logo
Opinion - Trump shouldn't import socialist price controls

Opinion - Trump shouldn't import socialist price controls

Yahooa day ago

Remember when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump castigated 'Comrade Kamala' Harris, then the Democratic nominee, for supporting price controls? It wasn't that long ago — just last August.
At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, Trump told the crowd: 'In her speech yesterday, Kamala went full Communist … She wants to destroy our country. After causing catastrophic inflation, Comrade Kamala announced that she wants to institute socialist price controls.'
Harris's price controls were largely aimed at food in grocery stores, though she also frequently touted the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act's backdoor price controls — under the guise of 'negotiations' — on a certain number of expensive drugs.
Trump was right to criticize Harris for supporting price controls on food, as well as prescription drugs. And, given the election results, it seems the public agreed with him.
Price controls are the progressive left's go-to solution for almost all economic problems. But price controls virtually always lead to unintended consequences: shortages of the price-controlled products or services; lower quality as manufacturers cut corners to meet government-imposed price points; less innovation, since companies don't know if they'll be allowed to recover their costs; and a black market where people pay more to get what they want or need.
So it's puzzling to see Trump now proposing a version of drug price controls himself. It's not the first time, either.
During his first term, Trump pushed for 'drug importation,' encouraging U.S. citizens to buy medicines from countries like Canada — even though the FDA has warned those drugs could be fake or substandard. The effort fizzled, and even Florida, which tried a state-level importation scheme, eventually abandoned its program.
Trump's latest idea is called 'Most Favored Nation' pricing. Details are thin, but a recent executive order says, 'To the extent consistent with law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) shall facilitate direct-to-consumer purchasing programs for pharmaceutical manufacturers that sell their products to American patients at the most-favored-nation price.'
That 'most-favored' country will almost certainly be one with government-run health care — that is, socialized medicine. These systems are known for price controls, which lead to shortages, long wait times, and limited access to cutting-edge treatments.
The goal of Most Favored Nation is to lower prices on expensive drugs. Americans do pay more for brand-name drugs than patients elsewhere. But they also pay less for generics, which account for roughly 90 percent of all prescriptions.
One reason for the disparity is the middlemen in our system, known as pharmacy benefit managers. Their job is to negotiate lower prices with drugmakers. But those savings often don't make it to patients. Instead, pharmacy benefit managers keep a big chunk for themselves — on average, $0.42 of every $1 spent on brand-name drugs in the commercial market, by one estimate. In many cases, those pharmacy benefit manager cuts are larger than the total price of the drug in Europe.
It's clear our system could work better. 'Shark Tank' entrepreneur Mark Cuban launched the Cost Plus Drug Company in 2022 to bypass these middlemen. The Cost Plus website says, 'Our prices are the true cost to get each medication from the manufacturer to you. We cut out the pharmacy middlemen and negotiate directly with manufacturers to get the best possible price.' The company tacks on 15 percent for overhead and a $5 filling fee.
While customers may not save much on some widely used generics, the discounted prices on more expensive brand name and generic drugs are significantly lower than what most people would experience at their local pharmacy. Cost Plus has hundreds of drugs for nearly 100 listed medical conditions, and it's looking to add new drugs all the time. It's only been in business a few years and is working to expand.
We also shouldn't ignore the fact that Americans are subsidizing below-market prices abroad. The United States funds a disproportionate share of global pharmaceutical innovation, while other wealthy nations impose price caps and benefit from our investment. If Trump wants to stop other countries from taking advantage of us, he should take the approach he's using to get countries to pay more for defense.
Cuban's Cost Plus experiment proves we don't need Most Favored Nation pricing. Let socialized systems keep their socialized prices, limited access and denial of care.
Tweaking a line Trump likes to use and applying it to prescription drugs: We don't need a new law. We just don't need a middleman.
Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response
How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response

Newsweek

time19 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's response to protests in Los Angeles is in keeping with suggestions put forth in Project 2025, a political commentator has said. Allison Gill, who worked at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, said on Wajahat Ali's the Left Hook Substack that the president's military response was "spelled out in Project 2025," a conservative policy dossier. She did not specify how. Newsweek has contacted the Heritage Foundation and Gill for comment by email. The Context Protests against immigration enforcement began in Los Angeles on Friday and have continued, with some isolated incidents of violence and looting. In response, Trump announced the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to restore order, without California Governor Gavin Newsom's consent. While the president has said the move was necessary to prevent the city from "burning to the ground" amid protests and riots, officials in California have accused Trump of exacerbating the situation in an "unprecedented power grab." A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. AP Photo/Eric Thayer What To Know Gill, who served Trump a lawsuit in 2023 accusing him of conspiring to fire her from the Veterans Affairs Department during his first presidency, said sending in the Marines was "propaganda" because the protests were not severe enough to require them. Though she said Project 2025 predicted the president's response to the protests, she did not elaborate on how. Project 2025 is a 900-page document of policy proposals published by the Heritage Foundation think tank. It advocates limited government, border security and tough immigration laws among other conservative measures. The policy proposals have proved divisive, and the president's critics and supporters alike have debated their influence on him. While Project 2025 does not mention the Insurrection Act, a November 2023 report from The Washington Post, citing internal communications and a person involved in the conversations, said the Project 2025 group had drafted executive orders that would use the Insurrection Act to deploy the military domestically. Gill told Ali that she warned people of Trump's potential use of the military to curb protests before the presidential election. "We did everything that we could in leading up to the election in 2024 to tell everyone as loud as we can, they are planning to do this," she said, adding: "Saying he's going to call this an invasion. He's going to call this an insurrection. And he's going to use that to invoke emergency powers so that he can unleash the military on United States citizens and perhaps even suspend habeas corpus so that he can detain his political enemies without due process." "This is scary," Gill, who hosts the Mueller, She Wrote podcast, continued. "This is full-on fascism, full-on authoritarianism." "This is a test case for authoritarianism," Ali added. Before the 2024 presidential election, Democrats accused Trump of planning to implement Project 2025 if he won. While Trump initially called parts of the plan "ridiculous and abysmal," he told Time after his electoral victory that he disagreed with parts of it, but not all of it. He has since appointed a number of people linked to Project 2025 to White House positions. In an October interview with Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, Trump indicated that he would use the National Guard or the military if there were disruptions from "radical left lunatics" on Election Day. What Does Project 2025 Say? Project 2025 advocates for improved defense infrastructure and for the Department of Homeland Security to "thoroughly enforce immigration laws." The document added that DHS should "provide states and localities with a limited federal emergency response and preparedness." However, it did not say whether this would occur in the context of protests. What Trump's Advisers Have Said Trump's advisers have previously spoken about the use of National Guard troops in other contexts. According to a February 2024 report in The Atlantic, Stephen Miller, now the White House deputy chief of staff, said that Trump—if returned to office—would take National Guard troops from sympathetic Republican-controlled states and use them in Democratic-run states whose governors refused to cooperate with their mass deportation policy. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday: "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "We will always protect the constitutional right for Angelenos to peacefully protest. However, violence, destruction and vandalism will not be tolerated in our city and those responsible will be held fully accountable." What Happens Next The anti-ICE protests, which have spread to other cities, are likely to continue. Newsom has called on the Trump administration to remove federal troops from Los Angeles.

U.S. uncertainty is handing Europe a huge opportunity
U.S. uncertainty is handing Europe a huge opportunity

CNBC

time24 minutes ago

  • CNBC

U.S. uncertainty is handing Europe a huge opportunity

Europe is being urged to capitalize on the volatility of the Trump administration, as shifts in capital and private market flows suggest U.S. exceptionalism is waning and losing out to a resurgent Europe. The numbers tell part of the story, with Europe's Stoxx 600 up over 8% compared to a 5% jump for the S&P 500 since Nov. 1, 2024, just days ahead of the U.S. election. Bank of America said in a report dated June 5 that U.S. equities had seen outflows of $7.5 billion over the previous three weeks, while European stocks benefited from inflows of $2.6 billion over the same period. Earlier this year, meanwhile, data from Morningstar showed that investors withdrew 2.8 billion euros ($3.2 billion) from U.S. equity ETFs in the month to the middle of March, while shifting 14.6 billion euros into European ETFs. Goldman Sachs International Co-CEO Anthony Gutman told CNBC that the convergence in U.S. and European growth rates came about quickly this year and was a big factor prompting investors to shift money toward Europe. "In January, sentiment felt very strong in the U.S., it felt somewhat more muted in Europe. You roll the clock forward and now the picture has changed fairly dramatically, that's to the benefit of Europe in many cases. Europe is getting more capital inflows and there is more optimism in Europe," Gutman told CNBC's Annette Weisbach Wednesday on the sidelines of the Goldman Sachs European Financials Conference in Berlin. Meanwhile, in private markets, talk of the breakdown of U.S. exceptionalism dominated the Super Return forum in Berlin last week. Carlyle Group's Managing Director Mark Jenkins told CNBC that, "in Europe, we've seen a lot of great opportunity and think we can pick up greater returns here relative to the risk you're taking in the U.S." This sentiment was echoed by private equity giant Permira, which holds private equity funds and credit vehicles representing around 60 billion euros worth of capital under management. "If you look at Europe at the moment, firstly, capital is cheaper, if you look at the trend of where euro rates are going versus dollar rates are going, you can fund and finance things cheaper here. Secondly, valuations are cheaper, you can buy great companies for less," Permira Executive Chairman Kurt Björklund told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" on Tuesday. "Thirdly the innovation cycle is growing exponentially in Europe … there is an enormous number of highly innovative companies that are growing in a disruptive and global way," he added. All eyes are now on the potential for an EU-U.S. trade deal — which is proving trickier to pin down than with some other countries, including the U.K. Referencing the complexity of the behemoth that is the European Union, Siemens Energy Chairman Joe Kaeser told CNBC that the EU is "politically not ready to strike these types of deals." The White House hinted on Wednesday that a July 9 deadline for a deal may be movable, however, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying: "It is highly likely that for those countries that are negotiating — or trading blocs, in the case of the EU — who are negotiating in good faith, we will roll the date forward to continue the good faith negotiation." French President Emmanuel Macron also struck an optimistic tone, telling CNBC's Karen Tso on Wednesday: "I'm sure that we will find, at the end of the day, a good solution." Unicredit CEO Andrea Orcel stressed that the opportunity for Europe's continued revival lies in its own hands, however. He explained that the 27-member European Union could galvanize amid the fracturing of Europe's relationship with the U.S., but warned that investors can also be fickle. The expectation is that "there will be convergence, there will be a banking union, there will be a capital markets union. There will be a lot of spend on infrastructure, on defense... That's exciting for the market, therefore money flowing in," Orcel told CNBC Wednesday. "But if, little by little, investors realize that this is lip service, but it doesn't really happen. Money will flow back in a nanosecond, and you will see [that] very quickly." Europe is faced with a "phenomenal opportunity," he added. "We have every reason to be ... on par with the U.S., but it's our fault if we don't do it."

China affirms trade deal with US, says it always keeps its word
China affirms trade deal with US, says it always keeps its word

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

China affirms trade deal with US, says it always keeps its word

BEIJING (Reuters) -China on Thursday affirmed a trade deal announced by U.S. President Donald Trump, saying both sides needed to abide by the consensus and adding China always kept its word. The deal, reached after Trump and China's President Xi Jinping spoke on the telephone last week, brings a delicate truce in a trade war between the world's two largest economies. "China has always kept its word and delivered results," Lin Jian, a foreign ministry spokesperson, said at a regular news conference. "Now that a consensus has been reached, both sides should abide by it." The Trump-Xi telephone call broke a standoff that had flared just weeks after a preliminary deal was reached in Geneva. The call was quickly followed by more talks in London that Washington said had put "meat on the bones" of the Geneva agreement to ease bilateral retaliatory tariffs. The Geneva deal had faltered over China's continued curbs on minerals exports, prompting the Trump administration to respond with export controls preventing shipments of semiconductor design software, jet engines for Chinese-made planes and other goods to China. Trump on Wednesday said he was very happy with the trade deal. "Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval with President Xi and me," Trump said on Truth Social. "Full magnets, and any necessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front, by China. Likewise, we will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities (which has always been good with me!). We are getting a total of 55% tariffs, China is getting 10%." Still, specifics of the latest deal and details on how it will be implemented remain unclear. A White House official said the 55% represents the sum of a baseline 10% "reciprocal" tariff Trump has imposed on goods imported from nearly all U.S. trading partners, 20% on all Chinese imports associated with his accusation that China had not done enough to stem the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., and pre-existing 25% levies on imports from China put in place during Trump's first presidential term. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store