Joe Biden's inexorable march toward the fanatical left continued this week, as he and Bernie Sanders…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Biden Drug Plan Would Slash Innovation and U.S. Consumer Access

Joe Biden's inexorable march toward the fanatical left continued this week, as he and Bernie Sanders (D - Vermont) introduced their "unity platform" in anticipation of this year's Democratic convention.  We can thus add weaker U.S. patents and drug price controls imported from foreign nations to Biden's existing dumpster fire of bad ideas.

Here's the problem.  As we've often emphasized, and contrary to persistent myth, American consumers enjoy far greater access to new lifesaving drugs than people in other nations, including those in "other advanced economies" (Biden's words) whose price controls Biden seeks to import:

Of all new cancer drugs developed worldwide between 2011 and 2018, 96% were available to American consumers.  Meanwhile, only 56% of those drugs became available in Canada…[more]

July 10, 2020 • 04:52 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
CFIF Urges “No” Vote on H.R. 3, Speaker Pelosi’s Destructive Drug Pricing Bill Print
By CFIF Staff
Wednesday, December 11 2019

ALEXANDRIA, VA – The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's H.R. 3, the "Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019."  The Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") is urging all House Members to vote "No," as the legislation would, among other significant issues, stifle innovation, limit access to life-saving medications and reduce projected gains in life-expectancy for all Americans. What follows is a statement by CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella: 

"CFIF unambiguously opposes H.R. 3, the so-called 'Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019'. 

"Contrary to its misleading title, the primary effect of Pelosi’s bill wouldn’t be to lower drug costs, but to severely threaten Americans’ access to healthcare and life-saving medicines by imposing foreign price controls, compulsory arbitration with government bureaucrats, a complete restructuring of the popular Medicare Part D program and what amounts to a retroactive tax on hundreds of the most commonly used medicines in America. 

"America currently claims the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, accounting for two-thirds of all new lifesaving and life-improving drugs globally.  But by importing price controls from foreign nations – which ignore drug patents to extort compliance – American consumers would suffer the same negative consequences that those nations’ consumers do:  unavailability of those critical lifesaving and life-improving drugs. 

"Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office ('CBO') itself determined that H.R. 3 would reduce the number of new medicines introduced into the market, and the Council of Economic Advisers (‘CEA’) found that the bill’s price control mechanisms would impact fully one-third of all medicines under development.  The CEA also forecasts that H.R. 3 would reduce current expected U.S. life expectancy improvements over the coming decade by 25%. 

"The United Nations World Health Organization ('WHO') has similarly acknowledged that price controls suffocate innovation and delay the arrival of new drugs, or deny them entirely.  That's why the nations pursuing that destructive path receive a mere fraction of the new pharmaceuticals that Americans are able to access, which also explains why America outpaces those countries in terms of cancer survival rates and other benefits.  Pelosi's bill would also jeopardize nearly $1 trillion of pharmaceutical investment, research and development. 

"This is all far too high a price for Americans to pay on behalf of Nancy Pelosi's big-government drug pricing scheme. CFIF therefore opposes H.R. 3 in the strongest terms, applauds Members of Congress who have already voiced opposition to it and urges all House Members to vote 'No.'"

CFIF is a constitutional and free market advocacy organization with over 300,000 supporters and activists nationwide. 

###

Question of the Week   
In which one of the following years was the National Park Service established?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Allowing third parties to collect election ballots, a term sometimes called 'ballot harvesting,' is unconstitutional if it creates 'wide opportunity for fraud,' Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis says.'I think that ballot harvesting is definitely opening up a ripe opportunity for fraud,' Ellis told Just the News in an interview, while acknowledging there is no language in the Constitution…[more]
 
 
—Carrie Sheffield, Just the News White House Correspondent
— Carrie Sheffield, Just the News White House Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you currently expect your local schools to reopen on time in the fall?