A major court decision finally inched closer to ending Kamala’s authoritarian price fixing as the way to operate our economy.
Kamala Harris’s one “accomplishment”—the deciding vote on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act—triggers a pharmaceutical price-fixing process that will rip life-saving drugs off the market and prevent the innovation of new ones. This has triggered litigation across the country from groups like the National Infusion Center Association, whose members provide infusion treatments for cancer and chronic diseases. These groups argue Kamala’s regime forces them to sell to Medicare providers at prices far below profitability, requiring them to leave Medicare entirely if they are to retain their business. But even leaving Medicare isn’t an option because the government has, through onerous taxes, made Medicare the dominant marketplace. So these drug companies may close up shop entirely.
It’s hard to explain how dire, and blatantly unconstitutional, this is. But courts have fastidiously avoided the controversy thus far, citing technical reasons to prevent the lawsuits from even being brought. For example, a Texas district court said the drug makers needed to petition the government in an administrative proceeding, rather than bring litigation in federal court. An Ohio district court found that Ohio-related plaintiffs weren’t sufficiently connected to the legislation. This type of awkward maneuvering allows the courts to avoid dismantling legislation (which courts hate to do), without actually saying the regime is legal.
Until now.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in NICA v. Becerra said stop: Kamala’s price-fixing regime needs to be reviewed on the merits. It found the plaintiffs, including the National Infusion Center Association, would absolutely be harmed by the law, establishing standing to challenge it. “We know that [the Biden administration’s] price, if accepted, will result in lower prices and corresponding revenue loss for NICA’s members,” the Fifth Circuit said. And there’s no question the drug makers would “accept” absurdly low prices. “Manufacturers are all but certain to adopt the price that HHS offers,” according to the opinion. That’s because “the consequences of failing to reach an agreement with HHS are severe. A manufacturer that chooses to walk away from negotiations without reaching an agreement must remove every drug that it produces from Medicare coverage, not just the drug that is the subject of the negotiation.” So the company would simply choose to hemorrhage profit. “Even if HHS offered a price that made sales of a particular drug unprofitable, the manufacturer still might agree to the unprofitable price because doing so is preferable to losing the Medicare market for all of its drugs.”
Ultimately, companies will close before going under like this.
This standing analysis from the Fifth Circuit more than hints at the merits. If the government is forcing private companies to lose money, that violates the Constitution’s Takings Clause. Our Founders rightly determined that the government can’t simply steal your property. That’s what British kings did, and freedom-loving Patriots had enough. In America, the government can, instead, buy your property for fair market value.
I’m hopeful that at least one court knows this. Now, someone should tell Kamala.