State's senators on the wrong side

Connecticut’s senators have been on opposing sides during the debate over health-care reform, but last week, they found themselves on the same side, which happened to be the wrong side.

They voted together on two health-care bill amendments that would allow consumers to buy cheaper prescription drugs imported from Canada and Europe.

The first prescription drug amendment, unlike the health-care bill itself, had considerable bipartisan support, ranging from the socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont to the moderate Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine and the far right Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana. It was introduced by Republican John McCain and Democrat Byron Dorgan.

As The Washington Post reported, the amendment would have helped “millions of Americans who are forced to pay up to 10 times the prices Canadians and Europeans pay for identical medication, often produced in the same facilities by the same manufacturers.â€

The senators from Connecticut voted against it.

u      u      u

The second amendment was a phony, introduced to provide cover so senators could say they voted for allowing imported prescription drugs. It would have allowed the importation of drugs only if the Food and Drug Administration could confirm their safety. Senators from both parties acknowledged the FDA could do no such thing, so even if it passed, which it didn’t, the amendment would have been meaningless.

The senators from Connecticut voted for it.

“Do not vote for this amendment and say you’ve done something about the price of prescription dugs because constituents will know better,†Sen. Dorgan, the sponsor of the legitimate amendment, warned his colleagues, but 56 of them, including our fine senators, chose to fool their constituents anyway.

The Obama administration opposed the importation of prescription drugs because it would have violated a corrupt bargain the president made with the pharmaceutical industry to oppose not only the importation of drugs but also to allow the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare recipients and others. As a senator and presidential candidate, Obama favored both measures.

In return, the industry agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to customers over 10 years and support health-care reform, which it did in those ads you saw last summer urging you to ask your congressmen to vote for reform. Eighty billion dollars over 10 sounds impressive, but the Center for Responsive Politics reports that much could be saved in a year or so if people could buy imported drugs.

So when Dorgan and McCain introduced their amendment to allow imports, Obama became belatedly concerned over the safety of “identical medication, often produced in the same facilities by the same manufacturers†and opposed the amendment.

u      u      u

Dodd’s vote is easy to figure. He was voting with the administration and he also did a favor for the drug industry, a $600,000 donor over the past decade. Lieberman, who also received about $600,000 from the industry in past campaigns, did, as always, what he thought best for Lieberman.

You could excuse Dodd for voting against the amendment allowing drug importation on the grounds he was being a good soldier by honoring the administration’s shabby deal with the pharmaceutical industry. You could also excuse Lieberman if you believed he wanted to honor anything at all. But their vote on the phony amendment designed to fool the home folks cannot be explained or excused.

If, as they say, making a law is like making sausages, the creation of this health-care law demeans the sausage.

Dick Ahles is a retired journalist from Simsbury. E-mail him at dahles@hotmail.com.

Latest News

‘Elie Wiesel: Soul on Fire’ at The Moviehouse
Filmmaker Oren Rudavsky
Provided

“I’m not a great activist,” said filmmaker Oren Rudavsky, humbly. “I do my work in my own quiet way, and I hope that it speaks to people.”

Rudavsky’s film “Elie Wiesel: Soul on Fire,” screens at The Moviehouse in Millerton on Saturday, Jan. 18, followed by a post-film conversation with Rudavsky and moderator Ileene Smith.

Keep ReadingShow less
Marietta Whittlesey on writing, psychology and reinvention

Marietta Whittlesey

Elena Spellman

When writer and therapist Marietta Whittlesey moved to Salisbury in 1979, she had already published two nonfiction books and assumed she would eventually become a fiction writer like her mother, whose screenplays and short stories were widely published in the 1940s.

“But one day, after struggling to freelance magazine articles and propose new books, it occurred to me that I might not be the next Edith Wharton who could support myself as a fiction writer, and there were a lot of things I wanted to do in life, all of which cost money.” Those things included resuming competitive horseback riding.

Keep ReadingShow less
From the tide pool to the stars:  Peter Gerakaris’ ‘Oculus Serenade’

Artist Peter Gerakaris in his studio in Cornwall.

Provided

Opening Jan. 17 at the Cornwall Library, Peter Gerakaris’ show “Oculus Serenade” takes its cue from a favorite John Steinbeck line of the artist’s: “It is advisable to look from the tide pool to the stars and then back to the tide pool again.” That oscillation between the intimate and the infinite animates Gerakaris’ vivid tondo (round) paintings, works on paper and mosaic forms, each a kind of luminous portal into the interconnectedness of life.

Gerakaris describes his compositions as “merging microscopic and macroscopic perspectives” by layering endangered botanicals, exotic birds, aquatic life and topographical forms into kaleidoscopic, reverberating worlds. Drawing on his firsthand experiences trekking through semitropical jungles, diving coral reefs and hiking along the Housatonic, Gerakaris composes images that feel both transportive and deeply rooted in observation. A musician as well as a visual artist, he describes his use of color as vibrational — each work humming with what curator Simon Watson has likened to “visual jazz.”

Keep ReadingShow less