Category: Blaze Media
Colts’ Alec Pierce Slapped With Ejection For Contact With Referee, But Is This Just Another Example Of NFL Being Soft?
Oh, you’ve gotta be kidding me
Smith on Maduro capture: ‘I don’t think it fundamentally changed drug trafficking in America at all’
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said on Sunday he doesn’t think capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro will have a significant impact on the scope of drug trafficking in the United States. “No, I don’t,” Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said in an interview on NewsNation’s “The Hill,” when asked if he…
Starlink says it will provide service to people of Venezuela through Feb. 3
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said Starlink, the company’s satellite internet provider, will provide the service free of charge to the people of Venezuela for the next month. Musk reposted a statement from Starlink’s account on the social platform X, which Musk owns, announcing the policy shift. “Starlink is providing free broadband service to the people…
Live updates: US running ‘direction’ of Venezuela after Maduro ouster; Lawmakers speak out
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday said that the Trump administration is “running” “the direction” of Venezuela after President Trump declared that the U.S. would “run” the country until leadership could be transitioned. “What we are running is the direction that this is going to move moving forward,” Rubio said on ABC’s “Meet The…
Epstein, health care and a shutdown fight: Here’s what the House faces in January
The House will return from a holiday break to face sagas that have vexed the chamber for months. Debates on health care and attempts to revive expired ObamaCare subsidies will stretch into January and the first quarter of the year. An end-of-month funding deadline poses a threat of a partial government shutdown. And the Department…
House Democrat: ‘Part of the intent’ of Maduro ouster is to send Venezuelans back
Democratic Rep. Ami Bera (Calif.) said Sunday that the Trump administration’s motives for capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro goes beyond stopping the flow of drugs and sanctioned oil from the South American country. “I do think part of the intent of the administration is now that they have a different administration in Venezuela that they…
‘It Looks Weak’: Some Democrats Reportedly Displeased With Party’s Response To Venezuela Operation
‘As Democrats we can’t just condemn what happened’
‘It Looks Weak’: Some Democrats Reportedly Displeased With Party’s Response To Venezuela Operation
‘As Democrats we can’t just condemn what happened’
Why weight-loss drug prices finally fell — and who deserves credit
For decades, Americans heard the same justification for high drug prices. Pharmaceutical executives insisted those prices were unavoidable. Research costs required them. Innovation depended on them. The United States, as the world’s most open market, had to pay more than everyone else.
Then Eli Lilly cut the monthly price of one of its flagship weight-loss drugs, Zepbound.
If lower prices matter, then incentives matter more than bureaucracy. Competition and consumer access drive real change.
Nothing about the drug changed. No new scientific breakthrough appeared. The only thing that changed was competition. Once real pressure entered the market, Lilly found room in its pricing model that executives had long claimed did not exist.
The market responded quickly. Novo Nordisk, Lilly’s primary rival, lowered its prices soon after. This did not reflect a sudden gain in efficiency. It reflected fear of losing ground to a competitor.
That is how functioning markets work. When one major player moves, others adjust. The correction happens faster than any federal agency could hope to manage.
The irony is hard to miss. For years, the industry claimed margins were fixed and untouchable. Executives warned that any shift would damage shareholders and undermine global health. Yet the moment one company blinked, others followed. Consumers saw relief not because regulators intervened, but because competition exposed the old narrative as hollow.
Another force reinforced that shift. On Nov. 6, the White House announced a pricing agreement with major drug manufacturers scheduled to take effect in 2026. The agreement aims to narrow the gap between U.S. prices and those in other advanced economies and establishes a purchasing framework that makes reductions easier to implement.
That move marked a break from Washington’s habit of passively accepting industry talking points. The administration did not override the market. It amplified momentum competition had already created. Companies that once refused to consider cuts began to bend once the political cost of rigidity became clear. The announcement accelerated the trend, but competition started it.
A larger reality deserves attention. Major pharmaceutical companies have posted enormous profits for years. They have spent billions on stock buybacks and shareholder payouts while executive compensation soared. Market valuations across the sector reached historic highs. Lilly even became the first pharmaceutical company to surpass a trillion-dollar valuation.
Profit itself is not the problem. But competition forcing these firms to behave more like the quasi-utilities they resemble marks a welcome change from a system long treated as untouchable.
RELATED: The party that made life more expensive wants credit for noticing
byemo via iStock/Getty Images
That system rests on a global arrangement in which Americans shoulder a disproportionate share of drug development costs. Wealthy nations negotiate prices or impose caps. The United States does not. The gap between what Americans pay and what others pay funds buybacks, dividends, and executive packages. Shareholders collect the upside.
The disparity speaks for itself. Drugs that cost hundreds of dollars overseas cost thousands here. The industry defended that gap by warning that research would collapse if prices fell. The current price cuts prove otherwise. Pipelines remain intact. Investment continues. Profitability holds. The model did not break when prices moved downward. It adjusted.
These developments expose a simple truth. Prices never reflected necessity. Incentives shaped them, reinforced by limited competition and political deference. Competition cracked open an inflexible model. The White House helped widen the opening.
Policymakers should learn from that sequence. If lower prices matter, then incentives matter more than bureaucracy. Competition and consumer access drive real change. The bloated regulatory machinery Washington favors often delays it. The market moved before Congress could even respond.
For Americans struggling to afford essential medication, that lesson matters most. Competition remains the strongest and most reliable force for bringing prices down.
It worked here. It can work again — if policymakers allow markets to function and pharmaceutical companies choose access over insulation.
Why weight-loss drug prices finally fell — and who deserves credit
For decades, Americans heard the same justification for high drug prices. Pharmaceutical executives insisted those prices were unavoidable. Research costs required them. Innovation depended on them. The United States, as the world’s most open market, had to pay more than everyone else.
Then Eli Lilly cut the monthly price of one of its flagship weight-loss drugs, Zepbound.
If lower prices matter, then incentives matter more than bureaucracy. Competition and consumer access drive real change.
Nothing about the drug changed. No new scientific breakthrough appeared. The only thing that changed was competition. Once real pressure entered the market, Lilly found room in its pricing model that executives had long claimed did not exist.
The market responded quickly. Novo Nordisk, Lilly’s primary rival, lowered its prices soon after. This did not reflect a sudden gain in efficiency. It reflected fear of losing ground to a competitor.
That is how functioning markets work. When one major player moves, others adjust. The correction happens faster than any federal agency could hope to manage.
The irony is hard to miss. For years, the industry claimed margins were fixed and untouchable. Executives warned that any shift would damage shareholders and undermine global health. Yet the moment one company blinked, others followed. Consumers saw relief not because regulators intervened, but because competition exposed the old narrative as hollow.
Another force reinforced that shift. On Nov. 6, the White House announced a pricing agreement with major drug manufacturers scheduled to take effect in 2026. The agreement aims to narrow the gap between U.S. prices and those in other advanced economies and establishes a purchasing framework that makes reductions easier to implement.
That move marked a break from Washington’s habit of passively accepting industry talking points. The administration did not override the market. It amplified momentum competition had already created. Companies that once refused to consider cuts began to bend once the political cost of rigidity became clear. The announcement accelerated the trend, but competition started it.
A larger reality deserves attention. Major pharmaceutical companies have posted enormous profits for years. They have spent billions on stock buybacks and shareholder payouts while executive compensation soared. Market valuations across the sector reached historic highs. Lilly even became the first pharmaceutical company to surpass a trillion-dollar valuation.
Profit itself is not the problem. But competition forcing these firms to behave more like the quasi-utilities they resemble marks a welcome change from a system long treated as untouchable.
RELATED: The party that made life more expensive wants credit for noticing
byemo via iStock/Getty Images
That system rests on a global arrangement in which Americans shoulder a disproportionate share of drug development costs. Wealthy nations negotiate prices or impose caps. The United States does not. The gap between what Americans pay and what others pay funds buybacks, dividends, and executive packages. Shareholders collect the upside.
The disparity speaks for itself. Drugs that cost hundreds of dollars overseas cost thousands here. The industry defended that gap by warning that research would collapse if prices fell. The current price cuts prove otherwise. Pipelines remain intact. Investment continues. Profitability holds. The model did not break when prices moved downward. It adjusted.
These developments expose a simple truth. Prices never reflected necessity. Incentives shaped them, reinforced by limited competition and political deference. Competition cracked open an inflexible model. The White House helped widen the opening.
Policymakers should learn from that sequence. If lower prices matter, then incentives matter more than bureaucracy. Competition and consumer access drive real change. The bloated regulatory machinery Washington favors often delays it. The market moved before Congress could even respond.
For Americans struggling to afford essential medication, that lesson matters most. Competition remains the strongest and most reliable force for bringing prices down.
It worked here. It can work again — if policymakers allow markets to function and pharmaceutical companies choose access over insulation.
