316
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
316 points (99.4% liked)
politics
31859 readers
2635 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Unless I’m missing something after reading the article, can someone tell me how this violates the first and fifth amendments?
I would hope this is a good thing, because (as a layman) it sounds ludicrous to justify this suit using the 1st and 5th amendments. Hopefully the court agrees. Doubtful, but I'm naive.
They're grasping at straws. A majority of this court already ruled that Medicare has the right to compel vaccine mandates on providers who want Medicare reimbursements because Medicare has no obligation to do business with companies/providers that do not meet their rules. The Medicare statute is very clear here.
These companies are actually arguing that the government requiring negotiations violates their "free speech" to set their own prices and is "depriving them of life, liberty, or property" by not buying from them if they don't negotiate. The reality is that what they're asking the court to do is to compel the federal government to buy their products at the price they want to sell them at. The inevitable result of such an outcome is that they can charge 100x what they do now and there's nothing the government could do but spend 100x as much. When it's put like that, it's clear how absurd their argument is.
That makes sense. I worry that with how the courts are today, that they (Big Pharma) might win and - as you said - be able to charge even more for drugs, and there's nothing anyone can do but pay it.
You can read their filing here: https://www.jnj.com/_document/janssen-lit?id=00000189-6a3c-daed-a5bd-fb7fc2a60000
Constitutional argument spelled out starting on paragraph 83: