Bergman owes explanation for no vote on drug cost bill

U.S. House Resolution 3, the “Elijah Cummings” Lower Drug Costs Now Act, passed the House by a 230-192 vote.

The Bill now goes to the Senate. Patently nonpartisan, HR 3 proposes to limit prices on prescription drugs, place an excise tax on drug corporation profits, limit increases in Medicare drug spending, and apply additional benefits resulting from cost savings.

Who possibly could be opposed to that?

Well, unfortunately, our 1st Congressional District Congressman Jack Bergman-R, Watersmeet, recorded a “NO” vote.

Having exercised my right, if not obligation, as a constituent to respectfully request an explanation for Mr. Bergman’s negative vote, it thus far remains without acknowledgment by Mr. Bergman or his staff.

Disappointing as Mr. Bergman’s vote is, it’s my understanding that members of Congress are elected to the “People’s House” to work for all the people they’re charged with representing, regardless of political preference, for better or worse. As a 1st District constituent, I expect the simple courtesy of a definitive, transparent explanation so I might better understand the reasoning for Mr. Bergman’s curious opposition to a crucial piece of legislation proposing to put the brakes on big pharma.

It seems reasonable to ask the congressman to be forthcoming, since he doesn’t mention it in his frequent e-mail bulletins trumpeting his achievements for the people of the 1st District. Spiraling prescription drug costs negatively affects everyone’s budget, disproportionately for the insulin-dependent and elderly, and doesn’t discriminate based on political preference.




Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)