Yesterday, the Senate voted 51-48 to allow drug importation, but the amendment required 60 votes so it failed. The Washington Independent comments:The Democratic opponents argued that the drug re-importation amendment — sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — would threaten the safety of Americans. Yet, as The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank points out today, it’s difficult to argue that position with a straight face considering that a large bulk of the ingredients for the drugs manufactured domestically originate from the same countries thought to be the most unsafe.In other words, the rejection of Dorgan's amendment makes absolutely no sense on the merits of it.
By the way, one vote I'm really struggling to understand is the "nay" by Mark Warner. What really boggles my mind on this is that, for months now, Warner has been saying that his #1 priority in health care reform was to "bend the cost curve downwards." Yet here we have a way to "[save] the public over $100 billion and the government $19 billion," yet Warner voted no (Webb voted yes). I emailed Warner's office for an explanation of this vote, and here's his explanation:
Senator Warner has long felt that it is unfair that American consumers pay the bulk of the research and development costs to provide safe, affordable prescription drugs for the rest of the world.I must say, I'm still scratching my head. Can anyone else help explain this to me? Thanks.
Senator Warner would have preferred an approach that included a comprehensive, global approach toward all of our trading partners – more of a free-market approach that would lower prescription drug costs here as consumers in other nations paid more of the true cost [hence the ‘no’ to Dorgan] while also ensuring a minimum threshold to guarantee the safety and efficacy of imported medicine [hence the ‘yes’ on Lautenberg].
