Drug companies give big money this election Posted by Earl Lui at 11/01/06 06:21 PM

Reuters reports drug companies have spent at least $9 million to keep Republicans in control of Congress. Yesterday’s article quotes stock analysts talking about the risk to drug companies if Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress:

"The drug industry faces the biggest risk (in the health-care sector) in a change of hands in Congress," Prudential Equity Group analyst Kim Monk said.

Polls show Democrats could win a majority in the House of Representatives in the November 7 election. A Senate win is seen as less likely.

Keeping the Senate in Republican control would help protect drug makers by making it tougher for legislation to clear the Congress, analysts said.

Ahead of the voting, drug makers are giving more campaign cash to Republicans. The pharmaceutical and health products industries have contributed more than $9 million to Republican congressional candidates, and $4 million to Democrats, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

One analyst firm even downgraded the entire pharmaceutical sector on fears Democrats could take over Congress. Drug companies, money and elections: let’s hear it for democracy! Don’t forget to vote on Election Day everyone.

comments (11)

1 Posted by george at 11/01/06 06:43 PM

Drug companies are one of the big three gougers of the middle class. The other two being energy and finance. They keep their greed machines going by pouring more money into the campaign coffers of equally greedy politicians. Some of us have known this fact for years. Hopefully, the public will wake up and vote against those in congress who keep robbing them irregardless of party affiliation.

2 Posted by Will Robin at 11/01/06 06:52 PM

The problems with drug costs in the US are directly the result of Big Pharma's buying a majority of our legislators with campaign contributions - legally.

The answer is campaign finance reform. This is also the answer to most of the other serious policy problems in this country. These include poor public heath - despite the highest health costs in the world, an unnecessary war in Iraq, an underfunded and poorly conducted real "national defense" war in Afghanistan and (should be in) Pakistan, a national debt that is a pox on future generations, an unsustainable trade deficit, environmental rape backed by the current administration (with the complicity of many in the opposition? party), etc, etc.

As long as we allow "government of big money, by the big money, for big money" with our current campaign financing "system" all other issues will be secondary. We have the best government money can buy...and it has been, lock, stock and barrel.

3 Posted by Thomas Nicholas at 11/01/06 07:18 PM

It is truely unfortunate that pharmaceutical companies are concerned
with profit above all else.The shareholder is, apparently, more important than those who are dependentant for their very existance on the same medicines that make the companies wealthy.
It is , if not criminal , as least immoral to condemn those of lesser means to suffer needlessly while pharmaceutical companies add to their bottom line. It is also unacceptable for American taxpayers to subsidize these grifters, no matter which party is in the oval office.

It seems these days that greed takes preference over the general welfare of our fellow beings. A sad testament to what should and can be a more equitable society. Why can't we get a better deal?

4 Posted by gs at 11/01/06 07:47 PM

Drug companies and shareholders are "subsidized" by their political connections that set the standard, capitalism my ass it's called "stacking the deck" these "thugs" like the oil cartel "leach" from the taxpayer! Follow the money trail, it never lies!

5 Posted by E. W. Culver at 11/01/06 08:54 PM

The issue is not Republican or Democrat, it is the large dollars to be made by the pharmaceuticals, and the revolving door between the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies. With DOD, the Military cannot go to work for an aerospace company and market back into the Government for two years. This limits the buddy system in doing business, because people rotate out of their position every two years (generally). With the FDA, there are no rules. There is a bill before Congress to control the revolving door with the FDA, but the FDA is fighting it, the last time I checked.

Watch out for the bill before Congress to make your supplements a prescription drug. The pharmaceuticals are losing money to supplement companies, and with the help of the FDA, the pharmaceutical companies are lobbying Congress to make new regulations to make supplements prescription drugs.

Government involvement causes prices to rise. Look at Medicare! Government regulations cause a truck loads of paper. Thus, huge administration staffs, a lot of mistakes, loss of time, all equal to higher costs for you and me, in taxes, medicare fees, and higher doctor and hospital costs, and we pay.

In Congress, we need honest people who cannot be bought, and that applies to both political parties. New Senators and Representatives go to Congress without much financial worth, and retire as very wealthy people. The issue is in both parties, and I have seen it all my life. Put an honest person into office, not one who lies all the time on issues or misrepresents the situation.

6 Posted by William L. Kellner at 11/02/06 06:51 AM

There is an answer to the prescription problem, but one which would never be done, i.e., an enforced national health program in which the drug companies would be fairly compensated for their research, but would be out of business if they did not participate. The same would go for doctors; no participation, no licence.

7 Posted by Chuck at 11/02/06 09:48 AM

I’m 66 and decided to keep working in order to have employee health insurance. My employer’s insurance company, Aetna, has a 90day mail order vendor that supplies me with generic prescriptions with direct payment withdrawal from my before taxes Flexible Spending Account. Also the Health Savings Account has employer match of $3.00 for each $1.00 that I save from my before taxes account. My plan is for my wife and myself for pre tax cost of $24.72 biweekly.

My point is that the primary provider of the home needs to work at a company that offers benefits of a good medical plan and votes wisely, for honest people that appose the tax and spend that could happen with a change in control of Congress.

8 Posted by Gregory at 11/02/06 11:16 AM

I am lucky. I have health insurance that has medication coverage. However everytime I get I an refill my copay goes up. I have been doing some checking. The medications I am on, in Canada with out insuance are less than my copay by half. they
come from here, and are exaclty the same. Same color, some markings. as in control number and batch numbers. Up there they are not billions dollars for lobbyist and to into the Congress and Senate pockets

9 Posted by J. Galm at 11/02/06 07:57 PM

The folks up for reelection like to tout their plans for how to bring back jobs - the best idea is never mentioned: some sort of subsidized medical plans that would help small business attract and keep people, and help their bottom line as well. It is great if you work for a company that has good health insurance, but for maany people in minimum rate jobs that is not an option.

10 Posted by Susan G. at 11/02/06 10:25 PM

I agree that drug prices are out of sight, but Big Pharma needs those big profits.

However, the worst sin of this greedy industry is drug safety. The FDA's Drug Safety Division is a disaster and our president has allowed it to get that way. Set up to protect the public health, it is the lapdog of PhRMA.

I know. My son was killed by Zyprexa, an Eli Lilly drug with NO warning on the label (even though other countries had made Lilly put warnings on), and NO warning from the doctor. My only and beloved son never had a chance, fell into a coma, and died of profound hyperglycemia. I will spend the rest of my life fighting to fix this mess so that fewer others will die (100,000 Americans a year die from prescription drugs.)

11 Posted by Jack Evenson at 11/07/06 11:18 PM

If anti-trust laws were effectively enforced I could very nicely pay for my drugs without part "D" which is a farce.