protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 57,175
- 18,365
Yesterday, a federal judge appointed by Barrack Obama, Amit Mehta, struck down a consumer favorable ruling put in place by President Trump, to require big drug companies to reveal their prices (often exhorbitant), in TV ads.
The law was set to go into effect just hours before the judge lowered the boom and canceled the rule (for now), keeping the drug companies fully in power to allow their products to be used by only the rich, who could afford the insanely high prices.
The White House initiative would have given poor and working class Americans a much better shot at getting these prescription drugs that they need, by putting pressure on the drug companies to lower their prices.
Oh sure, the judge came up with something to justify his case, a 27 page report no less, but these guys always do. At the end of the day, it's just another slam against the Trump administration, and an attempt to keep it from getting the credit that they would deserve, especially as we get closer to the 2020 election.
This one might backfire on the Democrats. So much for the idea that Democrats are the champions of the poor and working class, and are ready to go to battle against the rich. Here's a case where an Obama appointee is protecting big rich drug companies, against a Trump initiative that would have helped the poor, and everyone else.
AARP vice president Nancy LeaMond backed trump, and slammed the judge saying "Today's ruling is a step backward in the battle against skyrocketing drug prices."
Judge strikes down rule requiring drug ads to reveal prices
The law was set to go into effect just hours before the judge lowered the boom and canceled the rule (for now), keeping the drug companies fully in power to allow their products to be used by only the rich, who could afford the insanely high prices.
The White House initiative would have given poor and working class Americans a much better shot at getting these prescription drugs that they need, by putting pressure on the drug companies to lower their prices.
Oh sure, the judge came up with something to justify his case, a 27 page report no less, but these guys always do. At the end of the day, it's just another slam against the Trump administration, and an attempt to keep it from getting the credit that they would deserve, especially as we get closer to the 2020 election.
This one might backfire on the Democrats. So much for the idea that Democrats are the champions of the poor and working class, and are ready to go to battle against the rich. Here's a case where an Obama appointee is protecting big rich drug companies, against a Trump initiative that would have helped the poor, and everyone else.
AARP vice president Nancy LeaMond backed trump, and slammed the judge saying "Today's ruling is a step backward in the battle against skyrocketing drug prices."
Judge strikes down rule requiring drug ads to reveal prices
