With new drug pricing order, Trump flirts with socialized medicine

With new drug pricing order, Trump flirts with socialized medicine

BY MERRILL MATTHEWS

President Trump’s recent executive order on drug prices gets almost everything right — except the solution. Ironically, that solution moves the United States toward socialized medicine, which the president vociferously opposes.

The order says, “Americans pay more per capita for prescription drugs than residents of any other developed country.” That’s certainly true for most brand name drugs, though Americans typically pay much less for generic drugs, which account for about 90 percent of all U.S. prescriptions — a fact often ignored in the health policy debates.

The EO is also correct that “Americans pay more for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same places.” As a result, Americans “finance much of the biopharmaceutical innovation that the world depends on.” https://d0a997f558a95ead2e8d0c2375aca6dd.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-4&p=https%3A//thehill.com

But Trump’s executive order won’t fix these problems. It will only make it as hard for American patients to obtain the newest, cutting-edge drugs as it is for many patients in foreign countries the president wants to emulate. 

The order forbids Medicare from paying more for drugs than the lowest price available in any member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), after adjusting for per-capita income. Trump calls it a “most-favored-nation price.” 

The order claims those nations enjoy low drug prices because they “negotiate” with pharmaceutical manufacturers. But what the order describes as a negotiation is more akin to a hostage-taking — with their own citizens held for ransom. 

Bureaucrats in those nations’ systems – most of which are largely or completely controlled by the government – often refuse to cover drugs unless manufacturers sell the medicines far below fair-market prices. 

In Canada, for example, just 46 percent of new drugs approved worldwide between 2011 and 2018 are actually available to Canadian patients. And the average delay between approval and availability in Canada is 15 months. In the United Kingdom, it’s 59 percent and 18 months.https://d0a997f558a95ead2e8d0c2375aca6dd.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-5&p=https%3A//thehill.com

But in the United States it’s 87 percent and three months or less.

Those are months – and in some countries, years – that patients go without access to the newest treatments. Some drugs are never made available. 

The U.S. government doesn’t treat its people so callously — or at least it hasn’t. Medicare covers virtually every FDA-approved medicine, and it sets reimbursements based on prices in the commercial market. This market-based pricing ensures that the newest drugs are available and doctors, not government gatekeepers, decide which drugs to prescribe. 

It’s a shame that the president has adopted other countries’ socialized medicine prices because he so often criticizes foreign freeloading. 

Recall that when Trump took office, he saw that our NATO allies were not paying their fair share toward the alliance’s mutual defense, even though the members had for years committed to raising their defense spending to at least 2 percent of GDP to support the alliance. 

With new drug pricing order, Trump flirts with socialized medicine

President Trump’s recent executive order on drug prices gets almost everything right — except the solution. Ironically, that solution moves the United States toward socialized medicine, which the president vociferously opposes.

The order says, “Americans pay more per capita for prescription drugs than residents of any other developed country.” That’s certainly true for most brand name drugs, though Americans typically pay much less for generic drugs, which account for about 90 percent of all U.S. prescriptions — a fact often ignored in the health policy debates.

The EO is also correct that “Americans pay more for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same places.” As a result, Americans “finance much of the biopharmaceutical innovation that the world depends on.” https://d0a997f558a95ead2e8d0c2375aca6dd.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-4&p=https%3A//thehill.com

But Trump’s executive order won’t fix these problems. It will only make it as hard for American patients to obtain the newest, cutting-edge drugs as it is for many patients in foreign countries the president wants to emulate. 

The order forbids Medicare from paying more for drugs than the lowest price available in any member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), after adjusting for per-capita income. Trump calls it a “most-favored-nation price.” 

The order claims those nations enjoy low drug prices because they “negotiate” with pharmaceutical manufacturers. But what the order describes as a negotiation is more akin to a hostage-taking — with their own citizens held for ransom. 

Bureaucrats in those nations’ systems – most of which are largely or completely controlled by the government – often refuse to cover drugs unless manufacturers sell the medicines far below fair-market prices. 

In Canada, for example, just 46 percent of new drugs approved worldwide between 2011 and 2018 are actually available to Canadian patients. And the average delay between approval and availability in Canada is 15 months. In the United Kingdom, it’s 59 percent and 18 months.https://d0a997f558a95ead2e8d0c2375aca6dd.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-5&p=https%3A//thehill.com

But in the United States it’s 87 percent and three months or less.

Those are months – and in some countries, years – that patients go without access to the newest treatments. Some drugs are never made available. 

The U.S. government doesn’t treat its people so callously — or at least it hasn’t. Medicare covers virtually every FDA-approved medicine, and it sets reimbursements based on prices in the commercial market. This market-based pricing ensures that the newest drugs are available and doctors, not government gatekeepers, decide which drugs to prescribe. 

It’s a shame that the president has adopted other countries’ socialized medicine prices because he so often criticizes foreign freeloading. 

Recall that when Trump took office, he saw that our NATO allies were not paying their fair share toward the alliance’s mutual defense, even though the members had for years committed to raising their defense spending to at least 2 percent of GDP to support the alliance. ADVERTISING

Trump did not respond to this inequity by swearing the United States would only spend as much as our stingiest ally. Instead, he called them out publicly and exhorted our allies to increase their contributions to our mutual defense, which was in everyone’s interest. And they responded.

With medicines, too, our allies don’t pull their weight, content to let U.S. patients and taxpayers carry the load. That hurts Americans and Europeans alike. If Europeans paid 20 percent more for drug costs – hardly closing the gap – Americans and Europeans would gain a combined $17.5 trillion benefit in overall welfare over 50 years, according to an analysis from University of Southern California researchers

New drugs – which cost an average of $1.6 billion each to develop – are paid for by the revenue from current treatments. That’s the capital drug manufacturers used to begin research on a COVID-19 vaccine — long before the federal government ponied up any cash.

If we cut that revenue stream, it’ll lead to less R&D and fewer innovative treatments in the future. One study of adopting “international reference pricing,” which is similar to the most-favored-nation pricing approach, found that it could reduce new drug discovery by 88 percent. That’s too high a price to pay for cheaper drugs now. When friends and allies engage in self-destructive behavior, the correct response is not to emulate their mistakes, but to help them choose a better path. Today, the majority of new drugs invented globally are invented in America, in large part because our government does not dictate prices. The president should keep it that way, and, just as he did with NATO, demand that our allies fall in line. 

BY MERRILL MATTHEWS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR— Appearing in the Hill on 10/08/20

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas. Follow him on Twitter @MerrillMatthews.

Congress: Let Big Tech Help Small Business

Written by: Jake Ward

Amidst the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression — when leaders should be boosting our economy and helping small businesses — a congressional subcommittee chair is instead playing politics and small businesses will pay the price.

In an extraordinary rebuke of American innovators and our global technology leadership, Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline (D) just released a report on “Big Tech” that recommends Congress punish success by forcibly dismantling America’s leading technology companies. More importantly, he ignores the invaluable partnership between those tech leaders and millions of American small businesses.

Research and common sense tell us that smart use of digital tools and online marketplaces drives small business success. In the best of times, businesses that use affordable, scalable small business tools grow faster and have higher revenue and profits. In a pandemic, access to these tools may be the difference between staying in or bankruptcy.

According to Digitally Driven, a survey of more than 7,000 small businesses, tools that enable e-commerce, digital marketing, more efficient operations and working from home give American small businesses a fighting chance during the COVID recession.

They form a Digital Safety Net, as businesses that embrace them anticipate four times better revenue than those that don’t. Additional research documents that online marketplaces provided more than $145 billion in value in 2018 and likely twice that during the COVID pandemic.

By rejecting the data, Cicilline’s report is wrong from its thesis to the conclusion. Government concerns of tech-industry monopolies and market dominance are always built on quicksand.

Remember Yahoo, AOL and MySpace? Zoom was virtually unknown in February but now is synonymous with video conferencing as Kleenex is with tissues. To assert that there is no competition in technology is to ignore recent history.

At the heart of Cicilline’s recommendations is a “single-line of business rule” for digital platforms and marketplaces. This “Glass-Steagall for the Internet” proposal may be clever branding, but really it is a bad analogy built on faulty mythology twisted into bad public policy.

The legend was that banks’ bad investments using consumer deposits caused the Great Depression, and the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was intended to prevent banks from gambling with consumer deposits again. But today’s digital economy is not causing a Depression or the COVID recession. Digital platforms are delivering billions of dollars of value to consumers and small businesses and justifiably have been embraced as a result.

Another absurd proposal would ban digital marketplaces from showing any preference for their own products. But grocery and department stores have been selling their own brands alongside third-party products for decades. Will Congress also require store-brand cereal to be on supermarkets’ top shelves so consumers are less likely to find it?

The Cicilline proposal is a square peg in the modern economy’s round hole, and the resulting chaos will create inefficiencies and force higher prices for online ads, marketplaces, business collaboration tools, and many more services that today work brilliantly for millions of small businesses.

Despite the obvious evidence of tech industry competition and value, including digital platforms’ fierce competition for small business advertising, marketing, and software dollars, Rep. Cicilline is not convinced.

Or perhaps he is simply too busy headlining fundraisers as a modern-day trust-buster to pay attention to the substantive details and data. Is it any wonder that he is releasing the report while the media is occupied with the pandemic, Supreme Court and election?

Regulations are not inherently bad, and antitrust law is essential to protecting consumers. But the wrong regulations for the wrong reasons at the wrong time will have unintended consequences.

Forcibly breaking apart digital platforms will eliminate the gains that many small businesses have enjoyed for nearly a decade. The competition debate cannot just be about the “big” in Big Tech, as these platforms’ size and scale are precisely what enables them to provide small businesses with high-quality tools and services at affordable prices.

The debate about Big Tech must include Main Street and the millions of small businesses that are the backbone of our economy and will drive our economic recovery.

Rep. Anthony Kern on Arizona Propositions

As Arizona leaves the summer heat behind, we are headed into the heat of the 2020 election.

And while the presidential and U.S. senatorial races garner the limelight, state voters have a say on two very important topics – legalizing marijuana and raising income taxes on tens of thousands of taxpayers.

Rep. Anthony Kern
(photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Proposition 207 would legalize marijuana for recreational use, just four years after voters rejected a similar proposal. While Arizona has a robust medical marijuana law allowing people with specific ailments or diseases to use the drug, removing safeguards so that all adults have access to marijuana will hurt our society and lead to far greater ills. 

Allowing greater access to marijuana will increase vehicle crashes and lead to unsafe working environments. We need only look to our neighbor to the north, where car crashes increased by 10 percent following the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, for instance, has found a significant increase in car crashes in states that have legalized recreational marijuana. I don’t want to see that trend come to Arizona.

Legalizing recreational marijuana isn’t the only dangerous measure voters will see in November.

Proposition 208 aims to bring us the largest income tax increase in state history. The measure nearly doubles the income tax rate on thousands of taxpayers, including numerous small and medium-sized businesses.

Arizona doesn’t have a school funding problem, but rather the issue is how the money is spent. Just 55 cents of every education tax dollar goes to our classrooms. Too much money ends up in the pockets of administrators. I believe If our school district leaders made better decisions, our teachers and students would benefit greatly. It’s time to instruct those school board members and superintendents to target more resources into the classrooms to support our teachers and students.

An estimated 90,000 Arizonans will be hit with the tax in the first year. And according to one study, half of those paying the tax will be small businesses, the drivers of our state’s economy. I am also just as concerned with how the tax will stifle the earning potential of people who are near the cap. If striving to earn a little more money makes you eligible for the tax, government has taken away the incentive to provide for your family.

Additionally, it’s unclear whether the tax will bring in the nearly $1 billion backers claim. This unstable source of income won’t be the elixir to fix issues with our schools. Instead, approving Prop. 208 will drive businesses away from the state as employers seek states with fairer tax structures.

Representative Anthony Kern serves in the Arizona House and represents Legislative District 20 located in north Phoenix and Glendale.

Radical Liberals Running in Maricopa County

Most voters believe the role of an elected prosecutor, sheriff, or elections official, is to enforce the laws on the books. Prosecutors and Executive and Administrative offices always have some discretion in how they run their offices according to law, but they recognize the constitutional limits of their office. The people and their elected legislators write the laws. County officials administer them.

Events across the country have shown that when liberal activists take control of prosecution or administration of law, they will overstep their bounds with little regard for facts and the law.

Maricopa County is a battleground for control of the US Senate and for the Presidency. What many Arizona voters may not realize is that it is also a battle for control of the Arizona legislature and many important county offices.

Voters in Maricopa County elected Adrian Fontes after a failed Presidential preference election in 2016. After 20+ years of non-partisan elections, Helen Purcell’s office did not foresee record voter turnout in 2016. Long lines and understaffed polls, created a backlash and voters held her office accountable. They replaced her non-partisan and administration approach with Adrian Fontes, a man who is partisan, activist, and holds dissenters in low regard, telling one voter to Go F-yourself!. During this election year alone, Fontes’ partisan and activist efforts have been slapped down twice by the courts.

When the typically left leaning Arizona Republic posts Sunday news about Fontes failures, you hope that Independent and Republican voters will get the message.

For County Attorney, Allister Adel faces Liberal activist Julie Gunningle. Who is Gunnigle? Well, for starters, read her Twitter page. She is the type of activist prosecutor that would be a dream for outside groups backed by George Soros. She calls the County Attorney and her office racists without evidence, and vows to be an “anti-racist” activist. She supports Sanctuary City Policies and she is rabidly pro-abortion, not wanting to enforce existing Arizona laws.

If conservatives need motivation to defeat Julie Gunnigle, look at her recent tweets:  Gunnigle calls for the defunding of the Phoenix Police during the riots.

For other radical progressive views see her other tweets.

Gunnigle’s McCarthyism crusade to be an anti-racist

Calls County Attorney’s office racist

Gunnigle won’t enforce AZ abortion laws

Gunnigle criticizes Adel for enforcing existing laws on the books

Gunnigle donates 500 hours to helping with abortion

Voters in Maricopa County need to wake up and inform their neighbors about the consequences of a blue wave in AZ. If the GOP allows Democratic activists to run county offices, or to take control of the legislature, Arizona’s government will be transformed into an activists playground just like California, Oregon, and Washington State. Vote the Republican slate.

Connected Commerce Council Releases New Report: Arizona’s Digitally Savvy Small Businesses Outperform During Pandemic

Washington, D.C. (September 08, 2020): The Connected Commerce Council (3C) today released a report detailing how small businesses nationwide that embraced digital tools early are generating more revenue than their peers, and that Arizona small businesses are using digital tools more and expecting 2020 revenue that exceeds the national averages. The report highlights the existence and importance of the small business “Digital Safety Net,” which 3C defines as the free and low-cost small business services that include communications and workflow tools, digital marketing and advertising, websites and social media, back-office tools, and e-commerce and online payment tools.

Digitally Driven shows that nationally small businesses that embraced digital tools the earliest – “Digital Drivers” – expect 4x better revenue for 2020 compared to “Digital Maintainers,” those who are generally skeptical of digital tools’ value and typically use only a few basic tools such as email and perhaps a website. In Arizona, 49% of small businesses are digital drivers compared to 35% nationally with a predicted 9.75% in revenue reduction compared to an expected 16% reduction in revenue nationally.

“In times like these, when in-person commerce is limited, if not impossible, and working from home is the norm, digital tools literally are a safety net preventing deeper small business calamity,” said 3C President Jake Ward. “The Digital Safety Net is real. However, the net could — and must — be bigger, more robust, and more inclusive. Small businesses must invest time in selecting the right digital tools for their business; technology companies must help small businesses access the right tools; and policymakers must invest more money in public-private partnerships that create and support small business resource networks.”

Other key findings in the report include:

In addition to the 49% that were digital drivers:

  • 23% of Arizona small businesses are “Digital Adopters.” They recognize the value of digital tools and are using some, but are not fully committed to digital, compared to 33% nationally
  •  24% of Arizona small businesses are “Digital Maintainers.” They are generally skeptical of digital tools’ value or are tech-nervous, and typically only use a few basic tools such as email and perhaps a website, compared to 33% nationally

Comparing the 50 states, those with a higher incidence of Digital Drivers show stronger small businesses resiliency than those states with more Adopters and Maintainers.

  • The states with the most Drivers and best-expected 2020 revenue are:

Nevada (63% Drivers, 5.26% revenue growth)

Alabama (51% Drivers, 6.61% revenue reduction)

Arizona (49% Drivers, 9.75% revenue reduction)

Georgia (40% Drivers, 10.75% revenue reduction)

Colorado (47% Drivers, 12.45% revenue reduction)

  • 71% of Arizona small businesses increased their use of digital tools during the pandemic, compared to 72% nationally.
  • Pre-COVID-19, 69% of Arizona small businesses found digital tools either “essential” or “important” to their business, compared to 68% nationally.
  • Arizona small businesses cited three key challenges to adopting and expanding their use of digital tools: 37% cite being unsure about return on investment, 52% cite cost, and 56% cite information and skills gaps.

“When COVID-19 hit, I was seriously concerned about the future of my business,” said Eli Crane of Bottle Breacher in Tucson, Ariz. “Luckily, we were already familiar with a number of digital tools that proved critically important during the crisis. These tools were definitely instrumental to our survival.”

The report also recommends that small businesses maximize their digital tool use and become better prepared for the next crisis, and provides a playbook for tech platforms, governments, and NGOs to support small businesses today and into the future.

For small businesses, it is critical to identify their goals, gaps, and precise needs to ensure they are investing in the right digital tools – not the most popular or least expensive options. For technology companies, helping small businesses discover which digital tools they need and
providing confidence-building skills training and user-friendly support materials will help with the knowledge gap that prevents many companies from taking the digital plunge. And for policymakers, the need is to increase funding of small business resources and create public-private partnerships to address access and education barriers that small businesses experience during tough economic times.

Digitally Driven, commissioned by 3C in conjunction with Google and Greenberg, is based on findings from a nationwide survey of 7,021 small businesses that were still in business, including a representative sample from every state in the country. Data are weighted by gender, ethnicity, region, business size, and vertical, to ensure an accurate national representation. The survey was fielded online and by phone between May 28 and July 3, 2020.

The full report can be found here.
A summary of the report and its key findings for Arizona can be found here.

About 3C: The Connected Commerce Council is a non-profit membership organization with a single goal: to promote small businesses’ access to essential digital technologies and tools. 3C provides small businesses with access to the market’s most effective digital tools available, provides coaching to optimize growth and efficiency, and cultivates a policy environment that considers and respects the interests of today’s small businesses.

Sal DiCiccio: BLM Mural Backpedaling

Phoenix City Councilman released the following statement Thursday evening regarding a response by City Manager Ed Zuercher to BLM activists:

This is Government Speak for: “Public would have handed us our ass if we allowed the BLM mural to happen.”

Never underestimate political self-preservation.

We Win Again!!!

Sal DiCiccio
City of Phoenix
Councilman, District 6

Tech Policy and the 2020 Election: Antitrust and Big Tech

By: Jennifer Huddleston

Introduction

Is Big Tech too big, and do companies such as Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon need to be broken up via antitrust action? Have we moved into a new age of “cyber barons”? Criticism of large tech platforms and discussions of antitrust action have come from both the left and the right recently. Many of these criticisms do not reflect the underlying principles of antitrust law, but instead reflect other policy concerns such as data privacy and content moderation. Given the criticism from both sides of the aisle, it is not surprising that both presidential candidates have suggested that they would engage in further antitrust scrutiny of large tech platforms if elected.

Liberal Criticisms Regarding Existing Standards

Democratic criticisms of current antitrust largely suggest that enforcement is not aggressive enough and does not account for practices that harm workers and stifle competitors but are not seen in economic harm to consumers. For example, the Biden-Harris platform supports modifying antitrust laws and ties the need for such modifications to “empowering workers.” More generally, criticisms from the left argue that the current approach to antitrust law does not properly account for all the harms to a market by large firms’ behavior and that a more flexible, policy-based approach should be used for more zealous antitrust enforcement.

There are two main problems with such criticisms. First, a more flexible and broad policy-based approach to antitrust would create greater uncertainty for consumers, innovators, and competitors. The prior rule of reason approach stifled beneficial mergers or changes out of an unjustified concern. This approach also tends to focus on the impact on competitors rather than on consumers’ welfare and a properly functioning market.

Second, even the supposed problems have not been shown to be truly harmful or even actually exist. Arguments about the use of data for house brands by Amazon is not that different from the behavior traditional retailers such as Target or Walmart have engaged in for decades. The idea of a “kill zone” (where big tech companies buy out small companies before they can challenge them) appears to be largely a myth and instead has provided more options for startups and investors as well as improved products for consumers. Concerns about market concentration often miss changes in market dynamics or differences in competition at a local versus national level.

Moving away from an objective standard of antitrust might not benefit the very consumers competition law was intended to protect and risks providing a dangerous way for political motives to intrude into an already competitive market. Such politicization could increase the abuse of antitrust law such as the Trump Administration Department of Justice’s alleged use of antitrust to review mergers in the cannabis industry based only on its dislike of the product.

Conservative Critiques of Antitrust

Calls to break up Big Tech have not only come from the left but also from policymakers on the right. Conservative criticisms often allege that the companies are abusing market power to silence conservative voices and argue that breaking these companies up would solve a litany of non-competition related policy concerns. The Department of Justice during the Trump Administration has been actively pursuing potential antitrust claims against the largest tech companies. The president himself has suggested more use of antitrust law against large tech companies, even applauding European Union fines against American tech companies. But as with the criticisms from the left, these proposed solutions might make the alleged problems even worse.

Breaking up “Big Tech” would not solve concerns about anti-conservative bias, content moderation, data privacy, or any of a litany of non-competition policy concerns. Such a policy motivation is not the appropriate use of antitrust and would be better addressed by more targeted policy reforms if needed. In fact, using antitrust to require a breakup might even make these problems worse. Smaller firms would have more limited resources to devote to tasks such as content moderation or data security and might find themselves engaging in more advertising or data usage without the efficiency of a large company. The result is far from a guarantee that these now separated companies would better respond to these policy concerns or be more friendly to conservatives. As former Senator Rick Santorum recently wrote, “Going back to the media of 25 years ago would not go well for the President or for conservatives…. As America wrestles with so many tough issues and prepares to select its leaders in a charged partisan atmosphere, social media matters. And social media matters more to the election prospects for conservatives than it does for progressives.”

Using antitrust for more political purposes not only risks undermining those purposes; it risks unnecessary government interference in a free and competitive market. The result again could easily be that consumers lose out on potential mergers or efficiencies that would have benefited them. In some cases involving technology, the result could even be an increase in costs for once zero-cost products.

Conclusion

The current approach to antitrust is principled and objective with a focus correctly on consumers. As a result, it is a tool to allow competitive markets to continue to flourish while providing a principled mode of correction when anti-competitive behavior arises. Such a standard is adaptable to fast-moving, innovative fields as well as more traditional markets. As conversations around antitrust and Big Tech are likely to continue under either a Trump or Biden Administration, proposed changes to antitrust would likely bring with them new problems as well as fail to cure existing ones.

Jennifer Huddleston is the Director of Technology and Innovation Policy at the American Action Forum.  @jrhuddles

California ‘Dream Team’ Wants Arizona’s LD-6

By Eddie Whipple

For years Arizona has had to fight off the influence of Californians who want to meddle in our way of life.

“Don’t California my Arizona,” is a rallying cry for many conservatives who want Arizona to remain a state of low taxes with few government regulations, where families and businesses can thrive with limited governmental intervention.

However, more and more we have seen an influx of California-influenced political ideas invading our desert and mountain regions.

Just two years ago, Tom Steyer spent tens of millions of dollars to reengineer our electric grid by mandating solar consumption and significantly increasing our electric bills. Thankfully, voters up and down the state soundly rejected that bad idea. Steyer did not begin the effort to bring bad California ideas to Arizona. And sadly, his resounding defeat wasn’t the end, either.

Now, in Legislative District 6, which covers the White Mountains area, along with Flagstaff, Sedona, Payson and parts of Yavapai County.

The “California Dream Team” of Felicia French, Coral Evans and Art Babbott is running to take out the two current members of the Arizona House and Senate candidate Wendy Rogers. And LD6 isn’t your typical district. It’s one of the biggest targets for Democrats to flip from red to blue. Republicans hold 31 seats in the House, with the 29 Democrats closer than at anytime in 60 yeas from having control of the body. In the state Senate, Republicans hold 17 of the 30 seats. Capturing these seats is the lynchpin to the Democrats taking over the state House and leading them on the path to the same outcome in the Senate.

French, who is taking on Rogers for the Senate seat, loves her some San Francisco area cash. According to campaign finance records, she has received at least $18,000 from more than 100 Bay Area donors. And her campaign rhetoric matches her liberal donors. 

She buys into the wackiest of liberal policies. She supports cutting beef production by 50 percent to cut down on global warming. Cows, she reckons, contribute to global warming. Never mind that ranching is one of the most important industries in the district.

Flagstaff Mayor Coral Evans never met a tax increase she couldn’t support. She once said at a Hillary Clinton rally she would be a “hard-bent progressive.” She’s living up to her own words. She once compared celebrating Columbus Day with waving the Confederate Flag and she wants to replace that October holiday with Indigenous Peoples Day. She has supported the Invest In Ed income tax proposal that would increase taxes on small business owners and create California-like tax structure that will drive away businesses and residents. She has supported property tax increases in Flagstaff for many of her years as mayor. One of her top priorities in the Legislature she once said was to increase the gas tax.

Babbott, a Coconino County supervisor and running as an independent but aligning with Democrats, has spent decades supporting Bernie Sanders’ various runs for office. He first began donating to Bernie’s campaign as early as 1990. In 1987, Babbott said the self-described “Radical Socialist Mayor” was doing a “great job.” He’s given nearly $1,000 over the years to Bernie’s campaigns and supported his 2016 run for the presidency.We’ve seen the evidence that French, Evans and Babbott are as liberal as they come. Now it’s up to the voters to take that into consideration when they fill out their ballots. The direction of the state is may just come down to these three Democrats.

National Council on Disability releases Statement Opposing Importation of IPI

Importation of the IPI in the U.S. will restrict access to prescription medications for the millions of Americans who rely on Medicare Part B due to the IPI’s reliance on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) – a formula used to assess the value of medications by assigning a lower value to the life of a person with an illness or disability

WASHINGTON—The National Council on Disability released the following statement:

Making prescription medicines more affordable is a proper and necessary goal for the U.S., but it is not in the best interest of Americans to import price controls from countries that use the International Pricing Index (IPI) to determine U.S. drug pricing.

Importation of the IPI in the U.S. will restrict access to prescription medications for the millions of Americans who rely on Medicare Part B due to the IPI’s reliance on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) – a formula used to assess the value of medications by assigning a lower value to the life of a person with an illness or disability.

To date, QALYs have been deemed contrary to U.S. public policy because of the discriminatory design and impact on people with chronic illnesses and disabilities. NCD’s 2019 report on QALYs describes their consequences on people with chronic illnesses and disabilities in countries with government-run health systems that use the IPI. Where Americans enjoy broad access to the most effective and cutting-edge medications available, people in IPI countries have dramatically less access to important drugs, including denied or restricted access to the most effective drugs for cancer and other serious medical conditions.

Medicare and Medicaid have not relied on value assessments that use QALYs for prescription drugs but importing the IPI will most certainly reduce access to quality healthcare for Americans by limiting or restricting access to medications. It will also import the use of QALYs, which run counter to U.S. civil rights laws that prohibit healthcare discrimination against people with disabilities.

For the benefit of all Americans who rely on nondiscriminatory access to the most effective prescription drugs to treat their individual conditions, NCD urges the Trump administration to abandon its plan to use IPI and to examine alternatives that do not rely on QALYs or other discriminatory metrics.

America Needs Conservative Journalists!

Journalism is among America’s least trusted professions. I know, that’s not a big surprise…

In fact, when asked if they trust the honest and ethical standards of the media, Americans put journalists below most professions, and trust them only slightly more than car salespeople and Congressmen.

Now, more than ever, conservative journalists must use their voices to report the facts and speak over all of the lies. 

If you’re interested in a career in journalism, now is the time to be proactive. 

The Leadership Institute’s annual Journalism Career School will help you succeed in journalism by teaching you the skills to succeed and build your network of conservative journalists. 

Click the link below to learn more and register!
What: Journalism Career School
When: Thursday – Friday, September 17 – 18 | 9:00 AM – 5:30 PM EDT
Where: Online
How to register: Sign up by September 14 for $40!
Register here
Whether you aspire to be on television or pursue a career as a writer, the Journalism Career School will give you the tools to succeed.

You will learn how to:Traditional Journalism: You will learn how to get a job with a publication, build and use contacts in media, and write stories that get you noticed.Broadcast Journalism: You will learn how to get yourself on camera, as well as practice and analyze your television techniques in LI’s studios.Watchdog and Citizen Journalism: You will learn how to build your following online, as well as how to create your own publication and videos that get you noticed!Register today so you don’t miss out!