SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
chuck grassley
'Absolutely Insane': GOP Committee Shuts Off Debate to Advance 'Extreme Ideologue' Emil Bove
"Today's Senate Judiciary Committee meeting was a clear indication of MAGA Republicans' willingness to put blind loyalty to Trump before their oaths of office and duties to their constituents," said one advocate.
Jul 17, 2025
Democrats on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday said Republicans on the panel had broken several Senate rules by forcing a vote on judicial nominee Emil Bove, and questioned whether the committee's vote to advance Bove's nomination to the chamber floor was legitimate, since it took place after they walked out in protest.
As NBC News reported, a spokesperson for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Democrats are questioning whether the vote to advance Bove was officially reported out, and the question "may be up to the Senate parliamentarian" because the GOP broke several committee rules when Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) shut down debate.
The Democratic members of the committee walked out of the hearing room after Grassley said the debate would not continue regarding Bove, who was the subject of a whistleblower report that alleged he told Department of Justice lawyers to ignore court rulings that got in the way of President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda.
Bove, currently the principal associate deputy attorney general, reportedly said the DOJ should "consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore" court orders that aimed to stop deportation flights from taking off, carrying hundreds of migrants to other countries without due process.
Earlier this week, Grassley rejected a request by Democrats on the committee to hold a hearing so the whistleblower, former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, could testify.
Grassley said he saw no reason to delay a committee vote on Bove, who in addition to being the subject of Reuveni's complaint, has been accused of belittling subordinates, making "power plays," and lacking professionalism during his tenure in New York's Southern District.
"Bove is an extreme ideologue, and his lifetime appointment sets the stage for the president and his allies to seek out favorable rulings no matter how unconstitutional their actions," said Caroline Ciccone, president of Accountable.US. "It's reprehensible that Senate Republicans silenced a basic acknowledgement of the facts, in order to jam through judicial appointments who will be a rubber stamp for Trump's out-of-touch agenda."
Bove also refused to condemn the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and played a key role in the DOJ decision to drop federal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Bove's former role as Trump's personal attorney led 75 former state and federal judges to warn this week that his nomination to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit was "deeply inappropriate."
"He has been trailed by a history of complaints, long predating his affiliation with President Trump about his temperament, his poor judgment, and lack of candor in front of the court," said Durbin on Thursday. "Think of it: We're talking about a judge for life."
Ahead of the committee's proceedings on Thursday, more than 900 former DOJ attorneys joined the call for lawmakers to reject Bove's nomination, saying it was "intolerable... that anyone who disgraces the Justice Department would be promoted to one of the highest courts in the land, as it should be intolerable to anyone committed to maintaining our ordered system of justice."
But Grassley disregarded the warning and other protests from Democratic committee members as he cut off the debate over Bove during Thursday's session.
"This is out of order," Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said. "This is absolutely insane. What is the rush?"
After the rest of the Democrats left the room in protest, Booker remained in the hearing room and shouted over the votes of several other judicial nominees before joining his colleagues.
"This lacks decency. It lacks decorum. It shows that you do not want to simply hear from your colleagues," Booker said. "This is us simply trying to rush through one of the most controversial nominees we've had under this presidential administration."
Grassley denounced the concerns raised about Bove as a "political hit job," but Booker emphasized that "time and time again, there were allegations made against this nominee by independent people, by Republicans, by career professionals, and we are not listening to them or demanding answers."
As Bove's nomination headed to the Senate floor, Durbin and Booker also brought up questions about whether Bove was involved in a DOJ decision not to release files regarding convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was a former associate of Trump's and was found dead in his jail cell in 2019.
Booker wrote a letter to Bove on Wednesday, saying his "involvement in the DOJ's review of the Epstein files is a matter of significant public importance given the contradictory statements by Attorney General [Pam] Bondi concerning the existence of an Epstein 'client list' and DOJ's stated commitment to transparency. Furthermore, it warrants scrutiny whether the DOJ intentionally withheld evidence related to the trafficking and sexual abuse of minors to protect certain individuals."
Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the advocacy group Demand Justice, said Booker had "correctly accused his colleagues across the aisle of abusing their power. We applaud his efforts to ensure the public could learn more about the serious allegations Bove faces, as well as the committee Democrats who walked out of the meeting in light of their Republican colleagues' actions."
"Today's Senate Judiciary Committee meeting was a clear indication of MAGA Republicans' willingness to put blind loyalty to Trump before their oaths of office and duties to their constituents," said Buchanan urging senators from both parties to reject Bove's nomination now that it has advanced to the Senate floor.
"Senators on both sides of the aisle must show their commitment to judicial independence and keep this extreme, Trump loyalist off the federal bench," she said. "Voting 'no' should not be a difficult choice for any senator with an ounce of self-respect or respect for the courts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
FTC Report Shows Big Pharma Middlemen Jack Up Prices by Up to 7,736%
Pharmacy benefit managers "are raking in billions in excess revenue—$7.3 billion over just five years—while squeezing independent pharmacies and leaving patients and health plan sponsors with skyrocketing costs."
Jan 14, 2025
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday published the second part of its investigation into how prescription drug middlemen are marking up the prices of specialty generic drugs dispensed at their affiliated pharmacies by hundreds—and in some cases, thousands—of percent, underscoring what advocates say is the need for urgent action by policymakers.
The FTC's second interim staff report on consolidated pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) found that the three largest of these middlemen—CVS Health's Caremark Rx, Cigna Group's Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth Group's OptumRx—"marked up two specialty generic cancer drugs by thousands of percent and then paid their affiliated pharmacies hundreds of millions of dollars of dispensing revenue in excess of estimated acquisition costs for each drug annually."
"Of the specialty generic drugs analyzed in this report and dispensed by the 'Big Three' PBMs' affiliated pharmacies for commercial health plan members between 2020 and 2022, 63% were reimbursed at rates marked up by more than 100% over their estimated acquisition cost... while 22% were marked up by more than 1,000%," the report states.
"For the pulmonary hypertension drug tadalafil (generic Adcirca), for example, pharmacies purchased the drug at an average of $27 in 2022, yet the Big Three PBMs marked up the drug by $2,079 and paid their affiliated pharmacies $2,106, on average, for a 30-day supply of the medication on commercial claims," the publication notes. That's a staggering average markup of 7,736%.
"The FTC's second interim report lays bare the blatant profiteering by PBM giants."
"Such significant markups allowed the Big Three PBMs and their affiliated specialty pharmacies to generate more than $7.3 billion in revenue from dispensing drugs in excess of the drugs' estimated acquisition costs from 2017-22," the FTC said. "The Big Three PBMs netted such significant revenues all while patient, employer, and other healthcare plan sponsor payments for drugs steadily increased annually."
The new analysis follows a July 2024 report that revealed Big Three PBM-affiliated pharmacies received 68% of the dispensing revenue generated by specialty drugs in 2023, a 14% increase from 2016.
"The FTC staff's second interim report finds that the three major pharmacy benefit managers hiked costs for a wide range of lifesaving drugs, including medications to treat heart disease and cancer," FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a statement Tuesday. "The FTC should keep using its tools to investigate practices that may inflate drug costs, squeeze independent pharmacies, and deprive Americans of affordable, accessible healthcare—and should act swiftly to stop any illegal conduct."
Khan's time as chair is limited. Republican U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration is next week and he has named Andrew Ferguson as the next FTC chair. As Ferguson is already on the commission, his elevation to chair won't require Senate confirmation.
Greg Lopes, spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a PBM lobby group, said Tuesday that "it's clear this report again fails to consider the entirety of the prescription drug supply chain and makes sweeping assertions about the role of PBMs disconnected from a full appreciation of their critical cost-saving role for employers, unions, taxpayers, and patients."
Last September, the FTC sued the Big Three and their affiliated group purchasing organizations for allegedly "engaging in anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices that have artificially inflated the list price of insulin drugs, impaired patients' access to lower list price products, and shifted the cost of high insulin list prices to vulnerable patients."
FTC Office of Policy Planning Director Hannah Garden-Monheit said Tuesday that the problem of PBM price inflation "is growing at an alarming rate, which means there is an urgent need for policymakers to address it."
To that end, U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, a bill backed by the AARP aimed at increasing transparency and "holding PBMs accountable for deceptive and unfair practices that drive up prescription drug costs and force independent pharmacies out of business."
"This report is a call to action for policymakers to dismantle these exploitative schemes."
Responding to the FTC report, Emma Freer, senior policy analyst for healthcare at the American Economic Liberties Project—a corporate accountability and antitrust advocacy group—said in a statement Tuesday that "the FTC's second interim report lays bare the blatant profiteering by PBM giants, which are marking up lifesaving drugs like cancer, HIV, and multiple sclerosis treatments by thousands of percent and forcing patients to pay the price."
"By steering prescriptions for the most expensive specialty generic drugs to their own pharmacies, PBMs are raking in billions in excess revenue—$7.3 billion over just five years—while squeezing independent pharmacies and leaving patients and health plan sponsors with skyrocketing costs," Freer added. "This report is a call to action for policymakers to dismantle these exploitative schemes, outlaw the rebate system driving up prices, and restore fairness and affordability to the U.S. healthcare system."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Medicare Turns 58, It Still Must Be Protected and Expanded
Despite the demise of Build Back Better, we should not give up on expanding traditional Medicare. Real change takes time and persistence.
Jul 31, 2023
President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law 58 years ago Sunday—on July 30, 1965. Before Medicare, most American seniors could not obtain health insurance; they had to rely on charity or help from relatives with medical bills.
"Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and to enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness,” said President Johnson at the signing ceremony. “And the time has now arrived to help them attain that opportunity and to help them get that protection."
Medicare was modeled on a typical Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan in 1965. The average health insurance plan 58 years ago did not include hearing, vision, or dental coverage. As Kaiser Health News points out, “Back in 1965, life expectancy was lower and health care (including dental) was more affordable.”
“When Medicare was created, its architects assumed expansion… in terms of benefits. (But) they didn’t anticipate the shift in American politics to the right.”
Today, life expectancy is longer and healthcare costs have skyrocketed. But traditional Medicare still does not cover hearing, vision, and dental care—leaving beneficiaries to bear the full cost of care for their ears, eyes, and teeth. Hearing aids, dental crowns, and eyeglasses can amount to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses, which many seniors simply can’t afford.
President Joe Biden’s original Build Back Better plan finally would have added hearing, vision, and dental coverage to traditional Medicare. The White House ultimately dropped dental and vision care from its plan after objections from Democratic centrists, leaving hearing coverage as the only potential benefit expansion. Then, the entire Build Back Better plan was killed at the end of 2021 when Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) withdrew his support, effectively ending any real chance to expand traditional Medicare benefits while Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.
As Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, observed, “Medicare is the kind of program where you’d expect the benefits to be expanded over and over again.” But other than the addition of Part D prescription drug coverage (administered by private plans) in 2003, Medicare benefits have not been expanded in the 58 years since the program was enacted.
“When Medicare was created, its architects assumed expansion… in terms of benefits,” Oberlander told Kaiser Health News. “(But) they didn’t anticipate the shift in American politics to the right.” This shift, which took root with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981, emphasized tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, increased military spending, and spouted a lot of bluster about reducing deficits (hard to accomplish given the first two items on the list).
What President Biden called “human infrastructure”—services for everyday Americans struggling to thrive in a global economy amid growing wealth inequality—became a tougher political sell after 1981. The ill-fated Build Back Better plan was an earnest attempt to begin investing more resources in “human infrastructure.” Despite the demise of Build Back Better, we should not give up on expanding traditional Medicare. Real change takes time and persistence.
In fact, there has been real progress on Medicare in other ways. The Inflation Reduction Act (the reconstituted version of Build Back Better) finally allows Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices with Big Pharma—an historic reform that took some 20 years to enact. The Inflation Reduction Act will cap beneficiaries’ out of pocket drug costs at $2,000 per year (starting in 2025), limits seniors’ insulin costs to $35 a month, and penalizes drug-makers for raising prices above the rate of inflation.
While Congress was unable to enact a hearing benefit for traditional Medicare enrollees, legislation introduced by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) required the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to create a rule greatly expanding access to over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids, which the FDA did in 2022. These OTC products (suitable for mild-to-moderate hearing loss) can be significantly less expensive than prescription hearing aids. And while the president’s proposed dental benefit for traditional Medicare did not survive the legislative process, the Biden administration has expanded the definition of “medically necessary” dental care under Medicare Part B.
A 2021 study by Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that MA customers “still generally end up with significant out-of-pocket costs” for hearing, dental, and vision care.
Some Medicare Advantage (MA) plans do offer hearing, dental, and vision coverage—but those benefits are extremely modest and don’t always make up for the disadvantages of Medicare Advantage. Many MA insurers are under investigation for overbilling the government, denying authorizations for reasonable medical procedures, and misleading customers through celebrity ad campaigns. Meanwhile, Medicare Advantage plans restrict beneficiaries to limited networks of providers and sometimes don’t cover medical care outside of a patient’s home region.
A 2021 study by Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that MA customers “still generally end up with significant out-of-pocket costs” for hearing, dental, and vision care. “It stands to reason there would be lower out-of-pocket spending in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare, but the differences are not as large as one might expect,” Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president at Kaiser Family Foundation, told Kaiser Health News.
These privatized Medicare plans, which unfortunately are growing in market share under the power of their advertising (boosted by a pro-MA bias during the Trump administration), were not part of the original vision for Medicare when President Johnson signed it into law. Traditional Medicare is the bedrock program which has provided seniors with health security since 1965. It must be preserved—and expanded—in accordance with the real needs of 21st century seniors.
On this 58th anniversary of Medicare, let’s recommit to President Johnson’s promise of the “opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health” and provide “security against the economic effects of sickness.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular