4 ms·
Big Pharma gave $9M to dark money groups to fight drug pricing reform
- twoodfin 3y ago$9M in the context of the economic impact of these price controls is peanuts.
- kristianp 3y agoIt's a small price to pay to subvert the democratic process to your advantage.
- twoodfin 3y agoWhat was subversive about spending money to get ads run arguing on a live policy question?
- yieldcrv 3y ago“dark money” is the boogeyman word for PAC, typically formed as 501(c)4 non profit corporations juvenile terms limit the public’s ability to understand them and effectively exercise any sentiment for or against them
- RamblingCTO 3y agoIt's just a normal pattern. You also have dark pools. It's nothing shady, it's just intransparent economy.
- pfisherman 3y agoI do not think it is a secret that most pharma companies are vehemently opposed to the drug pricing provisions in the inflation reduction act. I would be surprised if the lobbying spend across industry is not much more than $9M.
- mattmaroon 3y agoBy orders of magnitude, there’s no way an industry that large only spent a few million trying to protect itself.
- pfisherman 3y agoExactly. The article only mentions spending by PhRMA. While they are the biggest, there are other trade groups out there. Also, all of the big pharma companies have their own individual PACs. For example, Sanofi individually spent $4.77M lobbying efforts in the US apart from any contributions to trade groups. PDF warning: https://www.sanofi.com/assets/dotcom/content-app/documents/Lobbying-4.pdf https://www.sanofi.com/assets/dotcom/content-app/documents/L...
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago>an industry that large For perspective, weren't the sales from one drug just in the US alone enough the boost the entire economy of Denmark?
- saiya-jin 3y agoFor a second or two I've read 9B, like OK a bit bigger sum than usual but this is fight about core of their business (screw everybody while they can since people generally don't like dying or suffering). 9M is peanuts, it may give you few votes on a matter or two but it doesn't move the big picture a bit.
- johndhi 3y agoI wonder whether dark money also paid for this article? Dark money sounds like all political funding to me understanding of how these things work
- sunshine_reggae 3y agoAnd people continue to blindly trust big pharma with their health. What other proof of deep corruption is needed?
- dumbo-octopus 3y agoNah, people blindly trust "The Science". It's just that "The Science" happens to be funded by big pharma, and only releases results that are in line with what the boards of big pharma want people to think. Edit: and of course, any science besides "The Science" is "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories".
- p_j_w 3y agoYou shouldn’t be getting your info from Brett Weinstein.
- dumbo-octopus 3y agoTo respond in good faith: please try to make an actual argument rather than resorting to an ad hominum. Elsewise you do nothing but prove my point further.
- p_j_w 3y agoIm sorry, are you actually getting upset that someone responded to your snarky comment with snark? Get serious.
- dumbo-octopus 3y agoJust trying to help you prove your point instead of mine :)
- mattmaroon 3y agoThat’s a strange straw man i see often. People say this but I’ve yet to meet a single person who trusts big pharma. Anywhere. Who exactly are you referring to? I think many of us trust that the system of trials set up with first world regulatory agencies is a whole lot better than the previous method of vetting drugs (I.e. the snake oil method of most of human history). When I take a drug, there’s a high (but not 100%) chance it is not unsafe and is effective, relative to what would exist without regulation. And that’s about it. But even that is merely trust in the regulators to do a better job on the whole than no regulators. It’s got little to do with trusting pharma cos. All I trust them to do is maximize profits like any other corp and I don’t think anyone else trusts them any more.
- aurizon 3y agoBig Pharma - add Big Doctor, Big Hospital and Big Insure to the frantic lobbyers against health reform. One would thingk with health costs 50-60% higher than the next lower spending country that all US residents would live 50-60% longer...(LOL, I know it is not linear) but if you measure longevity, the USA ranks near Cuba(which has good health care for a lot less than the USA), 10 away from each other in the top 100. https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/ https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/
- deelowe 3y agoI suggest talking to a few doctors before lumping them in with the rest.
- aurizon 3y agoYes, they vary. The bad ones sell to a corporate office structure to deal with data flows = maximise take home. Killing off vets and dental practices the same way - into corporate holding company. Ever why vet bills up 15-20% annually for 5 years now?
- triceratops 3y agoBig Doctor presumably refers to the lobby that limits the number of new doctors. Not individual doctors.
- aurizon 3y agoyes, the schools are strictly limited to make doctors scarce = high prices.
- willcipriano 3y agoI'd suggest doctors choose better company if they dont wish to be associated with their current companions.
- hulitu 3y agoThe good news is that we, in EU, are trying to catch up with US on this issue. And of course, corru^Wlobbying has nothing to do with this. /s
- csharpminor 3y agoMany people will exclaim, "only $9M!?" It's probably true that this amount is underestimated. But it's also true that incumbent politicians are very cheap. For example, a $10,000 donation obscures that the lobbying group might also have threatened to donate millions to a competitor in the next election. Most incumbents stay in office not by advancing any particular policy, but by not making themselves an enemy of interests that could mount a campaign to replace them.