Dec. 11, 2019
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
Pelosi’s drug-pricing plan fatally flawed
The House is
expected to vote on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s drug pricing bill next week. The
bill, titled the “Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019 was decried by a White House
report this week, which found that the bill would suppress over 100 lifesaving
drugs from entering the United States market. This would cause serious harm to
American patients with The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimating that
this bill, “would reduce Americans’ average life expectancy by about four months—nearly
one-quarter of the projected gains in life expectancy over the next
decade.”This legislation will certainly cause companies to pull back on
research and development of new and improved drugs—to the detriment of those in
need of new therapies and cures, and to America’s position as the world leader
in medical innovation. Be very wary of these hair-brained Pelosi price-control
schemes, especially if you or a loved one is battling a life-threatening cancer
diagnosis and the promise of up-and-coming drugs are the only recourse. For the
sake of those we care about most, it’s imperative lawmakers stop these
European-style price-control proposals in their tracks, and send a message to
Pelosi that Americans deserve better than a botched bill that restricts access
to lifesaving innovative drugs.
Video: FBI debunked Russia allegations against Trump in Jan. 2017 but hid it from court, kept spying going
By Jan. 2017, the
key source the FBI, Justice Department, intelligence agencies and former British
spy Christopher Steele relied on for getting electronic surveillance of the
Trump campaign had contradicted all of the key claims about President Donald
Trump being a Russian agent that were used in the FISA warrant, but the FBI hid
that information from senior leaders in the Justice Department and the FISA
court to keep the spying going, even after President Trump was sworn into
office.
Compromise on government rate-setting legislation for surprise medical billing misses the mark
Americans for
Limited Government President Rick Manning: “A compromise bill from U.S.
Representatives Greg Walden and Frank Pallone, and Sen. Lamar Alexander on
surprise medical bills, if it still relies on government-rate setting will be a
disaster for patients. It favors insurance companies, who will have a perverse
incentive to remove rural community hospitals from their networks in order to
compel artificially low reimbursement rates, leading to more hospital closures
and limiting access. Bills offered by U.S. Rep. Phil Roe and Senators Bill
Cassidy and Michael Bennet instead establish an independent board to settle
billing disputes between doctors and insurance companies. While insurance
companies may have the power in D.C., they are health care payment vehicles,
not health care itself, and billing disputes should be independently decided to
ensure continued quality health care access for all Americans.”
Video: Barr says IG report confirms spying on Trump campaign, grave abuses of FISA
Attorney General
William Barr to NBC News: “I think our nation was turned on its head for three
years based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped
by a completely irresponsible press. I think there were gross abuses …and
inexplicable behavior that is intolerable in the FBI…I think that leaves open
the possibility that there was bad faith.”
Pelosi’s drug-pricing plan fatally flawed
By Rick Manning
You’d think Democrats and Republicans in Washington could find a way to work together to help people get the cutting-edge, lifesaving medications they need. Sadly, that’s not the case.
The House is expected to vote on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s drug pricing bill next week. The bill, titled the “Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019 was decried by a White House report this week, which found that the bill would suppress over 100 lifesaving drugs from entering the United States market. This would cause serious harm to American patients with The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimating that this bill, “would reduce Americans’ average life expectancy by about four months—nearly one-quarter of the projected gains in life expectancy over the next decade.”
Furthermore, the CEA estimates the loss of these new drugs coupled with the worse health outcomes for American patients would create an economic loss of $1 trillion per year over the next decade – a loss that far outweighs any projected saving from the bill.
According to the analysis, “Heavy-handed government intervention may reduce drug prices in the short term, but these savings are not worth the long-term cost of American patients losing access to new lifesaving treatments.”
They’re absolutely right. Speaker Pelosi’s drug-pricing plan would require manufacturers of the 250 most expensive drugs on the market to “negotiate” a price cap with Congress, or otherwise face a 65 percent tax on gross sales for the year.
At those absurd margins, drug companies would be paying the government to research, develop and manufacture life-saving treatments—something that is simply unsustainable and would discourage the production of new and better drugs for patients in need.
As the Wall Street Journal editorial board writes, “How many companies do you know with 65% margins? The concept of negotiated prices with government has always been a political ruse because the government has outsize leverage to coerce manufacturers, so at least Mrs. Pelosi is transparent about the thuggery.”
It’s not a cheap undertaking to invest in pharmaceuticals that take years to get to market – if they make it at all—and those who do run prescription-drug businesses operate on relatively thin returns.
What’s more, Pelosi’s drug plan would cap the price of 250 brand-name Medicare drugs using a formula based on the average cost of those same drugs in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. Yet, patients in these countries have longer waiting times for lifesaving medicines and they lag far behind in medical innovation. Why would we want to adopt their model? It may sound good to adopt the price control model of these nations, but it will seriously harm our citizens.
“We found that, contrary to public assertions, the median time approval for new cancer medicines in the United States was just six months—and that these new anticancer medicines are typically available in the United States before they are in Europe,” says Health Affairs.
This legislation will certainly cause companies to pull back on research and development of new and improved drugs—to the detriment of those in need of new therapies and cures, and to America’s position as the world leader in medical innovation.
The bottom line? Be very wary of these hair-brained Pelosi price-control schemes, especially if you or a loved one is battling a life-threatening cancer diagnosis and the promise of up-and-coming drugs are the only recourse.
For the sake of those we care about most, it’s imperative lawmakers stop these European-style price-control proposals in their tracks, and send a message to Pelosi that Americans deserve better than a botched bill that restricts access to lifesaving innovative drugs.
The author is president of Americans for Limited Government and co-author with Star Parker of the new book “Necessary Noise: How Donald Trump Inflames the Culture War and Why that is Good for America”.
Video: FBI debunked Russia allegations against Trump in Jan. 2017 but hid it from court, kept spying going
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DmEGuO6WtI
Compromise on government rate-setting legislation for surprise medical billing misses the mark
Dec. 9, 2019, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement rejecting a deal between House and Senate negotiators on a bill to address surprise medical billing with government rate setting:
“A compromise bill from U.S. Representatives Greg Walden and Frank Pallone, and Sen. Lamar Alexander on surprise medical bills, if it still relies on government-rate setting will be a disaster for patients. It favors insurance companies, who will have a perverse incentive to remove rural community hospitals from their networks in order to compel artificially low reimbursement rates, leading to more hospital closures and limiting access. Bills offered by U.S. Rep. Phil Roe and Senators Bill Cassidy and Michael Bennet instead establish an independent board to settle billing disputes between doctors and insurance companies. While insurance companies may have the power in D.C., they are health care payment vehicles, not health care itself, and billing disputes should be independently decided to ensure continued quality health care access for all Americans.”
To view online: https://getliberty.org/2019/12/compromise-on-government-rate-setting-legislation-for-surprise-medical-billing-misses-the-mark/
ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured report from NBC News, upon receiving DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on abuses of the FISA system by the Justice Department and FBI, Attorney General William Barr contends that the FBI may have acted in “bad faith” in spying on the Trump campaign, the opposition party, in an election year:
Video: Barr thinks FBI may have acted in 'bad faith' in probing Trump campaign's links to Russia
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRKFo0JmuBc
By Ken Dilanian
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William Barr said he still believes the FBI may have operated out of "bad faith" when it investigated whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and he contends the FBI acted improperly by continuing the investigation after Donald Trump took office.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Barr essentially dismissed the findings of the Justice Department's inspector general that there was no evidence of political bias in the launching of the Russia probe, saying that his hand-picked prosecutor, John Durham, will have the last word on the matter.
"I think our nation was turned on its head for three years based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by a completely irresponsible press," Barr said. "I think there were gross abuses …and inexplicable behavior that is intolerable in the FBI."
"I think that leaves open the possibility that there was bad faith."
Barr's blistering criticism of the FBI's conduct in the Russia investigation, which went well beyond the errors outlined in the inspector general report, is bound to stoke further debate about whether the attorney general is acting in good faith, or as a political hatchet man for Trump.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz, after reviewing a million documents and interviewing 100 people, concluded that he "did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open" the investigations into Trump campaign aides.
Click here to read the report.
But Barr argued that Horowitz didn't look very hard, and that the inspector general accepted the FBI's explanations at face value.
"All he said was, people gave me an explanation and I didn't find anything to contradict it … he hasn't decided the issue of improper motive," Barr said. "I think we have to wait until the full investigation is done."
Barr said he stood by his assertion that the Trump campaign was spied on, noting that the FBI used confidential informants who recorded conversations with Trump campaign officials.
"It was clearly spied upon," he said. "That's what electronic surveillance is … going through people's emails, wiring people up."
Barr portrayed the Russia investigation as a bogus endeavor that was foisted on Trump, rather than something undertaken by career civil servants who were concerned about whether a foreign power had compromised a political campaign.
"From a civil liberties standpoint, the greatest danger to our free system is that the incumbent government use the apparatus of the state … both to spy on political opponents but also to use them in a way that could affect the outcome of an election," Barr said. He added that this was the first time in history that "counterintelligence techniques" were used against a presidential campaign.
Barr said that presidential campaigns are frequently in contact with foreigners, contradicting the comments of numerous political professionals who have said for two years that there is rarely, if ever, a reason for a presidential campaign to be in touch with Russians.
Barr added, "There was and never has been any evidence of collusion and yet this campaign and the president’s administration has been dominated by this investigation into what turns out to be completely baseless."
But the biggest outrage, Barr said, is that the FBI's "case collapsed after the election and they never told the court and they kept on getting these renewals."
The inspector general report does not say the FBI's Russia case collapsed after the election. It does say that the FBI interviewed some of the sources for the dossier written by a British operative, who raised questions about his reporting. But by then, the investigation had moved well beyond anything in the dossier.
In fact, FBI officials told the IG they knew the dossier was raw intelligence that could be filled with inaccuracies. They relied in part on information from it to obtain a warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who had previously been the target of recruitment by Russian intelligence. The inspector general criticized the FBI for 17 errors and omissions in the applications for surveillance.
But after the election, there was a different set of counterintelligence concerns that Horowitz did not address in his report and Barr did not mention in the interview: Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and told Russian officials in the Oval Office that doing so relieved pressure on him over Russia.
That led then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe to open a counterintelligence investigation into Trump, the results of which have never been disclosed.
In indictments and the report written by former special counsel Robert Mueller, prosecutors identified, by one count, 272 contacts between the Trump team and Russia-linked operatives, some of which have never been explained.
Mueller also determined that during the election, Trump was trying to negotiate a business deal in Moscow that would have required the approval of the Russian government.
Mueller said he did not establish coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but he also said the Trump team strategized about how to benefit from the fruits of Russia's election interference, particularly the disclosures of hacked Democratic emails.
The trial of Trump operative Roger Stone showed the extent to which the Trump campaign was trying to get information from Wikileaks, which had been identified as working closely with Russian intelligence.
Barr mentioned none of that. He said the basis for opening the Russia investigation was "flimsy" because it stemmed solely from a report of a statement by a young aide, George Papadopoulos, who said he was offered Democratic emails by a Russian agent and didn’t report the conversation to the FBI.
"They jumped right into a full-scale investigation before they even went to talk to the foreign officials about exactly what was said.... They opened an investigation into the campaign and they used very intrusive techniques," Barr said.
The inspector general report said the decision to open the investigation was unanimous among those in the loop within the FBI and the Justice Department, a group of mostly career officials.
Durham will now investigate their actions, Barr said.
On Monday, Durham added his voice to Barr's criticism of the IG report, saying, "Last month, we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened."
Barr said Durham's much-criticized statement was appropriate.
"It was necessary to avoid public confusion," he said. "It was sort of being reported by the press that the issue of predication was sort of done and over. I think it was important for people to understand that Durham's work was not being preempted and that Durham was doing something different."