Category: The American Spectator
Musk Delivers Blunt Message To EU Officials Who Slapped Giant Fine On X
‘Seem appropriate to apply our response not just to the EU’
Killing drug ads won’t lower prices — it will kill innovation
The United States is one of the few countries that allows prescription drugmakers to speak directly to patients. That simple fact now fuels political calls to “ban the ads.” But restricting direct-to-consumer advertising would do more than change what runs during football games. It would shrink the flow of information to patients and push our system toward the bureaucratic throttling that has turned other countries into innovation laggards.
Advertising is part of a dynamic market process. Entrepreneurs inform consumers about new products, and when profits are high, firms have every incentive to improve quality and expand access.
The pattern is clear: The more Washington intervenes, the fewer cures Americans get.
New, cheaper treatments need to be brought to consumers’ attention. Otherwise, people stay stuck with older, more expensive options, and competition falters. Banning pharmaceutical advertising would hobble innovative firms whose products are not yet known and leave those seeking medical care less informed.
Critics warn that “a growing proliferation of ads” drives demand for costly treatments, even when less expensive alternatives exist. Yet a recent study in the Journal of Public Economics finds that exposure to pharmaceutical ads increases drug utilization across the board — including cheaper generics and non-advertised medications. In short, advertising pushes people who need care to make better, more informed decisions.
A market-based system rewards risk-taking and innovation. Despite the many flaws in American health care, the United States leads the world in medical breakthroughs — from cancer immunotherapies to vaccines developed in record time. That success wasn’t created by government decree. It came from competition: firms communicating openly about their products, fighting for patients, and reinvesting earnings into the next generation of lifesaving discoveries.
Sure, some regulations are adopted with good intentions. But drug ads are already heavily regulated, and a full ban would create serious unintended consequences — including the unseen cost of innovative drugs that will never reach patients because firms won’t invest in developing treatments they are barred from promoting.
American health care is now regulated to the point of satisfying no one. Patients face rising costs. Physicians navigate a Kafkaesque maze of top-down rules. Taxpayers foot the bill for decisions made by distant bureaucracies. Measures associated with socialized medicine continue creeping into the marketplace.
Price controls in the Inflation Reduction Act are already cutting into pharmaceutical research and development. One study estimates roughly 188 fewer small-molecule treatments in the 20 years after its enactment. The pattern is clear: The more Washington intervenes, the fewer cures Americans get.
RELATED: Trump faces drugmakers that treat sick Americans like ATMs
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
The answer to the problems in American health care isn’t more government. It’s less. Expected profitability drives investment in biomedical research. Imposing new advertising bans or European-style price controls would mean lower-quality care, higher mortality, and the erosion of America’s leadership in medical innovation.
The United Kingdom offers a warning. Once a global leader, it drove investment offshore through overregulation and rigid price controls. Today, only 37% of new medicines are made fully available for their licensed uses in Britain. Americans spend more, but they also live longer: U.S. cancer patients outlive their European counterparts for a reason.
Discovering new drugs is hard. Every breakthrough begins with the freedom to imagine, to compete, and to communicate. Strip companies of the ability to inform patients, and you strip away the incentive to develop the next cure. Competitive markets — not centralized control — will fuel tomorrow’s medical miracles.
How to win the opioid fight
Despite thousands of lawsuits against OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma now being settled, the opioid crisis continues to devastate families and communities. This is why there are massive national efforts to expand addiction treatment, develop non-opioid pain alternatives, promote natural remedies, and confront the Mexican drug cartels flooding America with fentanyl. In recent years, opioid-related deaths have finally begun to decline, suggesting that those initiatives are starting to make a real impact. But that progress may already be slowing.
The introduction of work requirements for Medicaid eligibility under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is producing unintended consequences for people in addiction recovery. Early studies show that declines in Medicaid enrollment correlate with drops in the number of patients receiving treatment for opioid use disorder. Because Medicaid is the primary source for buprenorphine and addiction services, these enrollment changes threaten fragile but meaningful recovery gains.
Conservatives champion individual responsibility — but responsibility also requires ensuring that systems meant to help people reclaim their lives aren’t working against them.
Work requirements aren’t the problem — they’re sound policy to preserve the financial stability and original intention of the program. The real issue is Medicaid’s regulatory structure, which is too rigid and dysfunctional to absorb yet another layer of complexity.
This crisis didn’t begin with work requirements. Medicaid’s own structure, combined with state policies, had been restricting access to effective OUD treatment for years. Patients face prior-authorization delays, prescriber rules that block lifesaving medications, and certificate-of-need laws that stop treatment centers from opening or expanding. Policymakers often claim these rules protect patients or control costs. In practice, they have choked off reliable care and pushed people in recovery farther from the help they need.
In states where prescriber limits and facility restrictions already make treatment scarce, adjusting Medicaid eligibility has a serious impact on the availability of buprenorphine providers. The problem lies in creating a policy that requires personal responsibility within an already bureaucratic structure that actively slows treatment access. When enrollment pressures combine with supply constraints caused by CON laws and prescription rules, the result is fewer people getting the care that keeps them alive.
This is especially true in Appalachia, which is ground zero of the opioid crisis. Pennsylvania explicitly prohibits off-site methadone “medication units,” while legislation has been floated in West Virginia that aims to ban methadone clinics. Local governments across the region routinely block zoning permits for treatment facilities, often caving to community pushback rather than addressing a staggering public health emergency. Many states still impose CON laws, restricting the ability of hospitals and clinics to add new treatment beds or open new treatment programs.
RELATED: Trump faces drugmakers that treat sick Americans like ATMs
Credit: Photo by Pete Marovich/Getty Images
On the provider side, well-intentioned prescribing rules have created even more barriers. Despite a dire shortage of addiction specialists, many states limit the prescription of OUD medications to certain providers, leaving primary care doctors — who could dramatically expand treatment access — underutilized or prevented from issuing prescriptions. Lawmakers have inadvertently created a bottleneck: too few qualified providers and too many hoops to jump through for those who want to treat addiction.
As the Trump administration continues to build a populist coalition that includes voters from Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other communities deeply scarred by opioid addiction, it must confront this reality head-on. Doing so does not require abandoning conservative principles, nor does it mean reversing work requirements. Those reforms remain both necessary and widely popular. But a serious conservative health care agenda must recognize that Medicaid’s regulatory architecture is undermining progress against opioid addiction — and America cannot afford to lose ground now.
Conservatives champion individual responsibility — but responsibility also requires ensuring that systems designed to help people reclaim their lives aren’t working against them. Addressing Medicaid’s regulatory failures is not just good policy; it is essential to sustaining progress in one of the most consequential public health fights of our time.
Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.
Glenn Beck BURIES the 5 biggest Hitler myths circulating right now with original Nazi documents
The idea that Adolf Hitler was some misunderstood or even “good” figure while Winston Churchill was the real WWII villain was once confined to the extreme fringes and unknown to almost everyone else. Today, however, the idea has resurfaced with disturbing visibility — no longer limited to neo-Nazi forums but now defended or entertained on major podcasts, viral social-media threads, and platforms with tens of millions of listeners and viewers.
Glenn Beck, a lover of history and collector of historical artifacts, is appalled that this revisionist narrative is being taken seriously.
“I really don’t get it. History, real history, is not a choose-your-own-adventure kind of thing. It’s ink on paper, orders in filing cabinets, telegrams, diaries, bodies. It’s what actually happened, not what we hope happened,” he says.
On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn sets the record straight about Hitler, Churchill, and WWII.
Lie #1: Poland wasn’t part of Hitler’s conquest plan
“Let me just say this calmly, factually, and finally: Germany’s plans for Poland were not reactive. They were premeditated,” he asserts.
The faulty idea pushed by Hitler rehabilitators that Britain conned the West into going to war by promising to defend Poland is easily debunked with an artifact Glenn has in his possession. “It’s called Fall Weiss,” he says. “It’s Hitler’s operational blueprint for the invasion of Poland, drafted in 1938, a year before [British Prime Minister Neville] Chamberlain said, ‘We’re going to guarantee [Poland’s] safety.”’
“Hitler’s explicitly stated road map [targeted] Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, then the East,” he explains. “Britain didn’t pull Germany into war. Germany was already marching toward war — global war.”
Lie #2: Hitler had no Western ambitions
The second WWII fallacy that demands debunking, he says, is the idea that Hitler had “no Western ambitions” and actually wanted peace with Britain.
“Really? Because we have the paper trail again,” Glenn retorts.
“How do you explain Operation Sea Lion — Hitler’s detailed plan to invade and occupy Great Britain?” he asks. “You don’t draw up amphibious landing schedules across the English Channel just in case.”
But before this plot was even fathomed, Hitler had already tried to tee himself up to dominant Britain. In May 1941, Hitler’s second in command, Rudolf Hess, secretly flew a plane to Scotland with a mission of trying to make a “peace deal” with Britain. The offer, Glenn says, was this: “Let Hitler dominate Europe, and Germany would leave Britain alone.”
He had Nazi sympathizers in high British society — including the ex-King Edward VIII, who had openly praised Hitler and was willing to be put back on the throne as a Nazi puppet if Germany invaded.
“The Nazi files recovered after the war show explicit German plans to reinstall him after an occupation,” says Glenn. “Hitler was not avoiding conflict with Britain; he was planning its subversion.”
Lie #3: Hitler was initially friendly toward America
The idea that Hitler admired America and never wanted to go to war with her is another idea that easily crumbles under the weight of basic logic.
Hitler’s ideology stands in contrast in every way possible to that of the United States.
“Hitler believed the state was supreme, that the German people existed for the Reich. In America, the Constitution is supreme, and it exists to limit the states. Rights come from the furor and the government in [Nazi] Germany; in America, rights come from God, and the government is the servant, not the master,” Glenn differentiates.
“The individual in Germany: expendable. The West is built on the sanctity of the individual. Racial hierarchy is destiny in [Nazi] Germany. The West, at its best, rejects racial supremacy. The Declaration starts with ‘all men are created equal’ — not ‘some races are destined to rule.’ Nowhere in our documents does it say the state must expand endlessly,”’ he continues.
Lie #4: The US should’ve sided with Hitler over Stalin — the greater evil
“People are arguing now that the Allies should have sided with Hitler instead of Stalin. No rational reading of history supports any of that,” says Glenn.
While “Hitler and Stalin were both monstrous,” the U.S. was forced to choose “survival.”
“The question for us was no longer, ‘Hey, which dictator is better?’ The question was, ‘Which outcome prevents Hitler from ruling all of Europe?’ Because if Hitler defeated the Soviet Union, the resources of the East — all the oil, all the grain, all the industry, all the manpower — would have made the Third Reich unstoppable,” Glenn corrects.
But even still, “We knew at the time Stalin was just as bad. We knew we were going to be in war with Stalin at some point.”
Lie #5: Winston Churchill was the real WWII villain
Nobody could see Stalin’s wickedness more than Winston Churchill, says Glenn. “He was the one saying, ‘We can’t have this guy as an ally.”’
Even still, it’s “not about defending Churchill, who I think is a hero; but it’s about defending the record, the truth, so in our moment of confusion and upheaval and ideological extremism, we don’t lose our footing on the bedrock of fact.”
“When we begin to question whether the West should have resisted Hitler, where are we going? When we entertain the idea that freedom and tyranny could have co-existed, you’re not just rearranging interpretations; you’re reopening a door millions died to close,” Glenn warns.
“Be very careful when someone tells you the villain wasn’t really the villain. Woe unto him who makes evil good and good evil.”
To hear more of Glenn’s commentary, watch the video above.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Gavin Newsom’s Twisted ‘Crotch Clench’ Sparks Concern, Baffles Experts
There’s something wrong with Gavin Newsom. Americans recoiled in horror, then squinted in fascination at the images of Newsom’s appearance at the New York Times Dealbook Summit. There he was, the greaseball California governor, sitting in a chair with his legs crossed impossibly tight, protruding akimbo at improbable angles like a human swastika, a wanton display of “testicle-crushing” contortion. It was the opposite of manspreading, the inverse of kink-splaying, yet Newsom’s gnarled pose, his tangled appendages—like a steel-beamed hedgehog standing guard at Omaha Beach—still managed to intrude upon the public space in a way that many found unsettling.
The post Gavin Newsom’s Twisted ‘Crotch Clench’ Sparks Concern, Baffles Experts appeared first on .
10 Years After San Bernardino Terrorist Attack
Tuesday, December 2 marked 10 years since Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik shot dead Robert Adams, Isaac Amianos, Bennetta Betbadal,…
The Welcome Demise of Climate Change Catastrophism
Is the American Left finally waking up from its decades-long climate catastrophism stupor? For years, climate alarmism has reigned as…
Sleepy Donald Trump? Umm, No, He’s Not Joe Biden.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump, the very man who branded former President Joe Biden “Sleepy Joe” during the 2020 and…
Hegseth War Crimes Charge By Dems: What About Obama?
Talk about the law of unintended consequences. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is being targeted as follows by Democrats. Here’s…
