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.
Home Press Room CFIF Opposes White House Executive Order Importing Foreign Nations’ Price Controls
CFIF Opposes White House Executive Order Importing Foreign Nations’ Price Controls Print
Friday, July 24 2020

ALEXANDRIA, VA – Regrettably, the White House today announced an executive order that effectively imports drug price controls from foreign nations with socialized healthcare systems.  In response, Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) President Jeffery Mazzella issued the following statement strongly opposing the order and encouraging immediate reconsideration:  

"Price controls simply do not work, regardless of the product targeted or the location they’re attempted, and real-world experience establishes that pharmaceutical price controls are no different.  The new executive order would impose what’s known as an International Pricing Index (IPI) for U.S. drugs administered by the federal government, meaning that foreign governments’ drug price controls would suddenly control our own reimbursement rates.  That would upend our current system, which has actually already reduced the cost of the 50 most popular Medicare Part B drugs sold by approximately 1%.  Our current system already includes the discounts negotiated between hospitals, healthcare plans and payers.  In contrast, foreign governments whose price control schemes we would import don’t negotiate, but instead dictate prices while threatening to violate patent rights and employ a ‘take it or leave it’ approach.  

"As a direct consequence of foreign nations’ price control approaches that disrespect patent rights, those nations receive far fewer new lifesaving and life-improving drugs than American consumers.  For example, 96% of all new cancer drugs over the past decade were made available to U.S. consumers.  In contrast, only 56% of those same drugs became available in Canada, only 50% became available in Japan and only 11% in Greece, as just three examples.  Simply put, consumers in nations whose governments impose drug price controls don’t enjoy access to nearly as many new drugs as Americans, or nearly as soon.  As The Wall Street Journal found, that’s why America outpaces European nations in terms of cancer survival rates, among other advantages.  

"Even the Trump Administration itself has highlighted the destructive effect of importing foreign price controls.  In 2018, its Council of Economic Advisers affirmed that, ‘If the United States had adopted the centralized drug pricing policy in other developed nations twenty years ago, then the world may not have highly valuable treatments for diseases that required significant investment.’  

"Currently, the United States accounts for nearly two-thirds of all new drugs introduced worldwide, and our more market-oriented system and protection of patent rights explains why.  Very few potential new drugs ever reach the market, due to astronomical research and development costs, lengthy government safety tests, laboratory effectiveness trials, possible product liability lawsuits, patent protection limitations and other bureaucratic hassles.  Imposing artificial price controls would add to those headwinds by making it less possible to recover the massive costs of developing new medicines and R&D, leading to fewer new drugs for U.S. consumers.  

"Instead of importing foreign nations’ price control schemes and their consequences, America should be exporting our superior system to their shores. 

"Today’s executive order contravenes the Trump Administration’s broader agenda of deregulation, free-market approaches and strong intellectual property (IP) protections.  Hopefully, the White House quickly realizes the potentially catastrophic consequences of this order, lest American consumers suffer in the same way as consumers in the foreign nations that impose the price controls that it now seeks to import.  

"In his State of the Union Address earlier this year, President Trump reassured Americans that, ‘To those watching at home tonight, I want you to know that we will never let socialism destroy American healthcare.’  Unfortunately, the White House’s executive order announced today regarding drug prices would do precisely that.  We therefore urge President Trump to reconsider this potentially catastrophic order in the strongest possible terms."

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

###

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
Which of the following is responsible for the planning and execution of the Inaugural Ceremonies of the President-elect and Vice President-elect of the United States?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Two decades before being accused of misconduct against women while he was New York governor, a younger Andrew Cuomo was the subject of a sexual harassment complaint from a government official who claimed that Cuomo -- serving at the time in Bill Clinton's cabinet -- also hounded her with 'a series of attacks and dirty tricks.'Susan Gaffney filed the 2000 complaint against Cuomo while he was secretary…[more]
 
 
—Susan Katz Keating, Just the News Chief National Security Correspondent
— Susan Katz Keating, Just the News Chief National Security Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

California Governor Gavin Newsom and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo are entangled by multiple controversies, with serious calls for both to be removed from office. Which one is more likely to be removed?