Connect with us

Business

Biden gets aggressive on drug prices, seeking contrast with Trump on December 12, 2023 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

on

President Biden is leaning into lowering health care costs and picking fights with the drug industry to show what he could bring to a second term and contrast with likely GOP nominee former President Trump. 

Biden is embracing aggressive policies to tackle high drug prices and campaigning as someone willing to take on the pharmaceutical industry.  

Health care has consistently been a winning issue for Democrats in recent elections, and the president’s reelection campaign wants to highlight both present and future ways he is lowering costs for Americans.  

The administration last week announced it had the authority to “march in” and break the patents of drugs developed using taxpayer money if the administration considers them to be too expensive. 

Advertisement

In a short video posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, Biden said the move was a “very important step towards ending price gouging, so you don’t have to pay more for medicine than you need.”  

Progressives have long called for the administration to exercise its so-called “march-in rights” on high-priced drugs, but the White House has been hesitant to even recognize it as a possibility.  

As a candidate in 2020, Biden was also reluctant to embrace the strategy, in contrast to challengers including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).  

Most recently, the administration declined a petition to force Pfizer and Astellas to lower the price of their cancer drug Xtandi, which costs between $160,000 and $180,000 per patient a year. 

Advertisement

But in a sign of the role health costs could play in the 2024 election, even moderate Democratic lawmakers like Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) praised the move as “cracking down on price gouging.” 

The new announcement did not endorse widespread use of the authority, and officials emphasized there was not a specific drug they were immediately targeting.  

Still, the move served as a warning to the drug industry, which is now gearing up for a new fight with the White House. 

“If the price of collaborating with the government is that your patents are going to being seized or the price of the drug’s going to be set, there’s going to be a lot less collaboration,” Stephen Ubl, CEO of the trade group PhRMA, said during an event hosted by The Hill. 

Advertisement

“The Administration is sending us back to a time when government research sat on a shelf, not benefitting anyone,” the group added in a post on X. 

In response, the Biden campaign said simply: “Oh no. We’ve upset Big Pharma again.” 

This latest jab at the pharmaceutical industry follows one of the administration’s signature health care achievements: giving Medicare the ability to negotiate some drug prices.   

Final decisions about the prices are expected to be announced in September — just ahead of the election — though they won’t take effect until 2026. Industry and industry-aligned groups have filed close to a dozen lawsuits to stop or delay it.  

Advertisement

The lawsuits are a point of pride for administration allies, and they serve to bolster Biden’s populist message. 

“Even as big drug companies throw all of their resources at lawsuits and lobbying to keep their profits high, President Biden has not wavered in his commitment to fight for working families and make prescription drugs more affordable,” said Leslie Dach, chair of the Democratic-aligned group Protect Our Care.  

The latest drug pricing announcement comes as the campaign seeks a winning economic message that breaks through with voters. The administration is focusing on pocketbook issues aimed at helping families keep expenses in check and tying health policies to Biden’s economic successes.  

Health care affordability could give the president a boost among both younger voters and those over age 65.  

Advertisement

It could also give the White House a tangible counterpoint to concerns about inflation. 

While polls show more Democrats than Republicans say they care about health costs, the issue ranks high across the political spectrum.  

A November tracking poll from health policy research group KFF released earlier this month found 8 in 10 voters said health care affordability was “very important” for candidates to discuss on the campaign trail, second only to inflation.  

The issue was prominent among voters 18 to 29 and among voters age 65 and older, who were specifically concerned about the future of Medicare and Social Security.  

Advertisement

Biden’s campaign has been touting some of the president’s signature achievements to make drug prices affordable and bring down health costs, like capping insulin costs in Medicare and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices — all while drawing a major contrast to Trump.  

“Donald Trump was too weak to take on Big Pharma and lower prescription drug prices for seniors as president — but Joe Biden got it done. As a result, millions are seeing lower prices on the lifesaving medications they rely on,” Biden-Harris 2024 spokesperson Seth Schuster said in a statement to The Hill.  

Trump talked tough on going after drug costs during his presidency, but none of his major policies were implemented.  

“If Trump has his way in a second term, prices will skyrocket and Americans who are currently benefiting from $35 insulin may have to choose between paying rent and affording their essential medication,” Schuster added. 

Advertisement

Part of the challenge for the campaign is making sure their message is breaking through and that people realize what the administration has already accomplished.  

The same KFF poll showed few adults in the U.S. are aware that the Inflation Reduction Act is meant to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for people on Medicare — despite Biden signing the law more than a year ago. 

Only 32 percent of adults said they were aware that there’s a law that requires the federal government to negotiate the price of some drugs for Medicare enrollees, though it was 25 percent in July. 

While more adults aged 65 and older said they were aware of a law capping the cost of insulin for people with Medicare, only about a quarter of people overall said they were aware of it. 

Advertisement

​Business, Health Care, News, Policy President Biden is leaning into lowering health care costs and picking fights with the drug industry to show what he could bring to a second term and contrast with likely GOP nominee former President Trump.  Biden is embracing aggressive policies to tackle high drug prices and campaigning as someone willing to take on the pharmaceutical industry. …  

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

on

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year

Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.

Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods

The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:

  • Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
  • Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
  • Metals: Up 43%.
  • Leather products: Up 39%.
  • Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
  • Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
  • Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact

If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:

  • GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
  • Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.

How Businesses Are Responding

A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans

The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.

For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

Published

on

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians

  • Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
  • No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
  • Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
  • Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift

  • Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
  • Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
  • Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy

  • Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
    • Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
    • Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
    • Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
  • Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
  • Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations

  • Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
  • U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
  • Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.

Conclusion

The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.

Continue Reading

Business

Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Published

on

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

Credit: Heute.at

The $200 Million Claim

In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.

When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.

Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances

Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:

  • Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
  • Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
  • Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”

She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Credit: Heute.at

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique

Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:

  • The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
  • The decline of Instagram and Twitter
  • Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy

She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”

Political and Cultural Criticism

Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.

The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne

Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.

Public and Industry Reaction

Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.

Advertisement

Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Credit: Heute.at

Conclusion

Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.

Continue Reading

Trending