Support NeoGAF

[Condom]

I liked Bernie during the nomination race but seeing how he's voted since has tempered my enthusiasm greatly

This protest vote is a misguided attempt on his part to change the subject to his favorite talking point, which only succeeds in making him come off as stubborn

So you literally want a shill but keep up the image of caring to not feel bad about yourself. I don't know why you would have ever likes Bernie then when Hilary or other mainstream Dems are perfect for that.

I'll never understand progressives going 'oh why you actually stick to your values? I didn't think you actually meant all this'

 

[VendettaRed07]

He's an annoyance like Lieberman.

Anyone who isn't completely obtuse would be able to see they have virtually nothing in common. I can't even begin to fathom where someone would need to be in order to draw this parallel

 

[Ekai]

Anyone who isn't completely obtuse would be able to see they have virtually nothing in common. I can't even begin to fathom where someone would need to be in order to draw this parallel

Enough hatred of anyone will drive people to ignore any contextual information.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Deliberately supporting the creation of new drugs to treat rare diseases instead of looking for generic treatments for existing ones is exactly what the FDA should be doing!

No, it's the opposite. The chief killer of American citizens is not incredibly rare diseases (I mean, obviously, that's why they're rare), it's the high price of drugs that should be available cheaply, which are kept so high because there's no competition, and there's no competition because the FDA is incentivised not to fund generic drugs that could help break the monopoly and bring prices down.

This bill reduces the hurdles that non-generics needs relative to generics, which makes this problem even worse. It's a bad bill, and most Democrats are sucking it up because of the paediatric rider so they don't look like villains to low information voters.

 

[Ekai]

No, it's the opposite. The chief killer of American citizens is not incredibly rare diseases (I mean, obviously, that's why they're rare), it's the high price of drugs that should be available cheaply, which are kept so high because there's no competition, and there's no competition because the FDA is incentivised not to fund generic drugs that could help break the monopoly and bring prices down.

This bill reduces the hurdles that non-generics needs relative to generics, which makes this problem even worse. It's a bad bill, and most Democrats are sucking it up because of the paediatric rider so they don't look like villains to low information voters.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head.

 

[Abstrusity]

Didn't he also vote against the russia sanctions bill?

Maybe the bills don't pass his purity tests.

Yeah, that whole "Iran sanctions thing" that was put in the bill despite, I might add, Iran not actually violating the terms Hitting back on Russia is one thing, fucking over North Korea is the same. ...But sanctions on Iran? I don't see the use in that when we have an agreement that'll slowly lift their sanctions as they relax their bullshit, which they've been doing. I would've voted the same way, at least.

These sorts of poison pills find t heir way into bills all the time. It could've been an effort to cleave more 'no' votes so someone can say "See? THIS senator doesn't CARE about Russian interference in our election!" or "SEE? This senator doesn't CARE about children with cancer!"

The spin, as is normally the case, has more substance than the bills themselves =.=

 

[kirblar]

No, it's the opposite. The chief killer of American citizens is not incredibly rare diseases (I mean, obviously, that's why they're rare), it's the high price of drugs that should be available cheaply, which are kept so high because there's no competition, and there's no competition because the FDA is incentivised not to fund generic drugs that could help break the monopoly and bring prices down.

The "chief killer of American Citizens" is not high generic drug prices. Why would you even argue this? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php

Orphan drug incentives are very important to the way our system functions. Providing incentives for companies to look into new treatments rather than overlapping generics is a good thing.

 

[Lifeline]

What clown. Pfft. Trying to get the pharma industry to make medicine more affordable. What was he thinking?

People jumping on any reason to shit on Bernie they didn't get time to start thinking.

Because he's choosing to exercise those principles by denying cancer drugs to sick kids.

Fuck those principles.

Pretty sure Bernie knew the bill was gonna pass no matter his vote, his "No" vote brings more attention to the issue and how future bills like this can be better. If it was going to be a close call, he would easily voted yes and aired his concerns later.

 

[zelas]

The Senate passed the bill 94-1, with independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont the only ‘no’ vote.

Perfect world purity tests once again holding people back from helping kids who are suffering right now.

Even his evil legislative doppleganger Rand Paul vote yes.

 

[superdeluxe]

Of course bernie voted no, if it doesn't pass his ideological purity test, down it goes.

 

[mlclmtckr]

Didn't he also vote against the russia sanctions bill?

Maybe the bills don't pass his purity tests.

Uh the Russia sanction bill shouldn't have passed anybody's 'purity test'

This isn't fucking sports, there are actual issues at stake here

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The "chief killer of American Citizens" is not high generic drug prices. Why would you even argue this? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php

...you just linked me a list of conditions, most of which can be treated with drugs and would benefit from drugs being cheaper? Did you really think that post through?

 

[GameAddict411]

Honestly, I don't think this bill has any authenticity or there is some fine print we are not aware of. The fact that the GOP is supporting it is a big red flag. The very same people who blindly supported a health care that was sure to fuck over millions of people.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Confused. I have only taken a cursory look. Approximately $2.5 billion of the expected $9 billion in user fees through 2022 is meant for resourcing generics approval acceleration?
In the absence of this reauthorisation though, realistically, practically, what is the alternative to the user fee program?

 

[jakonovski]

I must say that Dark Helmet was right.

Evil will triumph because good is dumb.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Confused. I have only taken a cursory look. Approximately $2.5 billion of the expected $9 billion in user fees through 2022 is meant for resourcing generics approval acceleration?

Correct. Should be closer to $7.4bn, so that generics are accurately funded relative to the proportion of prescriptions they comprise.

 

[kirblar]

...you just linked me a list of conditions, most of which can be treated with drugs and would benefit from drugs being cheaper? Did you really think that post through?

Yes. Show me a study where high generic prices are actually actively killing people, and not some hypothetical.

 

[Ekai]

Of course bernie voted no, if it doesn't pass his ideological purity test, down it goes.

Please read.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Uh the Russia sanction bill shouldn't have passed anybody's 'purity test'

This isn't fucking sports, there are actual issues at stake here

The Russia sanctions bill was a poorly thought out knee jerk bill in which they stuff a bunch of other stuff that doesn't belong there because the knew that in the current climate of Russia collusion reporting not many would dare to vote against it.

I feel like everyone in Washington is losing their minds because of Trump.
Its great that Trumps administration is so incompetent and gets nothing done, but the way democrats are behaving makes me wonder if they got the message.

The way it looks right now they are on the way of losing in the mid term and in 2020 as well.

The only thing the democrats have currently going for them is how inconceivably bad Trump is, but one again this won't be enough.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Correct. Should be closer to $7.4bn, so that generics are accurately funded relative to the proportion of prescriptions they comprise.

Ok, sure and even granting that (and I guess ignoring that generic bioequivalents still require an initial drug discovery) in the absence of this bill's passage is the number not... zero user fees? And the FDA loses 60% of it's funding and lays of 5,000 staff? And both the new drug and generic registration activity slows?

So, since you quoted before I edited. Is that actually a better outcome?
I'm not asking about the world you want, but rather the world as it is.

Also, the vote is still irrelevant, so from a symbolic perspective, again whatever, more power to him.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Yes. Show me a study where high generic prices are actually actively killing people, and not some hypothetical.

Wasn't that the entire argument democrats pushed while fighting the ACA repeal.
"This will literally kill people".

I mean, among other things, the lack of or only partial access to necessary healthcare is one of the reasons why the US lags a few years behind other developed nations in life expectancy.

 

[LQX]

A lot of these shitty bills always have a "fuck you over" benefit attached which does not get polarized so no one knows about them. I applaud Bernie for not being shamed into supporting them.

 

[SinCityAssassin]

Bernie's votes tend to be more symbolic at this point just to remind senators passing the bill that there ARE problems that still need to be handled, I feel.

 

[jakonovski]

Ok, sure and even granting that (and I guess ignoring that generic bioequivalents still require an initial drug discovery) in the absence of this bill's passage is the number not... zero user fees? And the FDA loses 60% of it's funding and lays of 5,000 staff? And both the new drug and generic registration activity slows?

So, since you quoted before I edited. Is that actually a better outcome?
I'm not asking about the world you want, but rather the world as it is.

Also, the vote is still irrelevant, so from a symbolic perspective, again whatever, more power to him.

Which then brings us to the question, how is it that the Democrats let a bad bill come into play, with a heartstring tugging rider no less, with barely a peep? And then proceeded all to vote yes on it like in a banana republic. Except for Bernie the cancer baby killer of course.

 

[shintoki]

Which then brings us to the question, how is it that the Democrats let a bad bill come into play, with a heartstring tugging rider no less, with barely a peep? And then proceeded all to vote yes on it like in a banana republic. Except for Bernie the cancer baby killer of course.

There is a Simpsons episode that went over this.

 

[mlclmtckr]

The Russia sanctions bill was a poorly thought out knee jerk bill in which they stuff a bunch of other stuff that doesn't belong there because the knew that in the current climate of Russia collusion reporting not many would dare to vote against it.

I feel like everyone in Washington is losing their minds because of Trump.
Its great that Trumps administration is so incompetent and gets nothing done, but the way democrats are behaving makes me wonder if they got the message.

The way it looks right now they are on the way of losing in the mid term and in 2020 as well.

The only thing the democrats have currently going for them is how inconceivably bad Trump is, but one again this won't be enough.

I think a lot of the hate Bernie gets comes from this. People are rightfully terrified of Trump and they think the most important thing right now is a conservative-style rallying behind the most viable candidate, no matter what.

More Bernie '16 people voted for Hillary than Hillary '08 people voted for Obama. More registered Democrats voted for Trump than registered Republicans voted for Clinton. And yet people still think that it's Bernie or the Left's fault that Trump is president.

These people are completely disconnected from reality. You can see it when certain gaffers accuse others of literally being Russian shills or bots. They absolutely refuse to even consider that the Democrats might actually have problems that hurt them electorally.

1000 state-level seats lost during the Obama admin. Republican control of congress and the WH. And yet the yas squad is still blaming Bernie and accusing anyone with politics to the left of centre-right of 'purity tests', which literally just means having principles.

Also everyone in this thread complaining about 'the optics'. Come on people. Have your own opinion about shit instead of mealy mouthing your way into a criticism like a cable news talking head.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It's weird though his vote for the 94 crime bill (which he later actively campaigned on his support of it) excused as him voting for the good stuff that was added but now doing that is bad and voting against is good.

I mean I'm open to conversation about it all but there seems to be sliding scale of standards that basically always ends up with Sanders' vote being the right one.

It's convenient and makes discourse difficult.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Which then brings us to the question, how is it that the Democrats let a bad bill come into play, with a heartstring tugging rider no less, with barely a peep? And then proceeded all to vote yes on it like in a banana republic. Except for Bernie the cancer baby killer of course.

This is a reauthorization of an existing program. The program collects fees from the users of the FDA, i.e. drug, generics, biologics and medical device developers, in order to fund the resourcing of activities required for regulatory approval.

In the absence of the program the FDA's funding is more than halved.

It comes into play because the existing acts expire on Sept 30th.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ok, sure and even granting that (and I guess ignoring that generic bioequivalents still require an initial drug discovery) in the absence of this bill's passage is the number not... zero user fees? And the FDA loses 60% of it's funding and lays of 5,000 staff? And both the new drug and generic registration activity slows?

So, since you quoted before I edited. Is that actually a better outcome?
I'm not asking about the world you want, but rather the world as it is.

Also, the vote is still irrelevant, so from a symbolic perspective, again whatever, more power to him.

This passed 94-1. You're having to argue that as it is, this bill could pass, but even an fractionally better bill would have have failed. This is very unlikely, since in between you have bills that pass 93-2, 92-3, 91-4, 90-5, etc.

The Democrats caved here.

 

[jakonovski]

This is a reauthorization of an existing program.

In the absence of the program the FDA's funding is more than halved.

It comes into play because the existing acts expire on Sept 30th.

You address the mechanical reasons but not why there was no attempt or even discussion at improving the drug price situation. I mean look at this thread, people are completely oblivious to the full context.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This passed 94-1. You're having to argue that as it is, this bill could pass, but even an fractionally better bill would have have failed. This is very unlikely, since in between you have bills that pass 93-2, 92-3, 91-4, 90-5, etc.

The Democrats caved here.

As always you are great at making the Democrats the bad guys.

 

[Steel]

Bernie's votes tend to be more symbolic at this point just to remind senators passing the bill that there ARE problems that still need to be handled, I feel.

There's gonna be problems with literally any bill that gets passed.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

As always you are great at making the Democrats the bad guys.

I mean, they're less bad than the Republicans. I'd vote for them. But I am also pretty happy criticising them when they go wrong.

 

[SaviourMK2]

Well, you can't say his protest vote doesn't bring up the issue.

 

[shinra-bansho]

This passed 94-1. You're having to argue that as it is, this bill could pass, but even an fractionally better bill would have have failed. This is very unlikely, since in between you have bills that pass 93-2, 92-3, 91-4, 90-5, etc.

The Democrats caved here.

I was under the impression the user fees for the respective PDUFA, GDUFA, MDUFA, BsUFA, were negotiated between the respective industries and the FDA based on actual resourcing requirement expectations for each of these sectors. I.e. the GDUFA summary indicates that the expected ANDA submissions will be around 1,000 a year and so the user fees were negotiated at around $500 million inflation adjusted.

So setting aside the baby killing amendments or whatever, I'm sure they could have gotten fractionally better bills, but not sure whether there would have been material change to the amounts collected from each sector and consequently the proportion of the total funding.

You address the mechanical reasons but not why there was no attempt or even discussion at improving the drug price situation. I mean look at this thread, people are completely oblivious to the full context.

Because the bill kind of has very little to do directly with drug pricing. It has a roundabout one already touched upon. I mean I guess

 

[VendettaRed07]

It's weird though his vote for the 94 crime bill (which he later actively campaigned on his support of it) excused as him voting for the good stuff that was added but now doing that is bad and voting against is good.

I mean I'm open to conversation about it all but there seems to be sliding scale of standards that basically always ends up with Sanders' vote being the right one.

It's convenient and makes discourse difficult.

There is no defense for that vote. It sucked and was hypocritical of him then ( especially given his quotes at the time and how he seemingly was aware of what he was enabling) and still is gross looking back on it now. And (not that I think this thread should involve 2020 talk but) In the event he does run again, if he happens to be advised by someone with a brain, it would be properly apologizing for it and laying out a plan that properly will undo much of the damage it caused.

 

[jakonovski]

Because the bill kind of has very little to do directly with drug pricing. It has a roundabout one already touched upon. I mean I guess

This all just makes me think America as a country has given up. And don't say about choosing your battles. Because it's not about a glorious silver bullet. It's about following a principle and continuously making an effort. As many have said, incremental change. But you gonna need an increment.

 

[excelsiorlef]

There is no defense for that vote. It sucked and was hypocritical of him then ( especially given his quotes at the time and how he seemingly was aware of what he was enabling) and still is gross looking back on it now. And (not that I think this thread should involve 2020 talk but) In the event he does run again, if he happens to be advised by someone with a brain, it would be properly apologizing for it and laying out a plan that properly will undo much of the damage it caused.

See this I can respect.

Cheers

 

[Big Baybee]

I understand his reasoning, but shit doesn't change overnight. Do what you can now and keep making strides towards the eventual goal. Politically, this is dumb as hell. Dems won't use this against him (I think), but if he actually runs in 2020 and gets the nomination, those will be some nasty attack ads.

 

[Stinkles]

You totally can, in politics. Doesn't matter why he did it, just that he did and it looks terrible.

You're actually both correct and arguing past each other. The why matters and the optics are bad. See the fighting in this thread for example.

 

[KingSnake]

At this point I can see a president Sanders vetoing democrat bills because they don't pass the purity test. He would have a great capacity to promote his policies, given his ability to compromise and negotiate.

 

[Laiza]

Also everyone in this thread complaining about 'the optics'. Come on people. Have your own opinion about shit instead of mealy mouthing your way into a criticism like a cable news talking head.

This is the thing that annoys me most reading threads like these.

Trump should have taught people not to make assumptions about how other people think about these things. And yet we're still doing it. Over and over and over again. Maybe people care less about these things than you think?

But then again, given how knee-jerk a lot of posters in this thread are, I guess that particular line of thought isn't entirely wrong. Sigh. And this is what passes for "informed voters" in this day and age...

 

[Lastgengamer]

99% of Congress voted for this bill? Are they all owned by big pharma?

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

99% of Congress voted for this bill? Are they all owned by big pharma?

I would say they probably all received some campaign donations, yes.

 

[Lastgengamer]

I would say they probably all received some campaign donations, yes.

Probably why America will never have universal healthcare.

 

[Moonlight]

I'll never understand progressives going 'oh why you actually stick to your values? I didn't think you actually meant all this'

you can't understand because they're not actually 'progressives'

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

This passed 94-1. You're having to argue that as it is, this bill could pass, but even an fractionally better bill would have have failed. This is very unlikely, since in between you have bills that pass 93-2, 92-3, 91-4, 90-5, etc.

The Democrats caved here.

And now you are arguing that you can continuously improve a bill until it barely passes, this insures you get the best bill possible. That's not how things work. At some point you either lose the majority of the Democrats or the majority of the Republicans they don't switch their votes one by one.

 

[Xe4]

I would say they probably all received some campaign donations, yes.

So the entirely of Washington is corrupt to the hilt except for Sanders am I right?

C'mon man, this bill passed because those on the hill thought it wad a good idea, and for not because of lobbying. Sanders voted against it because he thought it was a bad idea, and not because he's the only good person in Washington.

 

[Boney]

I love when democrats become republicans and argue it's the pesky regulations that are hurting the children.

 

[shinra-bansho]

This is idiotic. At least Crab understands this bill and disagrees with its speedy passage with actual reasons. :/