3 ms·

What's interesting is the fact that the opioid crisis is a result of a couple of ultra-rich guys wanting to be even richer. Trump appears to be surrounded by pe

What's interesting is the fact that the opioid crisis is a result of a couple of ultra-rich guys wanting to be even richer. Trump appears to be surrounded by people who are willing to sacrifice public health for their private excessive wealth. [0] It would be nice if common people understood why their health care system makes fun of them (and why cheap and powerful substances such as psilocybin, MDMA, LSD are actively being blocked from receiving the required research funding). [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41643080 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41643080

saiya-jin 9y ago
this is not related to Trump, companies/lobbyists behind this are in business for a long time, regardless of who sits in white house. and since no recent changed anything, you can as easily blame Obama, and maybe even Bush jr. why do people still believe that US presidents hold all the real power in the country? that doesn't even make sense.
adventured 9y ago
Interestingly this just hit the wire a few minutes ago: "Rep. Tom Marino withdraws from consideration as drug czar following uproar over his role in opioid legislation" https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/trump-says-rep-tom-marino-withdraws-his-name-from-consideration-as-drug-czar.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/trump-says-rep-tom-marino-wi...
kolbe 9y ago
Trump was the one who socialized payments to drug companies? I thought that was GWB (part D) and Obama (ACA)?
- soundwave106 9y ago
  The current "headline" story being referred to here centers around drug companies deliberately lobbying Congress to ensure that the DEA's ability to suspend suspicious opioid orders was weakened (the "Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act"). The Washington Post and 60 Minutes broke the story -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/dea-drug-industry-congress/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/... The story concerns legislation and lobbying between 2014 and 2016, eg, legislation passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Barack Obama. Joseph Rannazzisi, who used to run the DEA's diversion control before "retiring" due to conflict over this very issue, seems to be the big driving force in the reporting. It does seem that Mr. Rannazzisi riled Congress and pharma companies with his characterizations and rather aggressive stance (for instance, in the article, Mr. Rannazzisi characterized the main difference between pharma execs and heroin / cocaine dealers is that they "didn’t have a class ring on their finger from a prestigious university"). From my viewpoint, though, Mr. Rannazzisi's views are quite justified. To be fair: there is another side to the story, as mentioned in older articles on this. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/opioid-dea-addiction.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/opioid-dea-ad... ). Some balance does need to exist between people who legitimately need opioids for pain management. Still, the article suggests that there is far too cozy of a relationship between pharmaceutical companies and Congress. The fact that the response to this article seems to be a lot of backpedaling, nominee withdrawals, and "no comments" suggests to me there's a huge amount of truth in it.

saiya-jin 9y ago

this is not related to Trump, companies/lobbyists behind this are in business for a long time, regardless of who sits in white house. and since no recent changed anything, you can as easily blame Obama, and maybe even Bush jr. why do people still believe that US presidents hold all the real power in the country? that doesn't even make sense.

adventured 9y ago

Interestingly this just hit the wire a few minutes ago: "Rep. Tom Marino withdraws from consideration as drug czar following uproar over his role in opioid legislation" https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/trump-says-rep-tom-marino-withdraws-his-name-from-consideration-as-drug-czar.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/trump-says-rep-tom-marino-wi...

kolbe 9y ago

Trump was the one who socialized payments to drug companies? I thought that was GWB (part D) and Obama (ACA)?

soundwave106 9y ago
The current "headline" story being referred to here centers around drug companies deliberately lobbying Congress to ensure that the DEA's ability to suspend suspicious opioid orders was weakened (the "Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act"). The Washington Post and 60 Minutes broke the story -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/dea-drug-industry-congress/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/... The story concerns legislation and lobbying between 2014 and 2016, eg, legislation passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Barack Obama. Joseph Rannazzisi, who used to run the DEA's diversion control before "retiring" due to conflict over this very issue, seems to be the big driving force in the reporting. It does seem that Mr. Rannazzisi riled Congress and pharma companies with his characterizations and rather aggressive stance (for instance, in the article, Mr. Rannazzisi characterized the main difference between pharma execs and heroin / cocaine dealers is that they "didn’t have a class ring on their finger from a prestigious university"). From my viewpoint, though, Mr. Rannazzisi's views are quite justified. To be fair: there is another side to the story, as mentioned in older articles on this. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/opioid-dea-addiction.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/opioid-dea-ad... ). Some balance does need to exist between people who legitimately need opioids for pain management. Still, the article suggests that there is far too cozy of a relationship between pharmaceutical companies and Congress. The fact that the response to this article seems to be a lot of backpedaling, nominee withdrawals, and "no comments" suggests to me there's a huge amount of truth in it.