Tag: fight
Drug Prices

Democrats Should Pick A Fight With Trump Over Drug Prices

Donald Trump is executing a shock and awe strategy, burying the public in a smoky cloud of flamboyant proposals. Some, like ending birthright citizenship, are quickly slapped down in the courts. Some, like threatening to invade Greenland, are dismissed as moronic. But all are radical enough to provide news media with easy entertainment.

The problem for Democrats is that these flashbangs distract from plans that would hit Americans, in Bill Clinton's words, "where they live." Democrats need to focus.

Start with actions to weaken Biden-era programs to restrain the prices drugmakers may charge for their products. His first day back in office, Trump canceled the Biden order to test new models for lowering drug costs.

When Trump ran for president in 2016, he promised to have Medicare negotiate drug prices. Why? It was a very popular idea. Upon election, the vow promptly vanished. Trump named Alex Azar, a top executive at Eli Lilly, to head Health and Human Services. (Under Azar, Eli Lilly tripled the price of its top-selling insulin drug.)

But Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act did follow through. As a result, 10 popular drugs covered under Medicare Part D (the prescription drug benefit) were selected for price reductions by 2026. They include such popular medications as Jardiance (diabetes), Enbrel (rheumatoid arthritis) and Eliquis (blood clots).

In its last days, the Biden administration targeted another 15 Part D drugs for price negotiations. They include Trelegy Ellipta (asthma, COPD) and three big-name drugs for weight loss, diabetes and heart disease: Rybelsus, Ozempic and Wegovy. These negotiations would have to be implemented by the Trump administration. Don't bet the farm on much relief.

Novo Nordisk, maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, has been charging Americans outlandish prices for these blockbusters. Wegovy's list price in the U.S. is over $1,300 for a month's supply. It is five times the price in Canada ($265) and 14 times the price in Britain ($92).

The right-wing argues, as Project 2025 puts it, that government negotiations on Medicare drugs amount to "price controls" that will reduce patient access to new medication. That's news to the citizens of just about every other advanced country. And no, other countries don't let drugmakers charge their people whatever they want.

In Novo Nordisk's home country of Denmark, Wegovy costs only $186 a month. It should surprise no one that 72% of the company's sales come from the United States. We are the land of suckers.

Thanks to Biden, the catastrophic coverage tier for Part D begins when a beneficiary's out-of-pocket spending reaches $2,000. Project 2025 calls for "eliminating the coverage gap in Part D, reducing the government share in the catastrophic tier, and requiring manufacturers to bear a larger share." (You may laugh at the "requiring manufacturers" part.)

It's true that Trump has yet to reverse the caps already in place on seniors' drug costs, and so beneficiaries won't notice much change right off. He's certainly too clever to mess with the $35 limit on the monthly price of insulin, one of Biden's marquee achievements. Doing so might break through the smoke.

However, Project 2025 has its own ideas, and Trump is stocking his administration with Project 2025 folk. Furthermore, as Republicans comb through the budget for ways to pay for tax cuts, Medicare would seem a ripe place to slash spending. Trump did vow to leave Medicare alone. Then again, he vowed to have Medicare negotiate drug prices.

Why would Trump be OK with forcing Americans to pay more than the rest of the world for their drugs? The answer is simple: Because the drug companies want them to.

Democrats, step around some of those rabbit-hole distractions. You have an issue.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

US Mexico border fence

Republicans Only Exist To 'Fight,' Not To Make Policy

The border bill circus is the latest demonstration of a bedrock reality of today's Republican Party: It does not exist to achieve political outcomes. Its chief function is fan service.

The overriding concern of GOP voters, according to polls and to elected Republicans, is immigration. In the ranty precincts of the right, they believe that the southern border is open; that criminals, terrorists and drug dealers are crossing en masse. Among less febrile Republicans, the argument is that while legal immigration is good for the nation, we are swamped by illegal border crossers and must get control of a border that is out of hand.

Whichever version of the immigration argument they favor, every Republican who truly cared about solving the "crisis at the border" would presumably favor a bill that would have tackled — or at least ameliorated — the problem right now. In October, a group of senators including Shelley Moore Capito and Todd Young sent a letter to the president warning that 169 people on the terrorism watch list had been apprehended in the preceding 10 months. In early January, a 60-member delegation of House Republicans traveled to Eagle Pass, Texas. They were enraged, they said, by the fentanyl coming across the border.

In reality, fentanyl is mostly smuggled by American citizens, not would-be asylum seekers. Ninety percent of seizures occur at legal border crossings and interior vehicle checkpoints. In recent years, just 0.02 percent of people arrested for crossing the border illegally had any fentanyl in their possession.

Speaker Mike Johnson thundered that "One thing is absolutely clear: America is at a breaking point with record levels of illegal immigration." Rep. Mark Green, who yesterday announced his retirement from Congress, claimed that the FBI director had testified that members of Hamas can "just walk right in." But as The New York Times clarifies, Christopher Wray said no such thing. Rather, he explained in response to a tendentious question, that he could not 100 percent guarantee that none of those who evaded the border patrol ("get-aways") were members of Hamas.

While the risk of terrorists crossing the southern border is not zero, the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh has shown that the southern border is not a common vector for terrorists attempting to enter the United States.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that most Republicans are unfamiliar with Nowrasteh's research and fully believe the Mark Greens and Mike Johnsons of their party who claim that we are being overrun by terrorists and foreign drug smugglers, to say nothing of immigrants "poisoning the blood" of real Americans.

Would they not be outraged by their elected officials' decision to tank a border bill that would achieve many of their objectives? The base has not been shy about accusing Republican leaders of cowardice and betrayal over much less. Yet on this issue, supposedly the one they feel most passionate about, they are tamely accepting that GOP congressmen and senators passed up a unique opportunity to get much tougher enforcement just in order to give Trump a campaign issue?

Well, some might explain, the average Republican voter thinks that if Trump is reelected, they will get even better (i.e., harsher) measures to keep immigrants out. But that is false.

The only reason the Democrats are willing to agree to a lopsided border deal that gives Republicans 80 percent of what they demanded and get nothing in return (like a path to citizenship for Dreamers) is because Democrats are worried that the issue hurts them with voters — and since Republicans linked support for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan to border security, Democrats would have to bend.

But that political calculation goes out the window if Trump is reelected. Democrats would not have any incentive to compromise.

So if GOP voters believe that illegals are flooding into the country to our sorrow and that we are in danger daily from infiltration by terrorists, how can they accept that Republicans would choose to continue this "unconscionable" status quo a day longer than necessary — much less the years it will likely take before another deal is possible? And if the Republican Party is a political entity, don't voters have a duty to understand political realities, including that this was a unique moment to achieve their cherished objective?

But if the party doesn't exist to solve political problems, if instead it exists only to "fight," then the voters' passivity makes sense. The GOP doesn't need to get control of the border, merely to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas. Lauren Boebert released a triumphant video after the (second) impeachment vote boasting that "Just now we impeached Secretary Mayorkas who has endangered our country by deliberately handing over control of our southern border to the cartel. Now that's delivering for the American people!"

No, that was a gross misuse of government power against an official that even the GOP's favorite legal advisers had said did nothing to merit impeachment. Besides, it was a pointless, empty gesture since the Democrats control the Senate and will certainly acquit him (as he deserves).

The show is everything. Results don't count, only the fight.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Lauren Boebert

Police Probe Boebert's Latest 'Physical' Confrontation With Ex-Husband

A Colorado police department is actively investigating "an alleged physical altercation" between US Representative Lauren Boebert and her ex-husband, Jayson Boebert, that occurred Saturday night, The Daily Beast's Roger Sollenberger exclusively reports.

A Boebert aide told Sollenberger, "Jayson Boebert had called the police to the Miner's Claim restaurant in Silt, claiming that he was a 'victim of domestic violence.' The aide emphasized that Lauren Boebert denies any allegation of domestic violence on her part, and that the events as depicted in social media posts on Saturday were not accurate."

The aide also confirmed "police did come" but no one was arrested, and "a friend drove Boebert home."

When Jayson Boebert spoke to the Beast about the incident, he said, "I don’t know what to say."

According to the report, the incident occurred when Jayson Boebert apologized to the GOP congresswoman following a prior incident, and asked to meet. Rep. Boebert agreed, but only if the meeting could take place in public — which led the former couple to "Miner's Claim, a restaurant in Boebert's small hometown of Silt."

The senior political reporter notes:

Inside, at the table, Jayson Boebert apparently started 'being disrespectful,' 'being an a**hole,' and getting 'lewd,' the aide relayed. The alleged behavior revolted Lauren Boebert, but that seemed to make her ex more aggressive, the aide said. There was then apparently a physical altercation of indeterminate severity.

Jayson Boebert 'made a motion' towards his ex-wife, 'to grab her.' It was 'an aggressive move, not romantic,' the aide relayed.

As Lauren Boebert described it, the aide said, she tried again to keep him back and in the process 'put her hand in his face, put her hand on his nose.' (The Muckrackers’ post describes a violent confrontation, with the congresswoman landing two punches on her ex’s nose. The aide said that Boebert maintains she didn’t punch him.)

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Iraq’s Largest Refinery Ablaze As Militants, Government Fight For Control

Iraq’s Largest Refinery Ablaze As Militants, Government Fight For Control

By Mitchell Prothero, McClatchy Foreign Staff

IRBIL, Iraq — Skirmishes over Iraq’s largest oil refinery left part of the facility ablaze Wednesday as Islamic militants battled Iraqi security forces for control.

Iraqi state television reported that security forces remained in control of the refinery and electric-generation plants in Baiji, just north of the rebel-held city of Tikrit. But witnesses contacted by independent Iraqi media outlets reported that fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and their Sunni Muslim tribal allies had taken over at least portions of the facility and sent home the workers trapped inside.

Black plumes of smoke could be seen from at least a dozen burning storage tanks on local television stations as much of Iraq went into a panic over the possibility of a sustained gasoline shortage in a country already forced to import more than 100,000 barrels of gasoline a day because of high demand and crumbling infrastructure.

In addition to Tuesday’s announcement that the government had shut off the oil supply to the facility — either to stop the output from falling into ISIS’ hands or to prevent the facility from exploding amid the fighting — the German firm Siemens and the security company Olive said they’d cleared dozens of foreign workers and security guards from the complex, which has been surrounded by militants since much of northern Iraq fell in last week’s surprise takeover. The government, however, denied that foreign workers had left.

Government helicopters reportedly struck either the facility itself or rebel positions close by and, according to some witnesses talking to local media, caused the fires.

One executive with a Western oil-services company that’s working in Irbil — who spoke only on the condition of anonymity so as not to annoy the Iraqi government, which he does business with — said control of the facility appeared to be split between militants and an army unit that had been sneaked into the area recently to reinforce the beleaguered security guards usually assigned to protect it.

“We don’t exactly know, because Baghdad has lost all credibility with the oil industry this week,” the executive said. “They keep announcing things they wish were true instead of giving us the information we need to make proper decisions.”

He added: ‘This does not inspire confidence in their competence or their handle on events on the ground.”

Little in the performance of the Iraqi government has inspired much confidence of late, as tens of thousands of soldiers and police officers deserted their posts and fled the battlefield when ISIS — which previously had controlled large chunks of eastern Syria and the western Iraq province of Anbar — suddenly materialized in force on June 9. Within 24 hours, ISIS had overrun the northern city of Mosul, the country’s second largest, capturing huge amounts of military hardware and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars from banks.

Within days, the group’s militants had reached the northernmost edges of Baghdad’s suburbs, backed by what appears to be a broad Sunni rebellion against the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who’s been widely accused at home and abroad of fostering unrest with sectarian political policies.

In Irbil — which remains quiet and under the control of the semiautonomous Kurdistan Regional Government despite a local gasoline refinery remaining online — the loss of the highway from Turkey through Mosul, on top of the loss of the Baiji facility, caused a mild panic. Motorists faced long lines and severe limits on gasoline purchases.

But the oil industry executive said an impending shortage was, at least so far, unlikely to be truly disruptive.

“It’s a lot longer trip now (avoiding Mosul), but the Turks want to make money and can send it by land,” he said. “This seems a combination of both prudent rationing and psychological panic as people realize the conflict isn’t going away.”

Ahmad Al-Rubaye via Flickr

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World