Mediaboss Marketing

OPINION:

Democrats rushed to impose destructive price controls on medicine in their reckless tax-and-spend bill. These provisions will reduce access to new cures and treatments and will increase, not decrease, health care spending at the expense of consumers. This is a lunge towards socialized medicine.

Democrats reconciliation bill gives the Health and Human Services Secretary the authority to negotiate the price of prescription drugs on behalf of Medicare, enforceable by a 95% excise tax on companies who charge more. Of course, a 95% tax enforcement mechanism creates a mandate not a negotiation.

In 2023, the secretary will be able to determine the prices of 10 prescription drugs. The determined price would go into effect in 2026. The number of drugs the HHS Secretary could set prices for would then increase to 15 in 2028 and 20 in 2029.

The government is incapable of determining the equilibrium market price of any given product it will always set the price of a product too low or too high. When the government sets a price of a product too low, as it will under the Democrats bill, it results in shortages. Drug manufacturers will not sell or create products they will lose money on. Simply put, this bill will stunt the creation of new medicines and access to existing medicines.

The U.S. is currently a world leader in medical innovation and access because it promotes free market competition. As a result, the majority of cures are developed in the United States and are launched years before other developed nations which impose price controls have access to them.

According to research by the Galen Institute, 290 new medical substances were launched worldwide between 2011 and 2018. The U.S. had access to 90% of these cures. By comparison, the United Kingdom had access to 60% of medicines, Japan had 50%, and Canada had just 44%.

Further, one study found that, over 20 years, Democrats price control provisions would reduce the number of new drugs introduced into the market by 135. Notably, the treatments that manufacturers will be discouraged from making will be highly effective ones that treat common but serious ailments. After all, these are the drugs price setters will deem most important to take control over. In this way, price controls will disproportionately discourage the innovations humankind needs most.

So, why have Democrats passed measures that depress medical innovation? Allegedly, to save Medicare money and reduce U.S. spending on health care. Recent research finds, however, that this proposal would increase total health spending.

Pharmaceutical treatments tend to alleviate the need for more expensive interventions like surgeries and hospitalizations. The introduction of more medicines reduces money spent on costlier interventions, thus reducing total health spending. Because Democrats bill discourages the flow of new medicines, it will increase total health spending.

Specifically, while price controls are supposed to raise $101.8 billion over ten years, a study by Tomas J. Philipson and Giuseppe di Cera out of the University of Chicago estimate that total health care spending would actually increase by $50.8 billion over a 20-year period, largely at the expense of consumers.

The authors results, as they note, demonstrate that more medical innovation is cost-effective to consumers because new drugs create cost offsets, or reductions in total health care spending.

If not to save money, the purpose of price controls is to ultimately yield control over all drug price setting. Imposing price controls through Medicare Part D, a program designed to rely on free market forces is just the first step.

Democratic Rep. Peter Welch a cosponsor of the Medicare for All Act said the quiet part out loud when he threatened that price negotiations are just the beginning of Democrats fight for socialized medicine. Dont underestimate the power of the slippery slope, he bragged. Thats exactly why pharma fights so hard. They know if we get price negotiation, its the beginning, its not the end.

While so-called moderates like Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have opposed socialized medicine in the past, their support of ruinous price controls suggests they are unserious in their opposition.

Unfortunately, while the country struggles to pay for gas and groceries, congressional Democrats have prioritized measures that limit Americans access to medical cures and treatments while spending even more taxpayer dollars.

Isabelle Morales is policy communications specialist at Americans for Tax Reform.

View post:
Democrat price controls are yet another step toward socialized medicine - Washington Times

ALBANY If you have ever "liked" the Facebook accounts of the reality show "Duck Dynasty," the Michigan pop star Kid Rock or the comedian Larry the Cable Guy, dont expect to see campaign ads on the platform from Matt Castelli or Matt Putorti ahead of Tuesday's congressional primary.

But if you like NPR's "Morning Edition," "CNN Health" or the New York Times' Style section, you're more likely to see an ad for the two Democrats vying for the chance to take on U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik. And it could happen whether you live in Rome, N.Y., or Rome, Iowa.

While the Democrats have spent a total of less than $20,000 on Facebook ads over the past month most of it by Castelli they've hauled in roughly $2 million. The data that informs the targeting of those ads gives a sense of what's become a nationalized race to unseat or retain Stefanik, now the third-most-powerful member of the GOP conference.

Castelli, who has the endorsement of the district's Democratic county committees, and Putorti have waged national campaigns online that take advantage of Stefanik's polarizing transformation into a self-described "ultra-MAGA" defender of former President Donald J. Trump. There has been no publicly released polling in the primary face-off.

Facebook is not the only battlefield in what's become a social media war. Castelli has 72,000 followers on Twitter; Putorti has 136,000. But Stefanik has amassed almost 900,000 across her campaign and congressional accounts.

"In Washington, politicians like Elise Stefanik put their own interests and party loyalty first," Castelli says in a campaign ad that's pinned to the top of his Twitter feed (128,000 views). Putorti's pinned ad claims Stefanik is "too busy kissing Donald Trump's ass to look out for ours" (240,000 views).

Castelliwas a CIA officer and later the director of counterterrorism efforts for President Barack Obama's National Security Council. Putorti is a civil rights lawyer who has focused on LGBTQ equality, gun violence and immigration issues.

Castelli, a Glens Falls resident who grew up near Poughkeepsie, was raised in a Catholic household by parents with divergent political loyalties. Purtorti, who lives in Whitehall, went through the public school system before moving on to Boston College, Oxford University and Fordham Law School.

Castelli has positioned himself as the moderate in a campaign focused on the economy, prescription drug costs and health care access for women. Putorti has taken a slightly more progressive path, highlighting abortion rights, climate change and firearms.

Headed into the final days of the campaign, Castelli had raised $1.1 million and spent $683,000, while Putorti raised $880,000 and spent $649,000.

Less than 18 percent of Castelli's donors gave less than $200, while Putorti raised a third of his money from those donors. Both candidates received at least a third of their donations from out of state although campaign finance records don't specify the geographic point of origin for small donations.

The candidates' Facebook ads are clearly designed to appeal to a national audience those who can't vote in the district but can send a check.

Castelli spent $15,000 on Facebook ads over the past month. Public data from the platform showed that 84 percent of those ads were served up to viewers outside the North Country district. The candidate's campaign made sure the ads did not target people interested in Kid Rock, the conservative action star Chuck Norris or NASCAR, among several other topics and personalities. Instead, Castelli targeted people with interests in social change, community issues and activism.

Putorti spent $3,200 on Facebook ads over the same period, with two-thirds aimed at a national audience and the rest to anyone in New York. Similar to his primary rival's spots, these ads excluded people interested in the MAGA guitarist Ted Nugent, Barstool Sports and Clint Eastwood in favor of people interested in Politico, social change and feminist philosophy.

Stefanik has spent $23,000 on Facebook ads, almost exclusively targeting voters in New York. Her ads offered no tailored target demographics.

The incumbent holds a massive lead in campaign cash, especially as the two Democrats are forced to burn campaign dollars to win the nomination. Stefanik has raised $7.3 million over the past two years, and spent or disbursed $6.7 million $2.6 million of which was transferred to other political accounts. She maintains $2.6 million in her campaign account.

Beyond her incumbency and rising status as a Trump loyalist, Stefanik benefits from a district that has become more conservative in its voter makeup after the state's recent redistricting process. In the newly drawn district which extends significantly farther into Rensselaer County than Stefanik's current map Trump won 56 percent of voters in 2020. (He earned 54 percent in the current 21st District.)

Stefanik won 59 percent of the vote that year, besting Tedra Cobb; in 2018, Stefanik beat Cobb with 56 percent of the vote. In that election cycle, both candidates saw significant success fundraising off the Republican's high profile as a member of Trump's defense team during his first impeachment. (She was joined in that effort by U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin of Long Island, who is challenging Gov. Kathy Hochul.)

On Thursday, Castelli asked his Twitter followers in the district to "Share with a friend or neighbor ... why you'll be voting." While there were only a few initial replies, one came from an account based out of San Francisco: "Defeat Elise!"

An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated where Matt Castelli is from. He grew up in the Hudson Valley near Poughkeepsie. The story also stated Stefanik had spent $6.7 million of her campaign fund but $2.5 million of that was transferred to other political accounts.

Read this article:
Democrats angling to defeat Stefanik look to donors nationwide - Times Union

Troubles for Trump supporters on college campuses continue. Now, they cant find roommates.

An NBC News/Generation Labs poll on Thursday found that 62% of college Democrats say theyd refuse to room with a student who voted for Donald Trump in 2020. Very inclusive of them.

Forget house cleaning and drinking habits and weird activities, voting for Trump is the deal-breaker for college liberals.

I could never live with someone who supported a racist, homophobic, xenophobic and sexist person, an 18-year-old Siena College student told NBC.

The choice to use racist, homophobic, xenophobic and sexist in one sentence suggests this student aspires to be a journalist or professor. It must be one of the two.

The polling previews a situation where campuses could essentially have Democrat dorms and Republican dorms, colleges segregated by political affiliation. Hows that for a representation of the cultural divide that Biden vowed to alleviate?

College students who admit they are Republicans are far more tolerant of Biden voters. Less than half, 28%, of college Republicans say theyd refuse to room with someone who voted Democrat in 2020.

A persons political views do not affect whether or not I would have a friendship or relationship with them. Many of my friends have vastly different political views than I do, but I do not let that affect our friendship, a 19-year-old Republican said of the study.

Between self-important college Democrats and woke curriculum, a college campus hardly welcomes someone who voted for Trump or thinks independently. No wonder theres a record number of American men abandoning college.

Blue collar jobs, that dont require a degree, are in-demand across the country. Trucking companies are offering drivers a starting salary as high as$110,000,more than double the starting salary of college graduates.

So, double the starting salary, no six-figure debt, and no wacky professors and racial classmates. #HonkHonk. We stand with the truckers.

The study ultimately proves the entitlement of liberal Gen Zers. They are the generation of feelings. They cant room or make friends with someone who does not share their woke politics.

Imagine wanting to hire these students, despite whatever random degree they eventually earn.

No matter how cool your gender studies degree looks on a wall, you have diminished value if you cannot work alongside someone who thinks differently.

See the rest here:
Two-Thirds Of College Democrats Refuse To Room With Trump Supporters - OutKick

Opinion: Did Democrats or independents help Kari Lake and other America First candidates win by voting for them? A look at turnout data suggest otherwise.

One of the theories floated in the aftermath of Arizonas primaries was that non-Republican voters flocked to the GOP side to vote forthe most extreme candidates.

That is, they acted on a coordinated campaign to set up Democrats for a win in the general election.

It would be a convenient explanation for the sweeping victories by America First candidates.

But that scenario is highly unlikely.

While statewide figures are not readily available, the recent canvassing, or formal tallying, of votes in Maricopa County which account for nearly 60% of all ballots cast in Arizona is illustrative.

The county did experience a higher-than-usual turnout in the Aug. 2 Republican primary (59%), considerably higher than for the Democratic primary (47%).

The GOP turnout is some 9 percentage points higher than the previous midterm primary in 2018. But theres no evidence Democrats defected; their turnout was up this year, too, though by a more modest couple of percentage points.

Could independents have givenfar-right conservatives a boost? Their turnout in Arizona primaries hit a new high of 13.7% this year, and a greater percentage of them opted for a Republican ballot than in 2018.

Nearly 75,000 Maricopa County independents requested a GOP ballot (it pushed up the Republican turnout to 59%, from about 51%).Thattheoretically could have propelled gubernatorial hopeful Kari Lake to her narrow victory of fewer than 14,000 votes in metro Phoenix.

But theres little evidence to prove that, as well. Independents have been steadily increasing their participation in primaries in recent elections, their turnout climbing a couple of percentage points each time. In 2016, it was 8%; in 2018, 10%; and in 2020, 12%. The new high this year is consistent with that trend.

Like Democrats and Republicans, a majority of independentsvoted by early ballot, which tends to trend more favorably for moderate candidates. That was demonstrated on election night, when the early results (mail-in ballots are tabulated first) showed Lake to be trailing.

Independents in Arizona, I believe, view partisan politics with disinterest at best and disdain at worst. The few (but growing number) of them who vote in primaries cast a ballot to advance more moderate candidates or to vote against partisans. (I count myself among them.)

That approach favors GOP establishment candidates like Karrin Taylor Robson. If anything, independents probably helped Robson make the race for governor a little closer than otherwise.

The logical explanation for the high turnout in the GOP primary is simply a greater interest generated this year, in which Trump-backed candidates challengedthose representing the more traditional Republican Party, endorsed by establishment players such as Gov. Doug Ducey and former Vice President Mike Pence.

Anargument certainly can be made about Democratic operatives spending money and time to promote extreme GOP candidates while attacking more moderate ones. Mysterious dark money campaigns both at the national leveland in Arizona lend credibility to that contention.

It is, however, more difficult to show a cause and effect. Were partisan Republicans, who make up the lions share of primary voters, dupedinto voting for Lake, or for any of the America First candidates? Or did those dark-money campaigns merely strengthen thesupport that was already there?

Misleading?Group behind Kari Lake ad may have to disclose its donors

The GOP portion of the 106,000 election day votes in Maricopa County 4 of 5 ballots castthat day were Republican decisively powered Lake past Robson. That sliver of the Republican electorate is more inclined to believe early balloting isnt as secureas in-person voting, a premise pushed by Lake and the America First slate.

The results set up a general election that both far-right conservatives and far-left liberals want. As always, the decision come November will be left up to moderates and independents.

Reach Abe Kwok at akwok@azcentral.com. On Twitter: @abekwok.

We can agree, or agree to disagree but only with the support of readers like you. Please sustain local journalism and subscribe to azcentral.com today.

Link:
Kari Lake won with help from Democrats? Let's bust that theory - The Arizona Republic

After the overturning of Roe v Wade, there is bad news and there is good news. But first, an admission.

For most of my adult life, Ive clung to a grand unifying theory: the only way to fight off rightwing fascism is to build not just a well-organized progressive movement, but to also mobilize rank-and-file apolitical Democratic voters to press their own party to deliver.

If Democratic base constituencies college-educated white-collars, communities of color, young people, etc went beyond merely voting in November and actually made demands of their Democratic lawmakers (and held them accountable in primaries), then maybe the party would pursue its purported agenda with the same urgency as the Republican party does for its conservative base. And if that happened, maybe more voters would flock to Democrats who were materially improving their lives.

Over the last 25 years, the opposite has happened.

While Republican normie voters were being radicalized by Fox News and talk radio, Democratic normie voters were being anesthetized by NPR, the New York Times, the Atlantic and MSNBC, which taught them to believe that an extremist like John Roberts is a lovable moderate, Mike Pence is an American hero, George Bush is a decent guy, and an operative who installed Sam Alito on the court is a warrior for democracy.

That media machine convinced Democratic normies to believe the highest calling of citizenship was to simply line up behind party-approved candidates, crush progressive challengers in primaries, and vote blue, no matter who in general elections and then do nothing more, even when electable conservative Democrats lost and the few winners produced no change. The worst thing anyone could do, they taught viewers, was criticize, pressure, or protest Democratic leaders to try to get them to do anything.

At the same time, Barack Obama and his administration persuaded normie Democrats that the celebrity candidate would save the day, that progressive pressure campaigns are fucking retarded, and that Obamas hand-picked candidate, Hillary Clinton, was the most viable successor. Meanwhile, the labor movement was crushed by Democrats trade deals and corporate union busting, disempowering what had been a radicalizing force inside the Democratic coalition.

And yet, heres the admission: it wasnt just external factors that undermined this effort to mobilize normies. It was a failure of an entire generation of operatives, activists, advocacy journalists, policy wonks, philanthropists, filmmakers, pundits, labor leaders, thinktankers, Capitol Hill staff and politicians in left-of-center politics and I include myself in that group of failures.

We could console ourselves by feeling like Dont Look Ups Dr Mindy when he points up at the comet and says: Weve been trying to warn you!

But lets admit it: the campaigns, advocacy and pressure of my generation and the Boomers did not radicalize the normies quickly enough. We were not just outgunned by conservatives, outspent by corporatists, and undermined by liberal careerists selling their souls for the next hot take we were also outmaneuvered, outsmarted and outperformed.

We failed, and that failure allowed Democratic leaders to never fear their own base to the point where Democratic voters gave their presidential nomination to the candidate who authored the crime bill, allied with segregationists, championed the Iraq war, touted social security cuts, voted to let states restrict abortion and sharpened bankruptcy laws.

So heres the bad news: because this dynamic allowed Democratic leaders to never feel the heat of accountability, they never wielded their power to make a serious effort to avert the current nightmare. In many cases, they did the opposite.

The Obama presidency was defined by initiatives to prop up health insurance predators, protect Wall Street criminals and abandon promises to Democratic voters, which created the backlash conditions and depressed turnout that helped lead to Donald Trumps ascent. The Biden presidency has been similarly defined by the party living up to the presidents promise that nothing would fundamentally change and its attendant unwillingness to materially improve the lives of anyone other than billionaires and corporate executives, all while the administration boosts various rightwing causes.

The crescendo of this phantasmagoria has led to this grim reality: As conservative justices now turn on a spigot of extremist rulings, the Democratic president is giving half-hearted speeches pretending he has no power, and issuing reports declining to even support expanding the supreme court due to concerns about protecting its independence and legitimacy.

For their part, Democratic congressional leaders are singing patriotic ballads while sending out fundraising emails. They expect yet another positive response from a base that up until now has politely asked for but never really demanded anything from them in return.

If youve somehow read this far, you are probably gut-punched. But heres the good-news payoff for still being here: yes, there are signs that at this dangerously late hour, normie Democratic voters may finally have had enough of this shit.

Last month, a stat buried in an NBC News poll showed that nearly two thirds of Democratic voters said they now want a candidate who proposes larger-scale policies that cost more and might be harder to pass into law, but could bring major change. Just a third said they prefer a candidate who proposes smaller-scale policies that cost less and might be easier to pass into law, but will bring less change on these issues.

Put another way: 63% of the party is finally radicalized, and just 33% are still clinging to the normie view. This might explain why a group of progressive congressional challengers recently overcame the odds and won their primaries, even against party leaders endorsements.

At the same time, a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey found a plurality of Americans no longer buy Democrats argument that they have no power to do anything and that includes a quarter of Democrats and nearly half of independents. A full 50% of Democrats say Joe Biden has power to reduce inflation and healthcare costs.

Quinnipiacs new poll also shows just a quarter of young voters approve of the way Biden is handling his job, and his numbers are similarly low among Black and Latino voters.

Taken together, this is empirical proof that core Democratic constituencies may finally be evaluating their partys president on his actual record, rather than just mindlessly cheering him on because hes wearing the blue home-team jersey.

This healthy attitude is starting to seep into popular culture. As one example: The Daily Show historically the normiest of normie Democratic television programs is now openly mocking party leaders refusal to do anything to stop the Republican onslaught. As Democratic policy wonk Will Stancil put it, thats a sign that anger at do-nothing Dems really has gone completely mainstream in a way that seemed impossible three or four years ago.

If history is any indication, thats good. Democratic leaders only did things like enact social security, create Medicare, pass the Voting Rights Act and end the Vietnam war once they feared the electoral consequences of inaction. The same dynamic holds today: you can bet Democratic leaders will not fulfill their longtime promise to statutorily codify reproductive rights until and unless they feel the same kind of anger and pressure as their predecessors felt in their day.

Thats how democracy is supposed to work: were supposed to evaluate representatives not on their personalities or party affiliations, but on their records, and when they fail to deliver on their promises, those representatives are supposed to fear being denied their partys nomination and thrown out of office by their own voters.

Politicians respond to only one thing power, wrote Ta-Nehisi Coates back in 2011. This is not the flaw of democracy, its the entire point. Its the job of activists to generate, and apply, enough pressure on the system to affect change.

Thats how the American right ultimately brought us to this horrible moment: They conditioned Republican voters to actually expect and demand things, and punish those who wouldnt deliver.

That same attitude is whats needed from Democratic voters now not just rage aimed at the conservative ideologues turning back the clock, but also rage at the Democrats who control the government today. Those elected officials must be forced kicking and screaming against their own desires to actually produce. Not tomorrow. Now.

Of course, many of us have been saying this for decades and have been berated and belittled for doing so. But at least for a moment, it finally feels like were no longer alone.

If thats fleeting, were screwed. If its enduring, then theres still a tiny glimmer of hope.

David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an award-winning investigative journalist. He is an editor at large at Jacobin, and the founder of the Daily Poster. He served as Bernie Sanders presidential campaign speechwriter

Read more:
Its time for Democrats to fear their own voters - The Guardian