Curious as to what you pay on your end? I assume insurance pays and this saves insurance companies $? I know ultimately it gets to the consumer through rates, etc.

Oh we're going to get socialism right, this time.

Right?

Phatbob said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

For the libertarians..

If there was no medicare or Medicaid, no Obamacare..

If every American had to pay out of pocket for everything healthcare related, would prescription drugs be..

A. More expensive in America
B. Cheaper in America
C. The same in America

And would they be..

A. More expensive in other countries
B. Cheaper in other countries
C. The same in other countries

---

The answer is B for both (Maybe some situational exceptions), but that also depends on if you are also including removing government involvement in all medical matters (IE regulations, encouraging insurance, etc). Government can screw up a system 50 different ways none of us have even thought of yet.

---

That's the point. We are where we are BECAUSE of government. We also have influential politicians on both sides pocketing large sums of money to keep this system costly, inefficient, and highly regulated for Americans. IF the government simply got completely out of the way with healthcare that would be ideal. But libertarians never point to the steps that should be taken right now, by this president, and whether it would have to be done with congressional action, to move toward less or no government. They are VERY quick though to yell at Trump for attempting to break the system single handedly by cutting off their profit engine using one of the very few methods available to him. Because if America pays less, other countries wont pay more. Costs AND profits will just plain come down across the board. The industry makes insane profits BECAUSE we are forced to pay for those profits.

---

Not sure where you're getting that from. Nothing gets dismissed as irrelevant more quickly than a Libertarian idea around here. Marxists at least get yelled at. Maybe the only part of it you are paying attention to is the criticism of Trump based on his big government tendencies. The other parts from Libertarians have always been there.

---

Mostly BigRob, who has been quick to call Trump a liberal for this move, but cant seem to post another path Trump can take to try to fix what is a huge noose around the neck of the American people.

---

It's been put forward countless times here. Not in this thread, but there have been lots of conversations about the difference between conservatism (small government - libertarian leaning) and the path of the current Republican party of big government populism, and Trump's role in that. Unfortunately, Trump has helped move the Republican conversation more to accepting the presuppositions of the left in order to win. That means never fixing the socialistic mistakes of the past, and therefore never addressing the real problems with real answers.

---

Im not asking about the difference between different parties.

Im asking, what specifically would you have Trump do to address the issue of HUGE government already being in place while Americans pay insane prices. "Get government out of the way" is not an answer. Be specific.

Now, can we talk about how many drugs Americans are on? I'm 49 and take no drugs at all, just nutrition supplements and daily exercise. I know people have some genetic or age/sex related conditions they have to deal with but I get the impression lot of people take large numbers of prescription drugs daily for years or decades, and that amount has radically increased in the last decade or two. What is up with that? Is it mostly better diagnosis with more more options, or lots of obesity and sedentary living, or environmental contamination msybe?

I agree more with Kennedy that the idea is to get people OFF drugs instead of only focusing on making cheaper bandaids.

KillerAg21 said:

---

Wow Trump is turning into a socialist commie. I wonder how MAGA is going to conform itself to being for free market capitalism yet rooting for socialist polices like this.

---

The real fix is insurance regulations. The F'd up insurance systems cannot be rectified with an EO.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

For the libertarians..

If there was no medicare or Medicaid, no Obamacare..

If every American had to pay out of pocket for everything healthcare related, would prescription drugs be..

A. More expensive in America
B. Cheaper in America
C. The same in America

And would they be..

A. More expensive in other countries
B. Cheaper in other countries
C. The same in other countries

---

The answer is B for both (Maybe some situational exceptions), but that also depends on if you are also including removing government involvement in all medical matters (IE regulations, encouraging insurance, etc). Government can screw up a system 50 different ways none of us have even thought of yet.

---

That's the point. We are where we are BECAUSE of government. We also have influential politicians on both sides pocketing large sums of money to keep this system costly, inefficient, and highly regulated for Americans. IF the government simply got completely out of the way with healthcare that would be ideal. But libertarians never point to the steps that should be taken right now, by this president, and whether it would have to be done with congressional action, to move toward less or no government. They are VERY quick though to yell at Trump for attempting to break the system single handedly by cutting off their profit engine using one of the very few methods available to him. Because if America pays less, other countries wont pay more. Costs AND profits will just plain come down across the board. The industry makes insane profits BECAUSE we are forced to pay for those profits.

---

Not sure where you're getting that from. Nothing gets dismissed as irrelevant more quickly than a Libertarian idea around here. Marxists at least get yelled at. Maybe the only part of it you are paying attention to is the criticism of Trump based on his big government tendencies. The other parts from Libertarians have always been there.

---

Mostly BigRob, who has been quick to call Trump a liberal for this move, but cant seem to post another path Trump can take to try to fix what is a huge noose around the neck of the American people.

---

It's been put forward countless times here. Not in this thread, but there have been lots of conversations about the difference between conservatism (small government - libertarian leaning) and the path of the current Republican party of big government populism, and Trump's role in that. Unfortunately, Trump has helped move the Republican conversation more to accepting the presuppositions of the left in order to win. That means never fixing the socialistic mistakes of the past, and therefore never addressing the real problems with real answers.

---

Im not asking about the difference between different parties.

Im asking, what specifically would you have Trump do to address the issue of HUGE government already being in place while Americans pay insane prices. "Get government out of the way" is not an answer. Be specific.

---

The difference between parties is important because we are now accepting that government has a role to play in healthcare, which is the source of our current issues to begin with. There are many things he could do, eliminating all governmental encouragements to get insurance, for one. Get the government out of healthcare in all facets. Specifically every single way possible. Find ways to reconnect the consumption of the service or product directly to the cost of providing that product or service. That is when costs can go down as market forces start to be a thing again.

BCG Disciple said:

---

Curious as to what you pay on your end? I assume insurance pays and this saves insurance companies $? I know ultimately it gets to the consumer through rates, etc.

---

$126.00 per month using the UHC AARP Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (so of course there is a monthly cost to pay to be in that plan).
They list the total drug cost as $732.35 so the plan certainly helps - I guess one of the benefits of getting old.

KillerAg21 said:

---

Wow Trump is turning into a socialist commie. I wonder how MAGA is going to conform itself to being for free market capitalism yet rooting for socialist polices like this.

---

I don't believe that MAGA has ever been about Capitalism and Free Markets. Quite the opposite, really.

Phatbob said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

For the libertarians..

If there was no medicare or Medicaid, no Obamacare..

If every American had to pay out of pocket for everything healthcare related, would prescription drugs be..

A. More expensive in America
B. Cheaper in America
C. The same in America

And would they be..

A. More expensive in other countries
B. Cheaper in other countries
C. The same in other countries

---

The answer is B for both (Maybe some situational exceptions), but that also depends on if you are also including removing government involvement in all medical matters (IE regulations, encouraging insurance, etc). Government can screw up a system 50 different ways none of us have even thought of yet.

---

That's the point. We are where we are BECAUSE of government. We also have influential politicians on both sides pocketing large sums of money to keep this system costly, inefficient, and highly regulated for Americans. IF the government simply got completely out of the way with healthcare that would be ideal. But libertarians never point to the steps that should be taken right now, by this president, and whether it would have to be done with congressional action, to move toward less or no government. They are VERY quick though to yell at Trump for attempting to break the system single handedly by cutting off their profit engine using one of the very few methods available to him. Because if America pays less, other countries wont pay more. Costs AND profits will just plain come down across the board. The industry makes insane profits BECAUSE we are forced to pay for those profits.

---

Not sure where you're getting that from. Nothing gets dismissed as irrelevant more quickly than a Libertarian idea around here. Marxists at least get yelled at. Maybe the only part of it you are paying attention to is the criticism of Trump based on his big government tendencies. The other parts from Libertarians have always been there.

---

Mostly BigRob, who has been quick to call Trump a liberal for this move, but cant seem to post another path Trump can take to try to fix what is a huge noose around the neck of the American people.

---

It's been put forward countless times here. Not in this thread, but there have been lots of conversations about the difference between conservatism (small government - libertarian leaning) and the path of the current Republican party of big government populism, and Trump's role in that. Unfortunately, Trump has helped move the Republican conversation more to accepting the presuppositions of the left in order to win. That means never fixing the socialistic mistakes of the past, and therefore never addressing the real problems with real answers.

---

Im not asking about the difference between different parties.

Im asking, what specifically would you have Trump do to address the issue of HUGE government already being in place while Americans pay insane prices. "Get government out of the way" is not an answer. Be specific.

---

The difference between parties is important because we are now accepting that government has a role to play in healthcare, which is the source of our current issues to begin with. There are many things he could do, eliminating all governmental encouragements to get insurance, for one. Get the government out of healthcare in all facets. Specifically every single way possible. Find ways to reconnect the consumption of the service or product directly to the cost of providing that product or service. That is when costs can go down as market forces start to be a thing again.

---

More blanket libertarian drivel.
What steps could he SPECIFICALLY take. What exactly would Trump do to "eliminate all government encouragements to get insurance"? What specifically could he do within presidential powers to "get the government out of healthcare".

You guys are high on broad statements but never seem to have the slightest clue on how things actually get implemented. How would you get around congress?

Im all for getting the government out of the way. Just as much as you. But unlike libertarians, I realize that a single person cant enact that.

Check out how much a script for Fabhalta costs: $550,000/year
Cost in Canada: $20,000/year

Tom Fox said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

For the libertarians..

If there was no medicare or Medicaid, no Obamacare..

If every American had to pay out of pocket for everything healthcare related, would prescription drugs be..

A. More expensive in America
B. Cheaper in America
C. The same in America

And would they be..

A. More expensive in other countries
B. Cheaper in other countries
C. The same in other countries

---

Get rid of Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid.

With each step we move closer to socialized medicine. Passing a bandaid to help with the problem of socializing medicine is not the answer.

Can you even imagine the cost reduction for those actually footing the bill for this idiotic system?

---

This

The federal government has no constitutional authority to be in the health care market outside of the VA and military.

BigRobSA said:

---

***sigh***

more liberalism



get govt out of the way, not more in the way, which is what distorts the market in the first place.

---

The problem with this thinking is that our government, for all intents and purposes, is out of the way on the pricing aspect. Foreign governments, however, are not. So you are swimming against the current in any attempt at keeping things on an even keel and having even close to a free market.

mlb87 said:

---

My wife is in pharmaceutical research and the element driving up the costs are the FDA requirements. Folks outside the business have no idea how cumbersome and extensive these are. I do however agree that US consumers shouldn't be bearing the lion share of the costs.

---

This is true in all aspects of medical care. The amount of time and manpower required to comply with the rules and regulations set forth by the government are insanely expensive.

KillerAg21 said:

---

Wow Trump is turning into a socialist commie. I wonder how MAGA is going to conform itself to being for free market capitalism yet rooting for socialist polices like this.

---

The fact that 26 idjits agreed with you on that is pretty frightening. if Trump does, it is bad right? You don't care that it's actually a good thing for the American people. Holy **** dude. Seriously.

esteban said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Well, the left hates anything Trump does, but they also hate the fact that he gets most things that he sets out to do that is the best for the American people. They really hate that.

I remember when Trump had insulin prices set to come down and then Biden stopped them for about 6 to 8 months then brought it back and claimed he did it.

I won't be surprised at anything the left does.

---

Trump's insulin price caps were voluntary and only applied to Medicare part D. Biden made them required and applied them to all of Medicare. Biden had plenty of screw ups, but this wasn't one of them.

---

That's actually not true.

In that, it was one of many things that Biden halted that would've gone through on Trump's second term that ****ed the American people.

infinity ag said:

---

replace obamacare with?

---

JB99 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I can't wait to see the left defend Big Pharma.

I'm opposed to price controls, but I want something done about **** countries like Canada getting cheap drugs funded by US citizens.

Trump is going to war with drug companies over their pricing in this country. pic.twitter.com/uKx8pTxK4Z

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 11, 2025

---

I hate price controls, too.

But this is just making EVERYONE foot the cost instead of just the US.

Getting rid of them using us to subsidize THEIR drugs.

---

Pretty simple concept. American consumers are subsidizing drug companies in the US and the rest of the world gets a free ride.

---

Even better is that most of these drugs are funded through taxpayer dollars given to universities through federal R&D grants.

So the drug research is paid for by the taxpayers through grants. Then the pharmaceuticals use the American public to continue to recoup costs even after we have already paid the bulk of the research & development costs previously.

Meanwhile, Zimbabwe or whatever says "you can only charge $5 for a prescription in this country". And instead of Pfizer or J&J or whomever saying "well, no drugs for you!", they say "Hey, we can live with that - in fact, the American citizens will pay for the packaging, shipping, loading, offloading and the difference in the $ we want to charge and what you say we can charge." Because if they can recoup their costs here, then there is still a market there.

Most of you are probably too young to have been Seinfeld fans, but it's the same as the Kramer/Neuman bottle recycling episode. The money only worked when they used Neuman's mail truck to get the bottles across state lines where the recycle value was higher. Outside of that, it didn't work financially.

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

For the libertarians..

If there was no medicare or Medicaid, no Obamacare..

If every American had to pay out of pocket for everything healthcare related, would prescription drugs be..

A. More expensive in America
B. Cheaper in America
C. The same in America

And would they be..

A. More expensive in other countries
B. Cheaper in other countries
C. The same in other countries

---

Get rid of Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid.

With each step we move closer to socialized medicine. Passing a bandaid to help with the problem of socializing medicine is not the answer.

Can you even imagine the cost reduction for those actually footing the bill for this idiotic system?

---

replace obamacare with?

---

Cash.

What are you talking about? Of course removing government from healthcare is a team effort. But Trump has been very specific on a lot of things that take more than an EO to accomplish, and he ALONG WITH ALMOST EVERY REPUBLICAN, is failing at fixing the issue. As the "Team Leader", he could actually be talking about and pushing removing tax incentives for getting insurance through employers, or reducing or eliminating Medicare and Medicaid. But he has no desire to do so, because ideologically he does not disagree with them.

Yes sir. Someone is ultimately paying the money though, as your insurance company is not a non profit. I'm hoping you'll see partial price reductions on whatever is adjusted.

So normally price controls are a bad idea that left wing socialist governments sell as a good idea because it sounds great to the masses.

But often price controls result in shortages and lower quality. Because companies have less incentive to invest because margins are lower. Sometimes a later step in the socialism idea chart is then state-owned production.

Would I trust the Trump team has thoroughly thought through this usually bad idea?

schmellba99 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

***sigh***

more liberalism



get govt out of the way, not more in the way, which is what distorts the market in the first place.

---

The problem with this thinking is that our government, for all intents and purposes, is out of the way on the pricing aspect. Foreign governments, however, are not. So you are swimming against the current in any attempt at keeping things on an even keel and having even close to a free market.

---

Wrong

They're wholly part , bigly, of the pricing, via Medicare.

Teslag said:

---

The drug companies can just easily buy off that entity as well. And would. And many just wouldn't play along. When people are desperate they'll put anything in their body if they think it will help, despite not being approved by an independent testing lab. They won't do that when buying a light bulb or electrical device.

And under your rule of no rules, there'd be no guideline on what to call a vaccine. They could call it whatever they want. With no regard to testing, or emergency authorization, or anything else. The only limiting factor they'd have is their ability to market it to desperate people.

---

That's reality already. All you need is a scary, every couple year, new airborne EBOLAIDS.

Trump convinces Republicans they should support price controls now. ****ing looney toons world.

For what it's worth I am extremely anti-price controls on anything. The good news is this executive order likely has no mechanism for enforcement. I just think it's hilarious how Mao Commie MAGA has become.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Now, can we talk about how many drugs Americans are on? I'm 49 and take no drugs at all, just nutrition supplements and daily exercise. I know people have some genetic or age/sex related conditions they have to deal with but I get the impression lot of people take large numbers of prescription drugs daily for years or decades, and that amount has radically increased in the last decade or two. What is up with that? Is it mostly better diagnosis with more more options, or lots of obesity and sedentary living, or environmental contamination msybe?

I agree more with Kennedy that the idea is to get people OFF drugs instead of only focusing on making cheaper bandaids.

---

As someone who has been a Type 1 diabetic for 34 years, I love this EO. I have BCBS insurance and I take both a long acting & short acting insulin daily, I have a Dexcom CGM that isn't cheap as well. I'm in the gym 5-6x a week doing strenuous workouts to keep fit but I do need the above drugs to stay alive. I sure hope these companies have to see it through as it would save me several thousand dollars a year.

You're 100% correct that a lot of people take large numbers of prescription drugs daily and their costs have gone up. A lot of these people don't do any physical exercise either, so they simply rely on the drugs, shots, etc. I know several people on the Ozyempic and I'm strongly against that......but that is a whole other convo. I just wish there was some way to reward people via cost savings who are on prescription drugs out of pure necessity and have an active lifestyle, but that would be impossible to track.

esteban said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Well, the left hates anything Trump does, but they also hate the fact that he gets most things that he sets out to do that is the best for the American people. They really hate that.

I remember when Trump had insulin prices set to come down and then Biden stopped them for about 6 to 8 months then brought it back and claimed he did it.

I won't be surprised at anything the left does.

---

Trump's insulin price caps were voluntary and only applied to Medicare part D. Biden made them required and applied them to all of Medicare. Biden had plenty of screw ups, but this wasn't one of them.

---

Yes, it was, as someone on insulin.

Market interference is dumb and only serves to hurt more in the long run.

schmellba99 said:

---

JB99 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I can't wait to see the left defend Big Pharma.

I'm opposed to price controls, but I want something done about **** countries like Canada getting cheap drugs funded by US citizens.

Trump is going to war with drug companies over their pricing in this country. pic.twitter.com/uKx8pTxK4Z

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 11, 2025

---

I hate price controls, too.

But this is just making EVERYONE foot the cost instead of just the US.

Getting rid of them using us to subsidize THEIR drugs.

---

Pretty simple concept. American consumers are subsidizing drug companies in the US and the rest of the world gets a free ride.

---

Even better is that most of these drugs are funded through taxpayer dollars given to universities through federal R&D grants.

So the drug research is paid for by the taxpayers through grants. Then the pharmaceuticals use the American public to continue to recoup costs even after we have already paid the bulk of the research & development costs previously.

Meanwhile, Zimbabwe or whatever says "you can only charge $5 for a prescription in this country". And instead of Pfizer or J&J or whomever saying "well, no drugs for you!", they say "Hey, we can live with that - in fact, the American citizens will pay for the packaging, shipping, loading, offloading and the difference in the $ we want to charge and what you say we can charge." Because if they can recoup their costs here, then there is still a market there.

Most of you are probably too young to have been Seinfeld fans, but it's the same as the Kramer/Neuman bottle recycling episode. The money only worked when they used Neuman's mail truck to get the bottles across state lines where the recycle value was higher. Outside of that, it didn't work financially.

---

First off, I love the Seinfeld analogy. And to your other points, it's almost as if we could have been using more of our taxpayer dollars to subsidize R&D grants within the U.S. instead of wasteful USAID crap. What a novel concept.

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

We are less than 2 decades away from UHC if we do not do just that. Buckle up.

---

Maybe. Better than 50 million people going bankrupt in 3 years due to medical costs. Do you know what the voting public would do to Republicans if that happened?

70 D senators and 300 D congressmen + a D in the White House would make us beg for UHC.

I don't want to think about it.

---

People like stealing other people's earnings to subsidize their healthcare? No shlt, but just because it is popular doesn't make it right. This is just another subsidy for people that cannot afford to pay for themselves. Aka: socialism.

Phatbob said:

---

What are you talking about? Of course removing government from healthcare is a team effort. But Trump has been very specific on a lot of things that take more than an EO to accomplish, and he ALONG WITH ALMOST EVERY REPUBLICAN, is failing at fixing the issue. As the "Team Leader", he could actually be talking about and pushing removing tax incentives for getting insurance through employers, or reducing or eliminating Medicare and Medicaid. But he has no desire to do so, because ideologically he does not disagree with them.

---

Im asking for specifics. That's all I've asked for since I challenged Big Rob to offer more than just blanket wet dream libertarian fantasy plattitudes and you decided to interject.

So your specifics you decide to offer are for Trump to "talk about" and "push" ideas that would get anyone with an R next to their name removed from office in 2026 (assuming they even agreed with him which they wouldnt, because they all benefit from it).

Now try again.

What can TRUMP specifically do as president to "get government out of the way"?

While you are melting down, he's attacking the SOURCE in a direct manner that doesn't require lining up anyone else to accomplish it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but like tariffs, I think the result will be down the line after multiple rounds of negotiations, and Im willing to let it play out and see what actually happens rather than call him a liberal with a hit and run message board post that ignores the reality of public perception and the potential for administrative and legislative corruption.

I spoke to an administrator at a Houston area hospital. They self insure. They were hit hard in Fiscal Year 24 and internally determine roughly 20% of their covered insureds were on Ozempic or other semiglutide! 20%! They were looking to amend their plan to restrict coverage, or require some sort of time period or educational element before covering it (similar to what's required for gastric bypass). Also, from a revenue standpoint, they were also hit with gastric bypass surgeries dropping by 75%!

will25u said:

---

BREAKING: Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna has expressed his intention to introduce President Trump’s executive order to reduce prescription drug prices in Congress as a bipartisan bill. pic.twitter.com/DHjZje8r8i

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 12, 2025

---

I like this idea, despite the fact that it comes from someone with a Star Wars name who is an elected representative of the American people.

Tom Fox said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

We are less than 2 decades away from UHC if we do not do just that. Buckle up.

---

Maybe. Better than 50 million people going bankrupt in 3 years due to medical costs. Do you know what the voting public would do to Republicans if that happened?

70 D senators and 300 D congressmen + a D in the White House would make us beg for UHC.

I don't want to think about it.

---

People like stealing other people's earnings to subsidize their healthcare? No shlt, but just because it is popular doesn't make it right. This is just another subsidy for people that cannot afford to pay for themselves. Aka: socialism.

---

The government stepped in to provide insurance when the insurance monopoly decided to stop covering tens of millions of people because they did the unthinkable act of getting old.

KillerAg21 said:

---

Socialist polices. I think this is a great step in the correct direction. I just think it's funny that yall don't realize it is socialist. Now I just have to get yall to agree to Universal Healthcare and we will be peas in a pod.

---

Yes the current system sucks because its the wrong flavor of Capitalism, in this case oligopolistic- or the means of production controlled by only a few providers and with significant often artificial barriers to market entry. In other words corruption often with gov assistance or complicitancy. Those Dems love them some big pharma checks.

Many forms of capitalism and as jacked up as ologoplistic capitalism is, it far better than the socialist trash you advocate.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

What are you talking about? Of course removing government from healthcare is a team effort. But Trump has been very specific on a lot of things that take more than an EO to accomplish, and he ALONG WITH ALMOST EVERY REPUBLICAN, is failing at fixing the issue. As the "Team Leader", he could actually be talking about and pushing removing tax incentives for getting insurance through employers, or reducing or eliminating Medicare and Medicaid. But he has no desire to do so, because ideologically he does not disagree with them.

---

Im asking for specifics. That's all I've asked for since I challenged Big Rob to offer more than just blanket wet dream libertarian fantasy plattitudes and you decided to interject.

So your specifics you decide to offer are for Trump to "talk about" and "push" ideas that would get anyone with an R next to their name removed from office in 2026 (assuming they even agreed with him which they wouldnt, because they all benefit from it).

Now try again.

What can TRUMP specifically do as president to "get government out of the way"?

While you are melting down, he's attacking the SOURCE in a direct manner that doesn't require lining up anyone else to accomplish it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but like tariffs, I think the result will be down the line after multiple rounds of negotiations, and Im willing to let it play out and see what actually happens rather than call him a liberal with a hit and run message board post that ignores the reality of public perception and the potential for administrative and legislative corruption.

---

As leader of the party, for better or worse, he can work with the leadership in both houses to repeal onerous regulations like Medicare and Medicaid, EMTALA and Obamacare. Until Medicare is repealed, direct his subordinates there to work towards re-examining their formulary to help with lower costs there. Also, as head of the head of the FDA, he can get them more streamlined and efficient so as to not require $5-10B per new drug released as well as hold pharmaceutical companies more to task for real failures that cause actual harm. Actually pursuing possible criminal charges if a company knowingly hoodwinked them via data fudging.

That's a start that will help bring down costs for drugs.

Actually conservative principles as opposed to his usual, kneejerk liberalism.

Science Denier said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

People like stealing other people's earnings to subsidize their healthcare? No shlt, but just because it is popular doesn't make it right. This is just another subsidy for people that cannot afford to pay for themselves. Aka: socialism.

---

The government stepped in to provide insurance when the insurance monopoly decided to stop covering tens of millions of people because they did the unthinkable act of getting old.

---

The "monopoly" got that way, and got their start, due to govt interference. So, naturally, liberals wanted more of the same, you know, to "fix" things.