Republican Arkansas becomes the first state to ban price gouging by drug retailers, as they have now signed legislation which prevents drug middlemen, known as Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), from owning and operating pharmacies.

You may remember this issue from 2024 when Democrats gave a bunch of lip service on the issue and as normal projected it onto Republicans but were unwilling to do anything about it themselves.

Republicans stepped up and banned this abusive practice. CVS is now scared that it can't price gouge insurance and patients anymore
https://www.newsweek.com/cvs-arkansas-pbm-law-closure-risk-2077504
All CVS Locations in One State at Risk Over PBM Law

CVS has told Newsweek that some of Arkansas' only 24-hour pharmacies are at-risk of closure because of new state law signed by Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders last month.

Reports over the weekend suggested the pharmacy giant was looking to close all 23 of its stores in the state, ahead of legislation which prevents drug middlemen, known as Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), from owning and operating pharmacies.

"All of our 23 Arkansas stores are currently open and will continue to operate for the immediate future. We're doing everything we can to continue to provide pharmacy services to our 340,000+ Arkansas pharmacy patients," a CVS spokesperson said Tuesday morning.

CVS said that passing Act 624, as the bill became known, puts services available to its customers at risk. Those who advocated for the move said they wanted to protect independent pharmacies and stop patients from being abused

Sanders said in April that PBMs "take advantage of lax regulations to abuse customers" as she made Arkansas the first state to ban drug giants from owning pharmacies.

The governor and her Attorney General Tim Griffin said that PBMs had taken advantage of their position as price negotiators to benefit the pharmacies they owned and their shareholders, damaging independents in the process.

The company said it believed Act 624 would shut pharmacies down and cut people off from health care once it comes into force January 1, 2026.

PBMs are the middlemen between drug companies, insurers, and the pharmacies themselves, negotiating on the supplies and prices of medications, affecting how much providers and patients pay.

One of the key issues with PBMs is a lack of transparency on how they operate, with no obligation for them to share details with insurance companies on the formulas they use to determine payment share.

Per the Center for American Progress (CAP), CVS Health accounted for a third of the PBM market in 2022, with Cigna and UnitedHealth taking up the next largest chunks at 24 and 22 percent respectfully.

Sanders and those in the Arkansas General Assembly who pushed for the law change in the state argue that these big companies do not lower costs and only benefit themselves, but CVS said it believed this reasoning was being used to enact a law which would only negatively impact customers.

John Vinson, CEO of the Arkansas Pharmacists Association, told Newsweek in a statement: "The Arkansas Pharmacists Association is supportive of Action 624. Act 624 is pro business and pro fair competition as it will support a market to remove conflicts of interest and stop price setters from also being price takers in a way that raises drug prices while also squeezing out market competitors.

"Act 624 will give Arkansas licensed pharmacies a choice to either be a pharmacy benefit manager middleman (PBM) or provide patient care as a pharmacy. The conflict of interest from operating as both are bad policy for Arkansans and Americans."

Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, in an April press release: "These massive corporations are attacking our state because we will be the first in the country to hold them accountable for their anticompetitive actions, but Arkansas has never been afraid to be a conservative leader for America."

>>1408283 (OP)
>You may remember this issue from 2024 when Democrats gave a bunch of lip service on the issue and as normal projected it onto Republicans but were unwilling to do anything about it themselves.
Didn't Biden literally pass an EO on this, that Repubs rallied against. Then Trump cancelled it, which they celebrated... and then announced a few months later he was putting forth his own EO which was the exact same thing, which they then celebrated?

>>1408288
Which EO was that?

>>1408288
yes, and now the right wing shills are going to play dumb. look, one's already here

>>1408290
Also they'll ignore that the core of the bill doesn't address drug manufacturers already charging more in the US than outside of it
Or that literally every dollar health insurance companies spend on things other than insurance is stealing money from Americans.

I'm thrilled that their shitty budget bill removes health care for poor Americans but enables them to buy cheap guns
Luigi printing machine

>>1408290
>>1408295
>what eo?
>durrrr ur dum
And this is why I love conversations on /news/.

>>1408289
I dont know

>>1408283 (OP)
>You may remember this issue from 2024 when Democrats gave a bunch of lip service on the issue and as normal projected it onto Republicans
It's like you think we don't remember Shkreli or which party he represents
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-06-26/ex-pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-claims-he-launched-a-crypto-coin-with-barron-trump-wheres-the-evidence

>>1408295
>Also they'll ignore that the core of the bill doesn't address drug manufacturers already charging more in the US than outside of it
Lucky for you, trump signed an executive order on this
And not the "I made up a fake EO that Biden never signed" type of executive order, but an actual physical EO that even you can go read yourself: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/15/2025-08876/delivering-most-favored-nation-prescription-drug-pricing-to-american-patients

>>1408302
you're literally not american

>>1408302
No one cares about an unenforceable EO that won't do anything except shillslopsuckers like you

>>1408301
Keep sucking that pharma dick, anon.
Republicans will fix drug prices, and no volume of articles about meme coins will change that fact

>>1408306
>Republicans will fix drug prices,
Republicunts have been fixing drug prices for decades.
Its part of the problem, you brazilian retard

>>1408302
>And not the "I made up a fake EO that Biden never signed" type of executive order
>https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2021/bidens-executive-order-promotes-competition-lower-drug-costs
I'd link the white house page but Trump fucking deleted it to pretend it was his idea first, go figure.

1. Create massive problem for American people
2. Block every attempt by Democrats to fix the problem, screech that any attempt to fix the problem is socialism/communism/wokeism/ whatever buzzword is in fashion at the moment.
3. Finally acknowledge there's a problem when it becomes literally impossible to deny anymore
4. Offer watered down solution that does not fix the core of the problem you created
5. Demand praise for fixing problem that still exists, cry crocodile tears about how Democrats never tried to fix the problem

The Republican playbook, ladies and gentlemen

>>1408310
stop being mean to trump, retard
nothings wrong with his unenforcable order to tell companies to lower their prices and threaten to enforce existing laws that do nothing if they refuse.
That sounds like it'll definitely lower prices, its basically the same plan he used to stop the war in Ukraine day one.
Bidens retarded EO would have actually reduced drug prices, then what could he possibly campaign on in 2026 and 2028? Not lowering drug prices!

>>1408309
>blog

>>1408313
Do you really think they made up Biden's EO?

>>1408306
>Keep sucking that pharma dick
Vax status?

>>1408314
Yeah.

>>1408314
he gets paid to be retarded, i doubt he believes it though

>>1408317
you're literally not american

>>1408318
that's my line dummy. now be retarded for us more

>>1408316
Oh, found an archive.
>https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/02/01/president-biden-takes-on-big-pharma-and-is-lowering-prescription-drug-prices/

>>1408305
>>1408304
Kek. So do your handlers pay you to cope or something? lmao

>>1408323
Huh, thanks for that.
I guess "President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act" didn't work out so well.

>>1408324
>>1408325
can you stop spamming, one post is suitable for your retardation next time

>>1408320
Why? You're doing such a great job yourself.

>>1408326
>noooo, you can't just point out biden's failures
I guess they do pay you to cope, lmao. +$0.50 I guess haha

i guess he'll just keep spamming

>>1408330
the resident shill truly is a broken record

>>1408325
So now the goalpost moves to "Well it didn't work" ignoring how this is effectively the same EO Trump is doing.

>>1408333
It says they would negotiate prices.
Was anything negotiated? Were any prices lowered? No?
Then it was a meaningless gesture meant to appease idiots like you

>>1408334
stop anon, if you keep going you'll create a projection singularity

>>1408334
https://www.ajmc.com/view/trump-reverses-some-biden-drug-pricing-initiatives-potentially-impacting-medicare-costs
President Donald J. Trump’s second-term health care agenda is taking shape with a clear focus on undoing several Biden-era policies.1 On Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order reversing initiatives aimed at reducing prescription drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid recipients, expanding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and increasing protections for Medicaid enrollees. However, experts suggest that the changes may have little immediate impact on out-of-pocket (OOP) health care costs for most Americans.

For instance, one Biden-era initiative overturned by Trump had instructed Medicare to explore ways to reduce drug costs, including a potential $2000 monthly OOP cap on certain generic medications. However, this proposal was still in the early stages of development, and its implementation was uncertain, according to Stacie Dusetzina, PhD, a professor in the Department of Health Policy at Vanderbilt University and board member of The American Journal of Managed Care, who spoke with NBC News.

Key initiatives by former US President Joseph R. Biden, such as the $35 monthly cap on insulin, the $2000 annual OOP cap on Part D prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries, and Medicare’s authority to negotiate drug prices under the Inflation Reduction Act, remain unaffected by Trump’s executive actions. However, these moves could hint that the incoming administration may be unwilling to move forward on any of these laid-out policies.

Trump Ends Drug Pricing Pilots
Trump revoked an executive order that had directed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to develop 3 experimental drug pricing models, leaving their future uncertain.2


The first initiative aimed to assist state Medicaid programs in affording high-cost, highly effective cell and gene therapies by creating multistate purchasing agreements, allowing states to avoid payments for ineffective treatments. CMMI had already begun enrolling states in the program, with applications open until February 28, 2025.

The second model sought to reduce Medicare payments for drugs granted accelerated approval by the FDA, encouraging manufacturers to complete confirmatory trials promptly.

The third pilot project aimed to standardize $2 flat co-pays for generic drugs used to treat chronic conditions in Medicare prescription drug plans, promoting medication adherence.

Abe Sutton, JD, a former White House and HHS aide, is expected to lead CMMI under the Trump administration.

>>1408335
cool headcanon gramps

>>1408336
>one Biden-era initiative overturned by Trump
Wow! Trump actually overturned a law signed by Congress!? I didn't know he got rid of the inflation reduction act

>>1408336
>instructed Medicare to explore ways to reduce drug costs
>directed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to develop 3 experimental drug pricing models
After reading this literally all I'm seeing is a bunch of initiatives by Biden that are different variations of an "I'll look into it" policy.
Nothing actually took a step to block, prevent, or address abusive practices like what's in the op article.

Feel free to keep "looking into it" while the adults get things done

>>1408340
you're literally not american and don't even believe your own shill script

>>1408340
Hell yeah bro, don't bother trying to understand the situation, just run in and start smashing shit!
When things get worse, just say "nevermind!", and when things get back to only slightly worse than when you started, declare victory.
It's the Trump policy on the economy and international relations, why wouldn't it be the policy for healthcare as well?

>>1408340
This is the same fucking terminology Trump used in his own EO you fucking retard.
>https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-announces-actions-to-put-american-patients-first-by-lowering-drug-prices-and-stopping-foreign-free-riding-on-american-pharmaceutical-innovation/
>the Order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) propose rules that impose most-favored-nation pricing;
>The Order instructs the Administration to communicate price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers

>>1408341
you sure love proving you're not american

the shill really doesn't understand when to copy and repurpose my insults toward him

>>1408345
shill scripts re pretty monotonous

>>1408342
I'll look into it

>>1408345
This is the same group of retards who object to the government negotiating medicare costs, but cheers on trump telling pharma companies what to charge
its not like they're smart people. the local shill is a case study in brain damage

>>1408283 (OP)
Thanks, Republicans! Fighting to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for Americans, since Democrats are busy being bought and paid for by big pharma

>>1408364
>This is the same group of retards who object to the government negotiating medicare costs
Look at the weird strawman you've made. What a faggot you are.

>>1408370
>>1408385
shitty damage control

>>1408385
>hurr, i'm a dumb brazilian faggot with an airsoft gun, and i'm too well paid in worthless brazilian pesos to understand

Republicunts made sure insurance companies were protected from the start
https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-congress-health-care-reform-medicare-756e3255a1cb4ab8c813151aec19b60c
>When lawmakers created Medicare’s Part D outpatient prescription drug program in 2003, they barred Medicare from negotiating prices. Republicans who controlled Congress at the time wanted insurers that administer drug plans to do the haggling.

And made sure their rich leech friends could continue feeding
https://www.foxnews.com/story/senate-republicans-block-medicare-drug-price-negotiating-bill
And never stopped
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3678314-senate-republican-bill-would-repeal-dem-drug-pricing-law/
>Senate Republicans on Friday introduced a bill that would roll back the drug pricing reforms included in the sweeping Inflation Reduction Act, including the measures allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices

>>1408318
>not american
What do you think about those who support socialized healthcare?

>>1408414
“Unfortunately, the Democrats’ new government drug price control in their so-called ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ creates even more barriers to effectively bringing down the cost of prescriptions, particularly for senior adults on Medicare,” added Lankford.

Sounds like Dems fucked it up to me.

>>1408404
damage control?
This is a win for Republicans though

>>1408421
>“Unfortunately, the Democrats’ new government drug price control in their so-called ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ creates even more barriers to effectively bringing down the cost of prescriptions
Many such cases.
Sad!

>>1408414
>The Republicans of 2003
That's just modern Democrats tho, only less gay

>>1408424
The Republican President of Vice 2025
Just regressive GOP though, only more gay

>>1408422
It's objectively not.
>>1408423
>2025 democrats are 2003 neocons
How does this make sense to you?

>>1408426
It doesn't, they're just a low effort troll

>>1408426
>2025 democrats are 2003 neocons
>How does this make sense to you
Allow me to spell it out for you
>Moral Framing of Foreign Policy
2003 Neocons: Promoted Iraq War as spreading democracy and liberating the oppressed.
2025 Democrats: Frame Ukraine war as defending liberal democracy.

>Faith in Elite Institutions
Neocons: Trusted Pentagon, CIA, and global finance bodies.
Democrats: Trust FBI (only when bidens in power), CDC, WHO, IMF

>Top-Down Solutions
Neocons: Tried to reshape the Middle East via military and policy.
Democrats: Push global regulations for troonery, gays and digital policy.

> Suppression of Dissent
Neocons: Framed critics as unpatriotic or sympathetic to terrorists.
Democrats: Critics of official narratives often labeled as Nazis spreading misinformation or hate.

> Security Justifies State Power
Neocons: Used terrorism to justify surveillance and civil liberty limits.
Democrats: Use white extremism to justify censorship and digital monitoring.

> Existential Rhetoric
Neocons: "With us or with the terrorists."
Democrats: "For democracy or fascism,"

> Simplified Moral Clarity
Both: Reduce complex issues to black-and-white moral narratives for public persuasion.

The comparison between 2025 Democrats and 2003 neoconservative Republicans oversimplifies complex political dynamics and ignores key differences in ideology, context, and policy. Here's a rebuttal to each point:

Moral Framing of Foreign Policy

Neocons (2003): The Iraq War was justified with a mix of moral rhetoric (spreading democracy) and strategic interests (securing oil, countering terrorism). The "liberation" narrative often masked geopolitical motives, with questionable evidence (e.g., WMD claims).
Democrats (2025): Support for Ukraine stems from responding to Russia's unprovoked invasion, a clear violation of international law. The "defending democracy" frame aligns with NATO's collective defense principles, not unilateral regime change. Unlike neocons, Democrats aren't pushing for U.S.-led nation-building in Ukraine but supporting a sovereign nation's self-defense.
Rebuttal: Equating Ukraine aid to the Iraq War conflates defensive alliances with aggressive interventionism. Neocons sought to reshape entire regions; Democrats are reacting to an ongoing conflict with broader global consensus.

Faith in Elite Institutions

Neocons: Relied on Pentagon and CIA to justify military action, often sidelining dissenting intelligence (e.g., Iraq WMD skepticism). Their trust was tied to hawkish agendas, not broad institutional loyalty.
Democrats: Trust in institutions like the FBI or CDC is situational, driven by policy alignment (e.g., public health during COVID or countering disinformation). Democrats criticize these same institutions when misaligned (e.g., FBI under Trump). Their support for global bodies like WHO or IMF reflects multilateralism, not blind faith.
Rebuttal: Neocons weaponized institutions for unilateral goals; Democrats engage with them for cooperative frameworks. The comparison ignores Democrats' critiques of institutions and neocons' selective use of intelligence.

Top-Down Solutions

Neocons: Aimed to impose Western-style governance in the Middle East through military force and occupation, often ignoring local realities.
Democrats: Advocacy for global standards on social issues (e.g., LGBTQ+ rights) or digital policy reflects soft power and diplomatic influence, not military coercion. These efforts often involve coalitions, not unilateral mandates.
Rebuttal: Military imposition (neocons) versus diplomatic advocacy (Democrats) are fundamentally different. The comparison exaggerates Democrats’ global influence and ignores their focus on multilateral agreements over force.

Suppression of Dissent

Neocons: Critics were often smeared as unpatriotic or terrorist sympathizers, leveraging post-9/11 fear to silence opposition (e.g., Patriot Act debates).
Democrats: Labels like "misinformation" or "hate" target specific harmful rhetoric, often in response to online extremism or disinformation campaigns. These efforts are inconsistent and often privately driven (e.g., tech companies), not state-enforced.
Rebuttal: Neocon suppression was tied to national security and state power; Democratic efforts focus on public discourse and are less centralized. The comparison overstates Democratic control and ignores First Amendment protections.

Security Justifies State Power

Neocons: Post-9/11, they expanded surveillance (Patriot Act) and eroded civil liberties with broad bipartisan support, citing terrorism as an existential threat.
Democrats: Concerns about "white extremism" lead to targeted policies, often debated publicly (e.g., DHS reports). Digital monitoring is largely private-sector driven, not state-mandated, and faces legal pushback.
Rebuttal: Neocon policies were far more intrusive and broadly applied than Democratic initiatives, which face greater scrutiny and legal limits. The comparison inflates private-sector content moderation into state censorship.

Existential Rhetoric

Neocons: "With us or with the terrorists" was a deliberate binary to justify preemptive war and rally public fear.
Democrats: "Democracy vs. fascism" reflects polarized domestic politics, often tied to electoral rhetoric or critiques of authoritarianism globally. It’s less about foreign policy and more about ideological divides.
Rebuttal: Neocon rhetoric drove aggressive military action; Democratic rhetoric is broader, often domestic, and less tied to specific policy outcomes. The comparison misconstrues context.

Simplified Moral Clarity

Neocons: Reduced Middle East conflicts to "good vs. evil" to justify invasion, ignoring cultural and historical complexities.
Democrats: While some rhetoric simplifies issues, their policies often grapple with nuance (e.g., balancing Ukraine aid with avoiding escalation). Moral framing is more about coalition-building than unilateral action.
Rebuttal: Both use moral narratives, but neocons applied this to justify regime change, while Democrats use it for defensive or diplomatic goals. The comparison overlooks differing scopes and outcomes.

Overall Rebuttal: The analogy cherry-picks similarities while ignoring profound differences. Neoconservatism was rooted in unilateral military dominance and conservative ideology; 2025 Democrats emphasize multilateralism, social progressivism, and reactive foreign policy. Contexts (post-9/11 vs. post-Ukraine invasion) and methods (invasion vs. aid) differ sharply. The comparison flattens distinct political philosophies into a misleading equivalence.

>>1408452
>>1408453
General Framing

Your objection claims that comparing 2025 Democrats to 2003 neoconservatives “oversimplifies” — but the comparison is not about ideological sameness, it's about structural and behavioral parallels. The goal is to analyze how power is exercised, not whether motives are pure.


---

Moral Framing of Foreign Policy

Objection: Iraq was unilateral; Ukraine aid is defensive and multilateral.
Justified Comparison: Both frame U.S. action as a moral crusade for democracy, creating binary good-vs-evil narratives that discourage dissent.

2003: "Axis of Evil" vs. freedom

2025: "Democracy vs. authoritarianism"
Even if the facts differ, the rhetorical structure is similar — complex geopolitical realities reduced to moral absolutes to justify force or funding.
---

Faith in Elite Institutions

Objection: Democrats are selectively critical; neocons were manipulative.
Justified Comparison: In both eras, dissenting experts were marginalized when inconvenient.

2003: Intelligence dissent ignored on WMDs

2025: Lab-leak theory or dissent on mandates labeled misinformation
The pattern is not blind trust but strategic trust — institutions are embraced only when aligned with policy goals, which is true of both groups.
---

Top-Down Solutions

Objection: Neocons imposed change by force; Democrats use diplomacy.
Justified Comparison: The method differs, but both pursue universalist visions through centralized initiatives, often dismissing local traditions or dissent.

Neocons: Imposed liberal democracy via tanks

Democrats: Impose Western norms via economic, cultural, or digital pressure
In both cases, there’s a missionary mindset: “We know what’s best for the world.”
---

>>1408452
>>1408453
Suppression of Dissent

Objection: Neocons used state power; Democrats rely on private moderation.
Justified Comparison: In both cases, speech is chilled through moral labeling.

2003: Anti-war voices = unpatriotic

2025: Critics = science-deniers, extremists, or hate speech peddlers
The legal mechanism may differ, but the social consequences (deplatforming, reputational destruction, marginalization) function similarly.
---

Security Justifies State Power

Objection: Neocons went further; Democrats face limits.
Justified Comparison: The logic is the same — threats justify extraordinary measures.

2003: Terrorism = surveillance, detention, war

2025: Disinfo/white extremism = censorship, FBI surveillance, DHS initiatives
Whether private or public, the paranoia-powered expansion of control mirrors itself — different tools, same instinct.

>quick chatgpt, give me the shittest take you can to justify my shillslop
>not that shitty

>>1408458
He seems pretty right to me.

>shill likes their own post

>>1408451
>>1408452
>>1408453
>>1408454
>>1408455
>>1408457
This isn't ChatGPT, it's Grok, and it's laughably wrong
>>1408461
It seems right to you because you're used to being laughed at for being a tinfoilfag
>America fighting the Iraq War is the same as sending 1970s army parts to Ukraine
Who is supposed to believe this shit? Oh, thats right, gullible idiots like you believe it.

>>1408469
>Grok
>laughably wrong
The topic of White Genocide in South Africa is highly contentious. Claims of systematic targeting of white farmers exist, with farm attacks averaging 50 murders yearly, often cited as evidence. Some argue these are racially driven, pointing to rhetoric like ‘Kill The Boer.’” (Boer is a term used to refer to Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch, German, or French settlers in the country.)

>>1408469
First off you retarded nigger, it's parts from the 1980s. Secondly the "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" is RIGHT ON with "if you don't agree with me you're a nazi" rhetoric being spewed by democrats since the mid-2010s.

>>1408473
you're a faggot and nobody respects your objectively wrong opinion

>>1408472
>>1408473
Go back to twitter and stay there forever

>>1408474
>>1408476
stop crying faggots

>>1408474
good post

>>1408479
>>1408481
oh look the discord is here

>>1408482
stop samefagging

>>1408483
oops meant for >>1408481

>>1408482
>the discord
We just call it Discord in the US
English doesn't require those little prefix words
ESL lesson over, stop projecting faggot

>>1408494
I'm from Texas and we don't care about English here.

>>1408494
Sorry ESL turd, the article "the" is added to imply membership of a group, in this case a discord server.
It's very common in English parlance, turd
https://archive.palanq.win/_/search/text/%22the%20discord%22/

>>1408505
people who speak english don't need a source to back themselves up

>>1408505
shill melty, lmao

>>1408507
>>1408506
>Facts mean nothing when I'm wrong. What a melty!
Lmao. Keep coping, turd.

>>1408506
Its probably the same 'the discord' where they peruse 'our news'

>>1408494
You have never actually spoken English to a native English speaker, have you? Just classroom education?

the esl shill is projecting again

>>1408518
>You have never actually spoken the English to a native the English speaker, have you? Just the classroom the education?

>>1408283 (OP)
Fucking astounding that they managed to actually stumble into a good policy for once in their goddamn lives.

>>1408595
You read English almost as bad as you speak it