Dems Patty Murray and Michael Bennet help GOP kill a Sanders-Warren bill to lower drug prices

[still_one]

27. I read the article, and the first 2/3 of the article he makes the case that they voted no because

they accept campaign contributions from Pharma. It was only after 2/3 of the way into the article, he briefly quotes one of the people who voted no, Coons, who expressed safety concerns to justify his vote. He then goes on to opine why those safety concerns have no basis, throws some unsourced data without basic details, but still leaving the reader to wonder if we are talking apples to apples.

What should have been done, is he should have followed through with those who voted no because of "safety concerns", by presenting them with the argument that those safety concerns are already addressed, and why are they still using that as a reason?

As I have stated, Tabbi doesn't always make correct conclusions. The example I used was his view that it is highly unlikely that there was Russian involvement in our election or with members of the trump team. The reasoning he used was because we were lied to about the WMDs. That is comparing apples with oranges.

He should be following through, and if they refused to answer why they still believe there are safety concerns, then that makes the case for Tabbi.