Washington Post. May be paywalled. Here are the main points
1) Drug price negotiation. For the first time in history, Medicare can now negotiate directly with manufacturers.
2) A cap on out-of-pocket spending.
3) Lower prices for insulin.
4) Free vaccines.
5) Inflation penalty for drug manufacturers. A lesser-known but also noteworthy change is that drug companies now have to pay a rebate to Medicare if they increase prices faster than inflation.
6) Extra help for the most vulnerable. The IRA provides an income-based subsidy for Medicare enrollees.
The group that drafted the letter includes current attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department. While the letter is still circulating for signatures, so far more than 90 lawyers have signed on, including from the departments of Justice, Labor and Energy, along with lawyers at the European Commission and in the private sector.
Itâs the latest sign of dissent inside the administration over its Israel policy. It also comes at a key time â a week before the White House faces a May 8 deadline to certify to Congress that its allyâs military actions involving American-supplied weapons adhere to U.S. or international law.
Over the weekend, Reuters reported that some senior U.S. officials told Secretary of State Antony Blinken in an internal memo that they doubt the credibility of Israelâs assurances on the use of U.S. supplied weapons in line with international law. And in February, more than 800 officials in the U.S. and abroad signed an open letter of dissent over their governmentâs support for Israelâs war in Gaza.
Total global military expenditure reached $2443 billion in 2023, an increase of 6.8 per cent in real terms from 2022. This was the steepest year-on-year increase since 2009. The 10 largest spenders in 2023âled by the United States, China and Russiaâall increased their military spending, according to new data on global military spending published today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), available at www.sipri.org.
In short, (Country X) and other countries should be freeâto do what we want them to doâand should choose their course independently, as long as their choice conforms to our interests. If they use the freedom we accord them unwisely, then naturally we are entitled to respond in self-defense. Note that these ideas are a close counterpart to the domestic conception of democracy as a form of population control.
The basic presuppositions of discourse include those just reviewed: U.S. foreign policy is guided by a âyearning for democracyâ and general benevolent intent; history and the secret planning record may tell a rather different story, but they are off the media agenda. It follows that the use of force can only be an exercise in self-defense and that those who try to resist must be aggressors, even in their own lands. What is more, no country has the right of self-defense against U.S. attack, and the United States has the natural right to impose its will, by force if necessary and feasible. These doctrines need not be expressed, apart from periodic odes to our awesome nobility of purpose. Rather, they are simply presupposed, setting the bounds of discourse, and among the properly educated, the bounds of thinkable thought.
Is âWhataboutismâ Always a Bad Thing? Discussing the crimes of our own country as well as the crimes of others is not always an effort to downplay other countriesâ crimesâit can be a test of whether we are serious about our principles.
Rules for thee... Where Is Americaâs âRules-Based Orderâ Now? The United Statesâ failure to ensure enforcement of the U.N. cease-fire resolution regarding Israel undermines the international rules-based order.
"Perhaps the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy."
America has no Ukraine Plan B except more war
Instead of collapsing, Russia has become the focal point for a reorganization of global supply chains and their financing, and its economy is growing, rather than shrinking by half, as President Biden promised in March 2022.
Joint action by Hondurasâ military and judiciary â in a manner the U.S. ambassador called âclearly illegalâ and âtotally illegitimateâ at the time â forced Zelaya to pay for these sins in late June 2009. While the White Houseâs reaction to the coup initially appeared confused, Washington soon recovered its footing. Even as huge protests raged, the Obama administrationplayeda key role in ultimately compelling Hondurasâ people and the regionâs governments to acquiesce to the regime change as a fait accompli.
Despite widespread repression by the post-coup de facto government, accounts of fraud, and the condemnation of many countries and international organizations (including the normally deferential Organization of American States), U.S.-endorsed elections in November 2009 received Washingtonâs imprimatur. In her memoirs (the passage excised from the bookâs paperback edition with no explanation), then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained that the U.S. sought to ârender the question of Zelaya moot and give the Honduran people a chance to choose their own future.â
It was in this context that Hernández catapulted into power. After Porfirio Lobo won the 2009 presidential race, Hernández became President of the National Congress as a member of Loboâs National Party â an institution historically closely linked to U.S. agribusiness. Lobo was Hernándezâs mentor and groomed his protege to succeed him. But while Hernández enjoyed success, the coupâs consequencesconstituted disaster for ordinary Hondurans.
In Washingtonâs eyes, however, such concerns took a back seat to longstanding strategic needs: above all, Hondurasâ openness to foreign investment and its role as a base for American military power. And, as head of the National Congress, Hernandez was seen as particularly amenable to U.S. desires.
