Dems Called Out Over Big Pharma Money
Remember when RFK Jr called out those Democratic Senators that were getting all that money from Big Pharma? Well the Democrats have shut down the Government because without the ObamaCare Subsidies Big Pharma loses money because they can't keep jacking up the premiums. The Subsidies make the premiums seem low so no one sees what ObamaCare really cost. We saw this coming 15 years ago. I tried to explain it 15 years ago.
The Unaffordable Care Act: A Reckoning Long Foretold
Fifteen years ago, as the architects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were weaving its complex legislative tapestry, a chorus of voices from the right raised a prescient alarm. They warned that the law was not a genuine solution to the nation’s healthcare challenges, but a Rube Goldberg-style contraption of perverse incentives, hidden subsidies, and government overreach that would ultimately collapse under its own weight. Recent political turmoil, including the specter of government shutdowns driven by disputes over healthcare funding, serves as a stark validation of those early warnings. What we are witnessing today is not a random political squabble, but the inevitable consequence of a system built on a foundation of fiscal illusion.
The recent observation by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a figure not typically aligned with conservative thought, is telling. He highlighted the immense flow of funds from the pharmaceutical industry to certain Democratic senators. While his political lens may differ, his observation points to a fundamental truth that conservatives have long understood: when government grows in power and becomes the primary purchaser or regulator of a vast sector of the economy, it inevitably becomes a target for capture by the very industries it seeks to control. This symbiotic relationship between Big Government and Big Business is the antithesis of the free market, creating a cronyist system where success is determined not by competition and consumer choice, but by lobbying prowess and political favor.
At the heart of the ACA’s design was a clever, yet ultimately unsustainable, sleight of hand. The law’s premium subsidies were presented as a benevolent helping hand for lower-income Americans—a noble goal, in principle. However, their function was far more manipulative. By artificially lowering the upfront cost of insurance premiums for millions, these subsidies created a perception of affordability that masked the law’s true and escalating price tag. This was a classic case of the government hiding the real cost of a service, disconnecting the consumer from the true economic reality of their healthcare choices.
This disconnect created a dangerous feedback loop. Insurance companies, facing the ACA’s stringent regulations and mandates, found themselves with a captive customer base whose sensitivity to price was dulled by government subsidies. The economic incentive to compete on price and value was diminished. Why strive for efficiency and lower premiums when a government-backed spigot of money ensures a steady flow of customers, regardless of the sticker price? The result, as predicted, has been a steady and dramatic rise in the underlying cost of insurance premiums—a rise that is often obscured from the public view by the very subsidies that help fuel it.
The current political brinkmanship over government funding, often tied to the continuation of these ACA subsidies, is the logical endpoint of this flawed system. The threat of a government shutdown is not merely a political tactic; it is a symptom of a program that has become too big to fail and too expensive to sustain. When a major industry’s revenue stream becomes dependent on a permanent government appropriation, any debate over that funding becomes a potential crisis. The system, as critics foretold a decade and a half ago, has created hostages, not customers.
Conservatives argued then, as they do now, for a different path—one rooted in the timeless principles of market competition, individual choice, and transparency. The goal of healthcare reform should be to create a system where prices are visible, competition is fierce, and the consumer is king. This means moving away from the employer-based and government-dependent models that insulate patients from costs. It means expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which empower individuals to shop for value and take ownership of their healthcare dollars. It means allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines to break up local monopolies and foster competition. It means enacting meaningful tort reform to reduce the costly practice of defensive medicine.
The ACA, in its essence, treats the symptoms of a dysfunctional healthcare market with more government intervention, which only exacerbates the underlying disease. The constant political battles over its funding are a distraction from the core problem: the system itself is structurally unsound. It prioritizes political management over economic reality.
Fifteen years on, the warnings of conservative thinkers, economists, and policymakers have proven tragically accurate. The Affordable Care Act has made healthcare less affordable for many, injected unsustainable levels of taxpayer liability into the system, and entangled the basic functioning of the federal government with the financial health of a select few industries. The current turmoil is not an anomaly; it is the chickens of a flawed ideology coming home to roost. A truly conservative approach would dismantle this cronyist architecture and build a system where affordability is achieved through innovation and choice, not through opaque subsidies that mortgage our nation’s future and obscure the truth from its citizens. The reckoning was foretold, and it is now upon us.
#Pharma #BigPharma #JFKJR #ACA #ObamaCare