

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would cap the list price of insulin at no more than $20 per vial, substantially reducing the cost of the lifesaving drug for the more than 7 million people who use insulin across the United States and the 1.3 million Americans who were forced to ration insulin last year.
“There is no reason why Americans should pay the highest prices in the world for insulin – in some cases, ten times as much as people in other countries,” said Sen. Sanders. “In 1923, the inventors of insulin sold their patents for $1 to save lives, not to turn pharmaceutical executives into billionaires. Now, 100 years later, unacceptable corporate greed has caused the price of this lifesaving medication to skyrocket by over 1,000 percent since 1996. We can no longer tolerate a rigged health care system that forced 1.3 million people with diabetes to ration insulin while the three major insulin manufacturers made $21 billion dollars in profits. Now is the time for Congress to take on the greed and power of the pharmaceutical industry and substantially lower the price of insulin. In the richest country in the history of the world, no one should die because they cannot afford the medication they need.”
“As a nurse, I’ve seen too many people in our communities struggle to afford their life-saving insulin medication. People are left choosing between insulin or groceries; insulin or rent; insulin or child care. This is unacceptable,” said Congresswoman Bush. “That is why I am so proud to join Senator Sanders in introducing the Insulin for All Act, legislation that will effectively cap the price of insulin at $20 per vial. We cannot solely rely on the whims of pharmaceutical companies to set standards of patient care and determine who can afford medication. Congress must act swiftly to remove the costly burden of insulin for patients with diabetes and save lives.”
While Eli Lilly and Company, after significant public pressure, recently announced a 70 percent price cut for Humalog, the company has not yet moved to reduce the price of other insulin products. Novo Nordisk and Sanofi – which along with Eli Lilly make up 90 percent of the insulin market in the U.S. – have not made any commitment to lower their prices at all. When Eli Lilly first launched Humalog in 1996, it set the price close to $20.
Joining Sanders and Bush on the Insulin for All Act of 2023 are Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Jesús G. "Chuy" García (D-Ill.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Al Green (D-Texas), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
“Big Pharma continues to rake in record profits by gouging patients on insulin prices,” said Sen. Merkley. “Unaffordable high prices are forcing patients to ration their insulin, leading to dire health consequences – heart attacks, stroke, blindness, kidney failure, foot disease and amputations, even death. It’s tragic, it’s unacceptable, and it’s time to end this rip-off. No one should have to go bankrupt just to afford the daily medication they need to stay healthy. It’s time to put people above profits, and tell the big drug companies that their days extorting Americans who need insulin to survive are over.”
“I am proud of capping insulin copays at $35 for Medicare recipients as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, but the work doesn’t stop there. Corporate profit shouldn’t dictate access to vital health care,” said Sen. Markey. “Guaranteeing affordable insulin for all won’t just lessen the burden that is the sky-high cost of health care in this country — it’ll save lives, keep people out of the emergency room, and ensure the seven million Americans who rely on insulin have access to the medicine they need.”
While researchers estimate that a vial of insulin costs just $8 to manufacture, the price of insulin has gone up by over 1,000 percent since 1996. Sanofi’s Lantus costs $292 per vial. Novo Nordisk’s Novolog is listed at $289. Eli Lilly’s Lyumjev can be purchased for $275. People with diabetes face nearly $17,000 per year in medical expenses, more than half of which is directly attributable to their diabetes, and health care for people with diabetes accounts for one in four health care dollars in the U.S.
In 2019, Sanders took a busload of people with diabetes from Michigan to Canada, where they were able to purchase the same insulin products that they bought in the U.S. for one-tenth the price. Earlier this month, Sanders sent letters calling on Sanofi and Novo Nordisk to follow Eli Lilly in reducing the price of insulin.
The Insulin for All Act of 2023 also garnered the support of more than 70 major organizations, including: T1International, The Insulin Initiative, The Diabetes Link, Mutual Aid Diabetes, Social Security Works, Public Citizen, Center for Popular Democracy, People’s Action, American Federation of Teachers, American Medical Student Association, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, National Domestic Workers Alliance, United Mine Workers of America, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Doctors for America, Indivisible, and MoveOn.
Read the bill text, here.
Read the bill summary, here.
Read the full list of supporting organizations, here.
"You cannot buy this administration's favor. For the right price, you can only borrow it. And the price always goes up."
Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission, delivered a scathing attack on her own agency in a letter sent on Monday to Walt Disney Company CEO Josh D'Amaro.
At the start of her letter, Gomez told D'Amaro that his company "has once again been made a target by this FCC," as part of "a sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control, carried out through the weaponization of the FCC’s authority as a federal regulator."
Gomez said that while Disney, the parent company of television network ABC, is not the first media firm targeted by the administration's censorship campaign, its case is "the most documented," and thus "worth laying... out plainly."
The FCC commissioner said that the campaign against Disney started shortly after it agreed to pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump, which signaled to the president and allies that "pressure works," while also telling other major media companies that "capitulation was an option."
And instead of getting the Trump administration to back off, Gomez explained, Disney's decision to cave only emboldened it to crack down further.
"You cannot buy this administration's favor," she wrote. "For the right price, you can only borrow it. And the price always goes up."
Since the settlement, Gomez continued, the administration has opened up investigations into Disney's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, pressured the company to pull late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel off the air, and opened up an investigation into the daytime talk show "The View" after it hosted Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico of Texas.
On top of all that, Gomez said, the FCC has demanded that eight ABC-owned local TV stations file early for renewal of their broadcast licenses, which she described as "the most egregious assault on the First Amendment" the agency has taken so far.
Gomez concluded her "blistering" letter by urging Disney to fight against administration efforts to censor it, and she said that both the law and the American public would be behind the company if it decides to take a stand.
"Your journalists do work that matters to millions of Americans across the country, and the viewers who rose up to defend Jimmy Kimmel are the same viewers who will stand up again if this FCC follows through with its threat," she wrote. "I am encouraged to see that Disney is choosing courage over capitulation. The fight ahead may not be easy, but the law, the facts, and the public are on your side. This is a fight worth having, and one that I am confident you will win."
Disney last week came out swinging against the Trump FCC over the agency's investigation into "The View," accusing the administration of trying to "upend decades of settled law and practice and chill critical protected speech, both with respect to ‘The View’ and more broadly.”
"Trump's true priority, ahead of absolutely everything else, is to go down in history in big letters," said one journalist. "Remaking everything, no matter in which direction or with what consequences."
President Donald Trump said on Monday that he is considering trying to annex Venezuela and make it a US state in an imperialist effort to seize more of its oil wealth.
It's one of nearly half a dozen nations or territories Trump has threatened to use US military might to illegally conquer and add to the US during his term, including Greenland, Canada, Cuba, and Panama.
According to Fox News correspondent John Roberts, Trump said in a phone call that he was “seriously considering making Venezuela the 51st US state,” citing the Latin American nation's possession of tens of trillions of dollars worth of oil.
“They were miserable. Now they’re happy. It’s being well run,” Trump recently told Full Measure's Sharyl Attkisson. “The oil that’s coming out is enormous, the biggest in many years. And the Big Oil companies are going in with the biggest, most beautiful rigs you’ve ever seen.”
One poll from the Venezuelan firm Meganálisis in March found that while the public was initially happy to be rid of their autocratic president, Nicolás Maduro—who was abducted by US forces in January—the majority now feel that Trump's action had little to do with democracy or the well-being of the Venezuelan people and more to do with handing control of the country's nationalized oil reserves to American companies, which Trump stated as his primary objective after ousting Maduro.
Trump left Maduro's vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, in place as Venezuela's interim leader with the promise that she'd act as a pliant collaborator with the US, whom she allowed to declare control over Venezuela's oil resources "indefinitely" amid market transitions.
The environmental activist group Global Witness has estimated that over the next 10 years, as much as $150 billion in oil revenue that was expected to go to the Venezuelan treasury, which could have funded projects to develop the impoverished country, instead may flow into the coffers of foreign companies.
Trump has spoken about the idea of Venezuela becoming the 51st state before, including after the country defeated Italy in the World Baseball Classic in March, when he posted on Truth Social: “STATEHOOD, #51, ANYONE?”
Last month, during a discussion about his desire to "take" Iran's oil, Trump described his takeover of Venezuela as something akin to the resource-hungry imperial conquests of centuries past.
"I'm a businessman first," he told reporters during a press briefing. "We've taken hundreds of millions of barrels [of oil], hundreds of millions... and paid for that war many, many times over. You know the old days, 'to the winner belong the spoils.' And I said, 'Why don't we use that?' We haven't had that in this country probably in 100 years." He then went on to lament the US-led efforts to "rebuild" Germany after World War II.
While the US has lifted personal sanctions on Rodríguez and some sanctions on the Venezuelan oil and banking sectors, most of the sanctions that have contributed to the country's economic collapse remain in place. "Full unrestricted access to global capital markets has not been restored," explained Roger D. Harris from the Task Force on the Americas and the US Peace Council in Common Dreams last week.
Actually adding Venezuela as a US state would require approval from both Congress and Venezuela itself—and Trump does not appear to have the latter.
Issuing a rare rebuke of the US on Monday, Rodríguez responded that becoming the 51st state "would never have been considered" by Venezuela.
"If there is one thing we Venezuelan men and women have, it is that we love our independence process, we love our heroes and heroines of independence," the interim leader said.
Though wars of conquest are expressly forbidden under international law, it's not clear what leverage Rodríguez would have to resist if Trump attempted to make good on his goal of expanding US territory.
Argemino Barro, a Spanish political journalist and author, said the possibility that he's serious can't be dismissed.
"Yes, of course, we can dismiss it as provocation or delusion, say that it's impracticable for XYZ reasons, etc. But this kind of comment is a window into the mindset of a man who fabricates his own reality, and not only that, but imposes it on others," Barro said. "Trump wants to build the world's largest triumphal arch right in the middle of Washington, overshadowing the Lincoln Memorial; he wants his face on coins and passports; his name appears on institutions, one airport. Annexing Venezuela, in his mind, fits 100%."
"I think Trump's true priority, ahead of absolutely everything else, is to go down in history in big letters. To enter the league of Alexander the Great, Jesus Christ, and Genghis Khan," he added. "Remaking everything, no matter in which direction or with what consequences."
"It is unthinkable and irresponsible to release technologies capable of destabilizing critical systems and then worry about the fallout afterward," said one expert.
Watchdog group Public Citizen is raising alarms after tech giant Google on Monday revealed that a group of criminal hackers used artificial intelligence to detect a previously unidentified software vulnerability.
As reported by The New York Times, Google said that it had "high confidence" that the hackers used AI to discover and exploit the vulnerability.
While Google said that the attack had been thwarted, the Times noted that the company "did not say precisely when the thwarted attack happened, whom it was targeting, or which AI platform the hackers used."
While the discovery of so-called "zero-day vulnerabilities" were once a rare occurrence, the proliferation of AI models has made them much easier for hackers to detect. In fact, AI software vendor Anthropic earlier this year said that it had developed a model that was so good at exploiting these vulnerabilities that it would not be releasing it publicly.
John Hultquist, chief analyst at Google Threat Intelligence Group, said in an interview with Cyberscoop that this kind of AI-assisted attack "is probably the tip of the iceberg and it’s certainly not going to be the last" to occur.
“The game’s already begun and we expect the capability trajectory is pretty sharp,” Hultquist explained. “We do expect that this will be a much bigger problem, that there will be more devastating zero-day attacks done over this, especially as capabilities grow.”
JB Branch, AI governance and technology policy counsel at Public Citizen, said the attempted AI exploit once against showed how reckless Big Tech has been in aggressively pushing this technology out the door.
"Cybersecurity experts are sounding the alarm, yet AI companies continue racing to release increasingly powerful models with little regard for the societal consequences," Branch said. "It is unthinkable and irresponsible to release technologies capable of destabilizing critical systems and then worry about the fallout afterward."
Branch also said it was well past time for Congress to step in and slap strict guardrails on the development of AI.
"We need enforceable AI regulations that require rigorous safety testing, independent review, and meaningful oversight before these systems ever reach the public," he said. "Regulators cannot remain in a perpetual game of catch-up while Big Tech gambles with the safety and stability of modern society."
While calls for more AI regulation have grown in recent months, Silicon Valley elites are planning to spend massive sums of money in this year's midterm elections to prevent candidates who support AI regulation from winning public office.
Leading the Future—a super political action committee (PAC) backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, and other AI heavyweights—is spending at least $100 million to elect lawmakers who aim to pass legislation that would set a single set of AI regulations across the US, overriding any restrictions placed on the technology by state governments.