the FDA's statement?
He called it "completely bogus."
Wow, now there’s a measured response.
If Dorgan loses re-election next year, maybe he can look into a future position as FDA Commissioner. He apparently has the credentials for the job.
