In our latest Liberty Update we explain how Texas highlights the peril of the stubborn "green" energy…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: "Green" Energy Hogs Taxpayer Subsidies

In our latest Liberty Update we explain how Texas highlights the peril of the stubborn "green" energy agenda.  Economist Stephen Moore continues his fantastic work by illustrating how "green" energy, not fossil fuels, irrationally hogs taxpayer subsidies:

[N]ow the left is recirculating its myth that fossil fuels require massive taxpayer subsidies. In psychology, this is called "projecting" - when you accuse someone else of deviant behavior that applies to yourself. In reality for every kilowatt of power generated, wind gets about 10 times more taxpayer subsidies and solar gets 50 to 100 times more handouts than fossil fuels":

 

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="545"] "Green" Taxpayer Subsidy Hogs[/caption]…[more]

March 01, 2021 • 10:27 AM

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.
President Trump’s ‘Most Favored Nation’ Executive Order Always Was and Still Is a Prescription for Disaster Print
By CFIF Staff
Friday, November 20 2020

ALEXANDRIA, VA – Today, President Trump announced new details about implementation of the "Most Favored Nation" (MFN) executive order.  The rule relies on an International Pricing Index (IPI) to determine MFN pricing for certain Medicare drugs, meaning the price controls of foreign nations, many of which have socialized medicine systems, will control reimbursement rates here in the United States.

Below is a statement by CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella in response to today’s announcement:

“Reducing consumer costs in health care is important. But this ‘Most Favored Nation’ rule is the wrong approach. Indeed, the MFN rule is a prescription for disaster that hamstrings pharmaceutical innovators at the worst possible time: in the middle of a pandemic.

“Free-market and other center-right organizations remain united in our opposition to the MFN order. As a massive coalition of 80 such organizations wrote a few months ago, ‘Adopting these price controls will slow medical innovation, threaten American jobs, and undermine criticism of single-payer systems. In addition, a United States embrace of price controls will make it immeasurably more difficult to get foreign countries to pay their own way in the development of new medicines.’

“More specifically, price controls simply do not work, regardless of the product targeted or the country in which they’re attempted, and real-world experience establishes that pharmaceutical price controls are no different.  For example, other nations receive far fewer new lifesaving and life-improving drugs than American consumers, which enjoyed access to 96% of all new cancer drugs over the past decade. In contrast, only 56% of those same drugs became available in Canada, merely 50% became available in Japan and only 11% in Greece, as just three examples. The MFN rule threatens that access.

“Finally, the MFN rule contradicts the preferences of U.S. consumers and voters regarding the general role of government in health care. A recent national survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies for CFIF measured the health care priorities of voters nationally and in 12 key swing states ahead of the November 2020 election.  It found that ‘voters, across party, overwhelmingly prefer the role of the federal government to be that of providing oversight and incentives to health care providers, prescription drug companies and health insurers to encourage competition to lower prices in the health care system (70%) rather than having the federal government set prices and determine what services and medicines are covered by private health plans (30%).’  

###

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following states had the first paved concrete street in the U.S.?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"TOKYO, March 5 (Reuters) - Japanese supercomputer simulations showed that wearing two masks gave limited benefit in blocking viral spread compared with one properly fitted mask.The findings in part contradict recent recommendations from the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that two masks were better than one at reducing a person's exposure to the coronavirus.Researchers used the…[more]
 
 
—Rocky Swift, REUTERS
— Rocky Swift, REUTERS
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you support the $1.9 trillion Covid aid bill in its current form to get money to those who need it or oppose because of all the non-critical provisions in it?