Big Picture American Politics

[SGR]

Who says he's lying?

I think he should be given credit - at least he wasn't talking to Charles De Gaulle. Great politician, but I think he'd be a little out of touch with the current geopolitical climate. If Biden makes it to the debate stage, I hope Ronald Reagan goes easy on him.

[Nimbly9]

With so much happening, why are you guys going with Biden's inconsequential memory glitch?

Because Biden doesn't even remember how his own son died. Between that and talking to dead people, it ain't a pretty picture.  Trump gaffes but not like that so it isn't as newsworthy. 

As far as the RNC chairwoman goes, Vivek went after her during the debates and pointed out some unflattering stuff about the RNC under her watch.  Trump took notes most likely so that's why he's in favor of her going away.

Also, 110% consensus with SGR's points regarding the border bill.  Trojan horse.  People should actually read proposed legislation before lazily making statements like its some kind of win for the Democrats.  It isn't.

[Lisnaholic]

I view the Democrat party line on this to be so disingenuous. How did the Democrats go from "there is no crisis at the border, everything's under control" to "This entire border crisis is the Republicans fault! Look at all this fentanyl coming through!". Late last year, the Biden admin was selling off unused parts that were intended for the border wall, instead of, y'know, actually using them.

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-border-wall-material-auctions-new-wall-approval-1832711

I think the new line of both parties on border issues are disingenious. Yes the Dems played down the problems at the border until now that they have produced a bipartisan bill, but how about the Republicans ? They've been demanding action on the border, excoriating the Dems for doing nothing, negotiating a bipartisan bill and then pulling the plug on it because Trump wants to make immigration a campaign issue.
That detail about Biden selling of spare border-wall parts was new to me, and I gotta say, it didn't upset me much. My understanding is that in many parts of the border, Trump's wall is more of a symbolic gesture than anything and that some of the weakest points of the border are really at under-staffed legit border crossing points - which, I believe - that bipartisan bill would have helped improve.

That entire 'border bill' is a crock of shit, and the fact that some Republicans were on board with it should be a wake up call for conservative voters. There's nothing in the bill that would stop the practice of 'catch-and-release', and Biden's administration has been steadfastly trying to end the 'Remain in Mexico' policy, which was effective in Trump's term, with some success. The bill would allow 5,000 illegal immigrants in a day before expulsion powers take effect. That's nearly 2,000,000 illegal immigrants a year allowed. And the cherry on top? Illegal immigrants from non-contiguous countries (middle eastern countries, Russia, China, Somalia, etc) won't even be counted towards the limit of when expulsion powers take effect:



How many illegal border crossings occurred in 2022? 2.2 million - a record at the time, only until 2023, where we had 2.5 million illegal border crossings.
This is not what fixing the border looks like. This is an attempt at an optical win for the Democrats (because they know that most of the public won't bother to read the details of the bill, so they'll just accept the lies they're fed from media pundits and late-night comedy hosts) in an election year, while the problem remains entirely unfixed (even if the bill was passed). So the attempt at framing this as: "Well, Biden tried to fix the border but the Republicans stopped him!" or "I guess it can't be too big of a crisis, because the Republicans wouldn't pass a bipartisan bill" is nonsense. This bill would have fixed nothing - and there's no reason to think that this isn't by design.

I don't have stats to quote back in return, SGR, but I did hear that many border guards were in favour of the bipartisan bill, and that it made a lot of concessions to Republican demands: more than any previous bill of its kind, apparently. Also there is the fact the Republicans shared in preparing and promoting it, all of which make me wonder about the sentences I put in bold above.

It's typical in democratic society that compromises and concessions are made by all to arrive at "the greatest good for the greatest number". That's how Congress could be working, passing a bill that went some way to fixing the border problem. Even if the proposed bill is inadequate in their eyes,   if they were genuinely concerned about resolving the border issues, they should take what's on offer now, then campaign on a call for "more to be done". That's how things generally progress, isn't it? Incrementally. It's the story of civil rights, women's equality, etc: one advance at a time, and given how near-impossible it is to pass any legislation in Congress these days, I think the Reps should've grabbed at something while they could. When do you imagine they'll get a better chance, exactly?

Because Biden doesn't even remember how his own son died. Between that and talking to dead people, it ain't a pretty picture.  Trump gaffes but not like that so it isn't as newsworthy. 

As far as the RNC chairwoman goes, Vivek went after her during the debates and pointed out some unflattering stuff about the RNC under her watch.  Trump took notes most likely so that's why he's in favor of her going away.

Also, 110% consensus with SGR's points regarding the border bill.  Trojan horse.  People should actually read proposed legislation before lazily making statements like its some kind of win for the Democrats.  It isn't.

^  Dream on, Nimbly !! I'm going to stick to the tv pundits and late-night comedians if you don't mind.
As for the gaffes, I'm not sure how you can label one guy's as worse than the other, and neither of them are really "big picture" politics.
And about Vivek: ok, so Trump got his idea of booting out Ronna McDaniel from someone else. It's a given that Trump's ideas are secondhand - he couldn't even come up with a slogan himself, but just copied word for word R Reagan's "make America great again". If he runs on that in 2024, will it at least be modified to "Make America Great Again, Again" as presumably both Reagan and Trump have made it great once each already.

[Nimbly9]

It's not like what Vivek was talking about wasn't obvious though.  McDaniel's leadership of the RNC has been pretty bad - just look at how the midterms went.

Anyway, going back to Biden's memory.  You think it isn't a big deal, but it actually is because it has literally factored into why they aren't prosecuting him over the classified documents case.  I couldn't make up optics this bad even if I wanted to.

NBC News - Biden won't be charged in classified docs case; special counsel cites instances of 'poor memory'

[SGR]

It's not like what Vivek was talking about wasn't obvious though.  McDaniel's leadership of the RNC has been pretty bad - just look at how the midterms went.

Anyway, going back to Biden's memory.  You think it isn't a big deal, but it actually is because it has literally factored into why they aren't prosecuting him over the classified documents case.  I couldn't make up optics this bad even if I wanted to.

NBC News - Biden won't be charged in classified docs case; special counsel cites instances of 'poor memory'

Too cognitively impaired to be charged, but not too cognitively impaired to be president. Makes sense to me, what's your problem? 

[Psy-Fi]

'A nightmare': Special counsel's assessment of Biden's mental fitness triggers Democratic panic

The Hur report strips away the defenses that Biden's press operation has used to protect him and raises fresh doubts about whether Biden is up to the rigors of the presidency, Democratic strategists said in interviews.

"This is beyond devastating," said another Democratic operative, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk candidly about Biden's shortcomings. "It confirms every doubt and concern that voters have. If the only reason they didn't charge him is because he's too old to be charged, then how can he be president of the United States?"

Asked if Hur's report changes the calculus for Democrats who expect Biden to be the party's nominee, this person said: "How the f--- does it not?"

[SGR]

I think the new line of both parties on border issues are disingenious. Yes the Dems played down the problems at the border until now that they have produced a bipartisan bill, but how about the Republicans ? They've been demanding action on the border, excoriating the Dems for doing nothing, negotiating a bipartisan bill and then pulling the plug on it because Trump wants to make immigration a campaign issue.
That detail about Biden selling of spare border-wall parts was new to me, and I gotta say, it didn't upset me much. My understanding is that in many parts of the border, Trump's wall is more of a symbolic gesture than anything and that some of the weakest points of the border are really at under-staffed legit border crossing points - which, I believe - that bipartisan bill would have helped improve.

I don't have stats to quote back in return, SGR, but I did hear that many border guards were in favour of the bipartisan bill, and that it made a lot of concessions to Republican demands: more than any previous bill of its kind, apparently. Also there is the fact the Republicans shared in preparing and promoting it, all of which make me wonder about the sentences I put in bold above.

It's typical in democratic society that compromises and concessions are made by all to arrive at "the greatest good for the greatest number". That's how Congress could be working, passing a bill that went some way to fixing the border problem. Even if the proposed bill is inadequate in their eyes,  if they were genuinely concerned about resolving the border issues, they should take what's on offer now, then campaign on a call for "more to be done". That's how things generally progress, isn't it? Incrementally. It's the story of civil rights, women's equality, etc: one advance at a time, and given how near-impossible it is to pass any legislation in Congress these days, I think the Reps should've grabbed at something while they could. When do you imagine they'll get a better chance, exactly?

Again, I'll reiterate - once people (conservatives) on Twitter and other social media got a chance to dig into the leaks about what the bill contained, they were furiously against it. Whether they pulled the plug on it because Trump wants to make it a campaign issue or not, the crux of my argument remains that the bill was completely useless, and at best was a symbolic gesture by the Democrats to try to signal that they have any interest in improving the border problem. The Democrats (and Republicans) help write up a bill that will be completely useless in stopping the problems at the border, but shame on the Republicans for ultimately killing this useless bill.

To your point, many (maybe even most) Republicans are fucking useless - a bunch of Bush-school neocon RINOs supporting a bullshit border bill with the Democrats doesn't persuade me at all. I'm sure all those clowns would love Nikki Haley to become president. She'd be good for keeping the foreign wars going. And Mitch McConnell belongs in a retirement home (mincing words here).

And I respectfully disagree. You failed to mention that the passing of this bill was tied to about $90 billion in aid to Israel and Ukraine. So no, I don't want Republicans just bending the knee and taking what's 'on offer' in the pig trough from the Democrats. I understand making concessions and compromising when it's for the greater good, but this bill was a poison pill - completely useless in addressing the problems we have - and essentially legislatively green-stamping the problems we have now as the norm. It's about time the Republican party showed some balls and said: "No, you know what, fuck this bullshit bill and the tens of billions in foreign aid you want, if you're not giving us something that will actually help this crisis we have domestically, you can fuck off". I don't like that Biden has the ability to address some of these problems with a stroke of his pen, but he instead chooses to hold the border hostage over aid to foreign countries. And if we're being honest, it's more than likely that much of this foreign aid will be laundered to back to lobbyists and the like. That's why war is so popular. As to when the Republicans get a better chance: after Trump gets re-elected. 

[Lisnaholic]

^ Yep, I agree with you three in many ways: Biden is too old. I think I said that in the "Primary Biden" thread. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an alternative Dem candidate, and Biden also has this in his favour: he's not Trump, and his government seems to be more capable of governing: consistent good news on GDP,unemployment, etc.

Bad memory or not, surely the big distinction between the Biden docs and Trumps docs is the reaction of the two men: Biden = cooperate and return them immediately, Trump = delay, lie and conceal them.

I'm in the habit of criticising Trump's every move, I suppose, but I mainly mentioned Ronna McDaniels to illustrate that more is going on in US politics than Biden getting his dates and people mixed up. AFAIK Ronna McDaniels gutted the GOP coffers to help with Trump's legal bills, and now he's chucked her out. That's news - that in an election year someone new has to run the RNC when its cash balance is at a historic low.

[Lisnaholic]

@ SGR: I can't really answer your main point until I look more closely at what was in the border bill, and yes it was tied to aid to Ukraine - but wasn't that done by the Republicans ? Weren't they the ones who said "We're not voting for any foreign aid unless the border is addressed" ?!

[SGR]

@ SGR: I can't really answer your main point until I look more closely at what was in the border bill, and yes it was tied to aid to Ukraine - but wasn't that done by the Republicans ? Weren't they the ones who said "We're not voting for any foreign aid unless the border is addressed" ?!

Yes, they were - and I agree with their decision to do so. But part of my point there is that Biden could improve the border situation with the stroke of his pen, but he appears to be using the border situation as leverage to get foreign aid for Israel and Ukraine.

If we have a domestic crisis, as it seems both parties now agree that we do, then Ukraine can go pound sand until we fix our domestic crisis.

[Lisnaholic]

Firstly, thanks for your extensive answers, SGR, which raise several "big picture" issues imo.

Again, I'll reiterate - once people (conservatives) on Twitter and other social media got a chance to dig into the leaks about what the bill contained, they were furiously against it. Whether they pulled the plug on it because Trump wants to make it a campaign issue or not, the crux of my argument remains that the bill was completely useless, and at best was a symbolic gesture by the Democrats to try to signal that they have any interest in improving the border problem. The Democrats (and Republicans) help write up a bill that will be completely useless in stopping the problems at the border, but shame on the Republicans for ultimately killing this useless bill.

Sorry, still haven't read this bill, but perhaps our different views of it are because of this: it would have thrown a lot of money at the systems at the border, but prob more for making the border crossings more efficient and humane: a quicker system of processing asylum applications etc, which I suppose would not drastically cut down on overall immigration figures, which I think is your main concern. That would explain why there are such different opinions about the bill, from your "useless" to border patrol guys welcoming it. 

To your point, many (maybe even most) Republicans are fucking useless - a bunch of Bush-school neocon RINOs supporting a bullshit border bill with the Democrats doesn't persuade me at all. I'm sure all those clowns would love Nikki Haley to become president. She'd be good for keeping the foreign wars going. And Mitch McConnell belongs in a retirement home (mincing words here).

I don't think anyone has talked much about the divisions in the GOP that you're refering to. What has happened to this party that at one time was more-or-less united?
My understanding is that the MAGA wing has grown out of Sarah Palin's Tea Party - now on steroids under Trump's accendency. This is the GOP that has declared that they have no fixed political position or campaign platform apart from what Trump says. Trump has many ideas that are outside conventional Republican policy, and with his talent for lying and mis-labelling things, his opponents in the GOP are called RINOs. In actual fact, I suspect that the RINOs are more like traditional Republicans, supporting things like law and order, bipartisan cooperation and US military involvement overseas. The GOP used to be labelled "hawks" after all. It's really the MAGA wing that are Republicans in name only, because they have adopted novel positions like cozying up to Putin and calling people convicted of violent crimes against police officers "hostages" and "political prisoners". Where is the GOP's traditional support for "the blue" today? With the faction mis-labled as RINOs,I believe.
That, at any rate is my take on what's going on in the GOP. 

And I respectfully disagree. You failed to mention that the passing of this bill was tied to about $90 billion in aid to Israel and Ukraine. So no, I don't want Republicans just bending the knee and taking what's 'on offer' in the pig trough from the Democrats. I understand making concessions and compromising when it's for the greater good, but this bill was a poison pill - completely useless in addressing the problems we have - and essentially legislatively green-stamping the problems we have now as the norm. It's about time the Republican party showed some balls and said: "No, you know what, fuck this bullshit bill and the tens of billions in foreign aid you want, if you're not giving us something that will actually help this crisis we have domestically, you can fuck off". I don't like that Biden has the ability to address some of these problems with a stroke of his pen, but he instead chooses to hold the border hostage over aid to foreign countries. And if we're being honest, it's more than likely that much of this foreign aid will be laundered to back to lobbyists and the like. That's why war is so popular. As to when the Republicans get a better chance: after Trump gets re-elected. 

Several of the things you say here, I'm not sufficiently well-informed to comment on. I do have a couple of questions though:-

"I don't like that Biden has the ability to address some of these problems with a stroke of his pen, but he instead..." If President Biden can address border problems with a stroke of his pen, why didn't Trump already address them with a stroke of his pen?

"As to when the Republicans get a better chance: after Trump gets re-elected.  "
Forgive my cynicism on this one, SGR, but when will the Republicans pass a border bill? After they've repealled and replaced Obamacare? After they've passed an infrastructure bill of their own. Oh,wait - they couldn't do either of those things even when they had Presidency, House and Senate. On recent showing, all the GOP can do is tie themselves in knots over faux-impeachments and squabbles about who their speaker should be. 

[SGR]

Firstly, thanks for your extensive answers, SGR, which raise several "big picture" issues imo.
Sorry, still haven't read this bill, but perhaps our different views of it are because of this: it would have thrown a lot of money at the systems at the border, but prob more for making the border crossings more efficient and humane: a quicker system of processing asylum applications etc, which I suppose would not drastically cut down on overall immigration figures, which I think is your main concern. That would explain why there are such different opinions about the bill, from your "useless" to border patrol guys welcoming it. 

I think if either you or I were border patrol, we'd probably welcome any additional funding we could get. So I suppose to that point, the bill may have ended up making the lives of individual border patrol officers a little easier (which is perhaps why there was support from some border patrol for it), but I don't think it would be effective at all in stopping the flow of illegal immigrants, and the accompanying drug trafficking (and even human trafficking) that comes with it. It is also possible that these border patrol agents who voiced support, like many of us, didn't know what was really in the bill at the time they voiced support.

I don't think anyone has talked much about the divisions in the GOP that you're refering to. What has happened to this party that at one time was more-or-less united?
My understanding is that the MAGA wing has grown out of Sarah Palin's Tea Party - now on steroids under Trump's accendency. This is the GOP that has declared that they have no fixed political position or campaign platform apart from what Trump says. Trump has many ideas that are outside conventional Republican policy, and with his talent for lying and mis-labelling things, his opponents in the GOP are called RINOs. In actual fact, I suspect that the RINOs are more like traditional Republicans, supporting things like law and order, bipartisan cooperation and US military involvement overseas. The GOP used to be labelled "hawks" after all. It's really the MAGA wing that are Republicans in name only, because they have adopted novel positions like cozying up to Putin and calling people convicted of violent crimes against police officers "hostages" and "political prisoners". Where is the GOP's traditional support for "the blue" today? With the faction mis-labled as RINOs,I believe.
That, at any rate is my take on what's going on in the GOP. 

This is an interesting discussion that, you're right, I don't think we've fully explored. I think there's definitely links between the Tea Party movement and Trump's movement (call it the 'MAGA movement', I guess) - certainly some cross pollination going on there. That being said, one of the principles of the Tea Party movement was fiscal conservatism and reduction of government (more libertarian, I guess). The MAGA movement in contrast seems to be more about a sense of isolationism - that we should disengage from foreign entanglements, rewrite trade agreements to make it more favorable to us, implement stronger border control, and put pressure on foreign government with economic protectionism. I think the Tea Party movement was more of a 'principles first' movement, where as the MAGA movement is more of an 'ends justify the means' movement. Many in that movement, for example, wouldn't care if the government expanded under Trump and the national debt continued to grow, as long as they got a strong economy and a strong border out of it. Per your analysis of the 'RINO' thing, it's in effect drawing a parallel between neoconservatives (Bush, Cheney, Romney, Haley) and and neoliberals like Obama and Biden. Different messages, but mostly the same results, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

The identity of a party is not static - if it were, the Democrats would still be the party of slaveholders and traitors that they were before the Civil War. Nixon's sourthern strategy changed the identity of the Republican party for example. Though you may find him detestable, Trump has also slowly changed the identity of the Republican party in a similar way. If we go back to 2016, Trump was able to appeal to blue-collar union member working joes in the Rust Belt, who would historically vote Democrat, while Hillary largely ignored the region while she was campaigning. I think if we were to take a deep dive into that election, and how Trump did what he did, we'd get a better sense of how his campaign platform appealed to such a large number of Americans, and how he was able to make Republicans soften on certain cultural issues that had become a cornerstone of Republican politics (LGBT issues, abortion). When I was growing up under Bush, Republicans were the moralizing party, always wagging their fingers at you with their bibles in tow - Trump shows up and essentially shows the Republican party that they need to change, unclutch their pearls, and start changing their approach if they want to appeal to a wider base. Will the Republican party continue in Trump's image after he's gone or revert back to their old ways? Not sure - but I doubt they're going to look the same after Trump's gone.

Several of the things you say here, I'm not sufficiently well-informed to comment on. I do have a couple of questions though:-

"I don't like that Biden has the ability to address some of these problems with a stroke of his pen, but he instead..." If President Biden can address border problems with a stroke of his pen, why didn't Trump already address them with a stroke of his pen?

Trump did make many improvements to the border with the stroke of a pen, 472 executive orders. Biden also, with a stroke of his pen, reversed many of these policy improvements. This, combined with the messaging on immigration from the Democrats you'd imagine, has led to illegal border crossings absolutely ballooning under Biden - completely unprecedented, and most of the people crossing aren't even from Mexico.
https://www.statista.com/chart/20326/mexicans-non-mexcians-apprehended-at-southern-us-border/

"As to when the Republicans get a better chance: after Trump gets re-elected.  "
Forgive my cynicism on this one, SGR, but when will the Republicans pass a border bill? After they've repealled and replaced Obamacare? After they've passed an infrastructure bill of their own. Oh,wait - they couldn't do either of those things even when they had Presidency, House and Senate. On recent showing, all the GOP can do is tie themselves in knots over faux-impeachments and squabbles about who their speaker should be. 

That comment of mine was mostly jesting. Honestly, we shouldn't need a 'border bill'. We should be able to rely on our government to just enforce the law. But we know how that goes.

[Psy-Fi]

US orders 'assurances' from nations receiving American weapons

[Lisnaholic]

This is an interesting discussion that, you're right, I don't think we've fully explored. I think there's definitely links between the Tea Party movement and Trump's movement (call it the 'MAGA movement', I guess) - certainly some cross pollination going on there. That being said, one of the principles of the Tea Party movement was fiscal conservatism and reduction of government (more libertarian, I guess). The MAGA movement in contrast seems to be more about a sense of isolationism - that we should disengage from foreign entanglements, rewrite trade agreements to make it more favorable to us, implement stronger border control, and put pressure on foreign government with economic protectionism. I think the Tea Party movement was more of a 'principles first' movement, where as the MAGA movement is more of an 'ends justify the means' movement. Many in that movement, for example, wouldn't care if the government expanded under Trump and the national debt continued to grow, as long as they got a strong economy and a strong border out of it. Per your analysis of the 'RINO' thing, it's in effect drawing a parallel between neoconservatives (Bush, Cheney, Romney, Haley) and and neoliberals like Obama and Biden. Different messages, but mostly the same results, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

The identity of a party is not static - if it were, the Democrats would still be the party of slaveholders and traitors that they were before the Civil War. Nixon's sourthern strategy changed the identity of the Republican party for example. Though you may find him detestable, Trump has also slowly changed the identity of the Republican party in a similar way. If we go back to 2016, Trump was able to appeal to blue-collar union member working joes in the Rust Belt, who would historically vote Democrat, while Hillary largely ignored the region while she was campaigning. I think if we were to take a deep dive into that election, and how Trump did what he did, we'd get a better sense of how his campaign platform appealed to such a large number of Americans, and how he was able to make Republicans soften on certain cultural issues that had become a cornerstone of Republican politics (LGBT issues, abortion). When I was growing up under Bush, Republicans were the moralizing party, always wagging their fingers at you with their bibles in tow - Trump shows up and essentially shows the Republican party that they need to change, unclutch their pearls, and start changing their approach if they want to appeal to a wider base. Will the Republican party continue in Trump's image after he's gone or revert back to their old ways? Not sure - but I doubt they're going to look the same after Trump's gone.

Thanks for your perspective on the changing GOP, and especially your reminder, in bold, that parties have the perfect right to change their political positions.

"Trump shows up and essentially shows the Republican party that they need to change, unclutch their pearls, and start changing their approach if they want to appeal to a wider base."
Not entirely the way I see the changing GOP. Trump is routinely reported as failing to expand his loyal MAGA base, and is surely alienating voters who want to see (i) women making their own choice on abortion or want to see (ii) election results respected. Both those ideas have been rejected by Trump, and thus the new GOP.

Trump did make many improvements to the border with the stroke of a pen, 472 executive orders. Biden also, with a stroke of his pen, reversed many of these policy improvements. This, combined with the messaging on immigration from the Democrats you'd imagine, has led to illegal border crossings absolutely ballooning under Biden - completely unprecedented, and most of the people crossing aren't even from Mexico.
https://www.statista.com/chart/20326/mexicans-non-mexcians-apprehended-at-southern-us-border/

Well those stats are alarming and I can understand that most Americans are worried about the problem of mass immigration. I found both your links (Trump border policy and Biden border policy) very interesting. Although the border is constantly being referred to by politicians, I had not previously read much about the nitty-gritty of what is actually being implemented there, policy-wise, and you make a good point that the Dems are over-playing the idea that a bill in Congress is the only way to address border issues. Still, it has also been Republican congressmen who have emphasised that a Congressional solution is essential, until they decided that no, it's better to use the problem as a vote-catcher in the next election.
_________________

On a different topic, I hope your quest for buying a house is advancing ok SGR. I remember from personal experience that it can be a very stressful time: careful calculations about what you can afford, the difficulty of finding an acceptable apartment, then the weeks of waiting on lawyers/bankers, etc to give you the news that will change your life for years to come. Luckily for me it all came good in the end, and proved to be a great boost to my happiness and self-esteem. So I'm hoping for the best outcome for you as well.

[Psy-Fi]

Pharma CEOs grilled by senators over sky-high drug prices

Prescription drug prices in the U.S. are notoriously higher than other countries, a stark discrepancy that Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called out.

The high prices mean people go without the medications, Sanders said.

"How many die as a result of that, how many suffer unnecessarily," he asked. "Nobody knows. But my guess is in the millions."

According to Sanders:

Bristol Myers Squibb charges an annual list price of about $7,100 for Eliquis in the U.S., compared to around $900 in Canada and about $650 in France.
   
J&J's Stelara is $79,000 in the U.S., but $16,000 in the United Kingdom.
   
Merck's Januvia is around $6,000 in the U.S. but $900 in Canada and $200 in France.

The CEOs defended the costs, saying those high prices are based on the "value" the medications give patients.