By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump rescinded the Biden-Harris executive order aimed at lowering prescription drug costs, reversing efforts to increase affordability. This action aligns with Trump’s past proposals to cut spending on entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, prioritizing the interests of Big Pharma over those of American citizens. His previous budgets included substantial cuts to these programs, contradicting his public statements. This reversal demonstrates a consistent pattern of favoring wealthy donors and corporations at the expense of social welfare.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump’s reversal of a Biden-Harris rule designed to lower drug costs for millions of Americans has sparked widespread outrage and concern. This action, implemented within the first 24 hours of his presidency, directly contradicts his past campaign promises and raises serious questions about his priorities. The sheer speed with which he undid this policy highlights the immediate impact of his decisions on the daily lives of ordinary citizens.
The rescinded rule was intended to address the exorbitant prices of prescription drugs in the United States, a cost burden far exceeding that of other developed nations. A simple example like the EpiPen, costing a staggering $600 in the US compared to a fraction of that in other countries, illustrates this dramatic price disparity. This policy reversal will likely hit those in red states hardest, especially given the potential for further dismantling of the Affordable Care Act.
Many supporters of Trump believed his administration would prioritize lowering the costs of various goods and services, including prescription medications. This reversal, however, directly counters those expectations. The cynical suggestion that this move is politically motivated, intended to allow Trump to later implement a similar plan and claim credit, is a worrying possibility. The lack of transparency and the swiftness of the decision fuel suspicions of corruption.
The impact on individuals with chronic illnesses is especially alarming. For example, the significantly increased cost of insulin, a life-saving medication for millions of diabetics, is a grave concern. The accessibility of insulin in other countries, such as Canada, where it’s available over the counter at a dramatically lower cost, serves as a stark contrast to the situation in the United States. The potential for financial ruin for individuals and families managing chronic conditions is a real and present danger.
This decision is not merely an economic issue; it raises profound ethical questions. The argument that this prioritizes pharmaceutical companies over the well-being of American citizens is a recurring theme in the backlash. The significant financial contributions to Trump’s inauguration from large pharmaceutical companies fuel this perception. The lack of any apparent benefit to the American public raises questions about the true motivations behind this policy change.
Many are expressing anger and disappointment, feeling betrayed by a leader who campaigned on promises of economic relief. The frustration is compounded by the predictable partisan response, with a likely attempt to deflect blame onto the Democrats. The speed with which this policy was overturned underscores the far-reaching consequences of executive orders and the potential for unchecked power.
The implications for the elderly and those on Medicare are particularly concerning, especially given Trump’s history of advocating for reductions in social safety nets. The argument that these programs are not entitlements but are rather the result of taxpayer contributions is being used to justify cuts, raising worries about access to essential healthcare for vulnerable populations. The consequences of this decision will likely fall disproportionately on those least able to afford them.
This situation has brought to light the need for more stringent checks and balances on executive power, particularly concerning decisions with such significant and immediate consequences for the well-being of the populace. The widespread dissatisfaction suggests that many voters are experiencing a significant “Find Out” moment, realizing the implications of their choices at the ballot box. The question remains whether this will lead to a reconsideration of political alliances and a demand for greater accountability. The ongoing discussion highlights the deep divisions in the nation and the significant stakes involved in the ongoing political battles.