“Advanced Clean Cars II” regulations of 2022 call for 35% of 2026 model year vehicles, which will begin to be introduced next year, to be zero-emission vehicles. Battery-electric, fuel cell and, to an extent, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles qualify as zero emission.

The California Air Resources Board reports 12 states and Washington, D.C., have adopted the rules; however, roughly half have them starting for the 2027 model year. They are part of CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars regulations that include mandating 100% of new vehicle sales be zero-emission models by 2035.

Only 11 states and the District of Columbia had an EV market share above 10% to begin this year, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade association and lobby group that represents most major automakers operating in the U.S.

Officials said regardless of who wins the White House, many automakers will push for the CARB mandates to be postponed. They also would expect Trump to roll back or freeze the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards for model years 2027-2031.

Several automotive insiders said they expect Harris would work on a middle ground for such standard with the automakers, much like Biden, to an extent, has done.

talking point for Democrats four years ago to a rallying call for Republicans.

Republicans, led by Trump, have largely condemned EVs, saying that they are being forced upon consumers and that they will ruin the U.S. automotive industry. Trump has vowed to roll back or eliminate many vehicle emissions standards under the Environmental Protection Agency and incentives to promote production and adoption of the vehicles.

In contrast, Democrats, including Harris, have historically supported EVs and related incentives.

Harris hasn’t been as vocal about backing EVs lately amid slower-than-expected consumer adoption of the vehicles and consumer pushback. She has said she does not support an EV mandate such as the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, which she co-sponsored during her time as a senator, that would have required automakers to sell only electrified vehicles by 2040.

Lucid Group CEO Peter Rawlinson told CNBC on Monday that regardless of which presidential candidate wins the election, he believes America’s EV industry is still in its infancy and needs to continue to be “nurtured.”

Rawlinson, whose company has the most efficient EVs on sale, also argues the IRA should favor not just the size of a battery, like it currently does, but the efficiency of the vehicles.

“That’s effectively incentivizing electron-guzzling EVs,” he said. “It actually incentivized to put more batteries in and be less efficient.”

negotiated under Trump’s first term in office and took effect in 2020. However, the former president and Democrats have said it needs to be improved to better support American automotive production.

While Trump touted the deal when it was renegotiated, Harris was one of 10 U.S. senators who voted against USMCA at the time.

GM CEO Mary Barra last week said the automaker is “paying careful attention” to the election, including how potential changes in trade and tariffs could impact the company.

“We have and we’ll continue to engage constructively with the policymaking process regardless of the election outcome. When you look at the number of jobs created in the U.S., even with some vehicles that are manufactured outside, a lot of them are in our partners from an ally perspective,” she said. “It’s a very complex situation.”

Tariffs are central to Trump’s plan for the auto industry. He has said he would be willing to increase tariffs dramatically to prevent Chinese automakers from importing cars into the U.S. from factories in Mexico.

Chinese automakers are not currently doing that, but are expected to attempt to use that method of importing in the years ahead, as they expand sales and build localized production plants in the country.

Harris has reportedly called Trump’s tariff proposals “a sales tax on the American people.” The vice president hasn’t outlined any specific changes she’d make to the current tariff structure if elected, including on Biden’s announcement of raising the tariff rate on EVs imported from China from 25% to 100%.

Non-U.S.-based automakers, which together account for 48% of U.S. production and 52% of USMCA production, look more positively leveraged to Harris winning, according to Jefferies.

speech at the Democratic National Convention.

The UAW arguably has more political clout than any time in a generation, led by Fain and his top advisors who he brought in from outside the union’s ranks. But there has been a divide in the UAW and other unions regarding the historically Democratic-backed organizations and their members.

While the Teamsters declined to endorse a candidate due to a divide in the union, UAW leaders not only endorsed Harris but have been a driving force for her election campaign in Michigan and other states.

The UAW last week said internal polling showed increasingly “strong support for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump, with Harris’ lead over Trump surging in the last month.”

Meanwhile, Trump and Fain have consistently criticized one another over the past year, as the union attempts to organize as many auto plants as possible following major contract gains won during negotiations last year with the traditional Detroit automakers.

Blue-collar workers such as UAW members were viewed as crucial supporters for Trump’s first presidential election over Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016.

— CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed to this report.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

]]> https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/29/harris-vs-trump-auto-insiders-weigh-in-on-both-candidates-top-issues/feed/ 0 https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/27/biden-says-elon-musk-was-an-illegal-worker-when-he-began-u-s-career/ https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/27/biden-says-elon-musk-was-an-illegal-worker-when-he-began-u-s-career/?noamp=mobile#respond Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:32:29 +0000 https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/27/biden-says-elon-musk-was-an-illegal-worker-when-he-began-u-s-career/

President Joe Biden called out Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, now a Republican megadonor and Trump campaign surrogate, for hypocrisy on immigration on Saturday, saying Musk launched his long career in the U.S. as an “illegal worker” before becoming the world’s wealthiest man.

The president made these remarks at a campaign event to support Democrats that took place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Saturday.

Labeling Musk as former President Donald Trump’s wealthy new “ally,” Biden said, “That wealthiest man in the world turned out to be an illegal worker here when he was here,” referring to Musk.

“He was supposed to be in school when he came on a student visa. He wasn’t in school. He was violating the law. He’s talking about all these ‘illegals’ coming our way,” Biden added.

He then criticized Trump and Republicans for failing to sign legislation that would fix “the problem with the border.” He added, “We have fewer people crossing the border illegally now — or crossing the border period — than at any time since his third year as President of the United States.”

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on Biden’s remarks.

Musk recently completed a series of “town hall” events in the same swing state of Pennsylvania, where he sought to convince voters to back Trump and Trump’s policies. Musk also stirred up his fan base there by doling out $1 million lottery-style prizes to registered voters in swing states who signed a petition distributed by his pro-Trump group, America PAC.

According to an analysis by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Trump’s new immigration policy proposals include plans for the largest deportation operation in U.S. history, ending birthright citizenship, and revoking the visas of and deporting foreign students who are pro-Palestinian protestors, among others.

Biden’s comments about Musk, his Trump alliance and hypocrisy on immigration followed a Washington Post report that cites correspondence, legal records and multiple people who helped Musk attain a work visa in 1996 after he had already been working here without one.

Musk had arrived in the U.S. with the stated intention of attending grad school at Stanford in the mid-90s. He did not enroll in the program to which he said he was accepted and instead began to build a venture-backed startup called Zip2 with his brother.

The Washington Post wrote that investors in Musk’s first company worried about their “‘founder being deported’ and gave him a deadline for obtaining a work visa.”

Zip2 sold for about $300 million in 1999, a windfall that enabled Elon Musk to later become an early investor in and chairman of Tesla, and to start his capital-intensive aerospace venture SpaceX, which is now a major U.S. defense contractor.

Those businesses have propelled Musk to become the world’s wealthiest person on paper. According to Forbes, the Tesla CEO’s net worth stands at around $274 billion today.

In late 2022, Musk used that considerable wealth to acquire the social network Twitter in a $44 billion buyout.

On the platform, since rebranded X, Musk has repeatedly claimed in posts seen by his massive online fan base that “open borders” and undocumented immigrants are somehow harming the United States.

He also has shared the false claim that noncitizens are systematically voting in U.S. elections, a conspiracy theory floated by conservative groups to lay the legal groundwork to contest the election results if the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, wins the presidency.

In the U.S., it’s already a federal crime and a crime under every state’s laws for noncitizens to register or vote in federal elections.

According to studies compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice, “extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, and many instances of alleged fraud are, in fact, mistakes by voters or administrators. The same is true for mail ballots, which are secure and essential to holding a safe election amid the coronavirus pandemic.”

— CNBC’s Rebecca Picciotto contributed to this report.

]]> https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/27/biden-says-elon-musk-was-an-illegal-worker-when-he-began-u-s-career/feed/ 0 https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/26/jeff-bezos-killed-washington-post-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-paper-reports/ https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/26/jeff-bezos-killed-washington-post-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-paper-reports/?noamp=mobile#respond Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:52:44 +0000 https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/26/jeff-bezos-killed-washington-post-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-paper-reports/

The Washington Post Building at One Franklin Square Building in Washington, D.C., June 5, 2024.

Andrew Harnik | Getty Images

The Washington Post said Friday that it will not endorse a candidate in the presidential election this year — or ever again — breaking decades of tradition and sparking immediate criticism of the decision.

But the newspaper also published an article by two staff reporters revealing that editorial page staffers had drafted an endorsement of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over GOP nominee Donald Trump in the election.

“The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos,” the article said, citing two sources briefed on the events.

Trump, while president, had been critical of the billionaire Bezos and the Post, which he purchased in 2013.

The newspaper in 2016 and again in 2020 endorsed Trump’s election opponents, Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, in editorials that condemned the Republican in blunt terms.

In a 2019 lawsuit, Amazon claimed it had lost a $10 billion cloud computing contract with the Pentagon to Microsoft because Trump had used “improper pressure … to harm his perceived political enemy” Bezos.

The Post since 1976 had regularly endorsed candidates for president, except for the 1988 race. All those endorsements had been for Democrats.

In a statement to CNBC, when asked about Bezos’ purported role in killing the endorsement, Post chief communications officer Kathy Baird said, “This was a Washington Post decision to not endorse, and I would refer you to the publisher’s statement in full.”

The Post on Friday evening published a third article, signed by opinion columnists for the newspaper, who said, “The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake.”

“It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love, and for which we have worked a combined 218 years,” the column said. “This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020.”

CNBC has requested comment from Amazon, where Bezos remains the largest shareholder.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos arrives for his meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the UK diplomatic residence in New York City, Sept. 20, 2021.

Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Post publisher and chief executive Will Lewis, in an article published online explaining the decision, wrote, “The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election.”

“We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Lewis wrote.

“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility,” he wrote.

“That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”

Seven of the 13 paragraphs of Lewis’ article either quoted at length or referred to Post Editorial Board statements in 1960 and 1972 explaining the paper’s rationale for not endorsing presidential candidates in those years, which included its identity as “an independent newspaper.”

Lewis noted that the paper had endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1976 “for understandable reasons at the times” — which he did not identify.

“But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to,” Lewis wrote.

“Our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent,” he wrote. “And that is what we are and will be.”

Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan, a member of the paper’s opinions section, resigned following the decision, multiple news outlets reported.

More than 10,000 reader comments were posted on Lewis’ article, many of them blasting the Post for its decision and saying they were canceling their subscriptions.

“The most consequential election in our country, a choice between Fascism and Democracy, and you sit out? Cowards. Unethical, fearful cowards,” wrote one comment. “Oh, and by the way, I’m canceling my subscription, because you are putting business ahead of ethics and morals.”

The announcement came days after Mariel Garza, the head of The Los Angeles Times‘ editorial board, resigned in protest after that paper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, decided against running a presidential endorsement.

“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

Soon-Shiong, like Bezos, is a billionaire.

Marty Baron, the former editor of The Washington Post, called that paper’s decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.”

″@realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others),” Baron wrote. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

The Washington Post Guild, the union that represents the newspaper’s staff, in a statement posted on the social media site X said it was “deeply concerned that The Washington Post — an American news institution in the nation’s capital — would make a decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election.”

“The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis — not from the Editorial Board itself — makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial,” the Guild said in the statement, which noted the paper’s reporting about Bezos’ role in the decision.

“We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers,” the Guild said. “This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”

Read more CNBC politics coverage

Former Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose stories about the Watergate break-in during the Nixon administration won the newspaper a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, in a statement said, “We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 11 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy.”

“Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process,” Woodward and Bernstein said.

Post columnist Karen Attiah, in a post on the social media site Threads, wrote, “Today has been an absolute stab in the back.”

“What an insult to those of us who have literally put our careers and lives on the line to call out threats to human rights and democracy,” Attiah wrote.

Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California, in his own tweet on the news wrote, “The first step towards fascism is when the free press cowers in fear.”

Trump in August told Fox Business News that Bezos called him after the Republican narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in July at a campaign rally in western Pennsylvania.

“He was very nice even though he owns The Washington Post,” Trump said of Bezos.

Bezos last posted on X on July 13, hours after the assassination attempt.

“Our former President showed tremendous grace and courage under literal fire tonight,” Bezos wrote in that tweet. “So thankful for his safety and so sad for the victims and their families.”

Trump on Friday met in Austin, Texas, with executives from the Bezos-owned space exploration company Blue Origin, among them CEO David Limp, the Associated Press reported

]]> https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/26/jeff-bezos-killed-washington-post-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-paper-reports/feed/ 0 https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/pro-trump-group-funded-by-musk-struggles-with-outreach-targets-inflation-of-door-knocking-figures/ https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/pro-trump-group-funded-by-musk-struggles-with-outreach-targets-inflation-of-door-knocking-figures/?noamp=mobile#respond Sat, 19 Oct 2024 16:47:11 +0000 https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/pro-trump-group-funded-by-musk-struggles-with-outreach-targets-inflation-of-door-knocking-figures/

The political action committee funded by billionaire Elon Musk to help re-elect former U.S. President Donald Trump is struggling in some swing states to meet door-knocking goals and is investigating claims that some canvassers lied about the number of voters they have contacted, according to people involved in the group’s efforts.

The difficulties, in pivotal battleground states including Wisconsin and Nevada, come as the group, America PAC, races to enlist voters behind the Republican candidate in the final two weeks before the Nov. 5 election. Four people involved in the group’s outreach told Reuters that managers warned canvassers they are missing targets and needed to raise the number of would-be voters they contact.

Alysia McMillan, who canvassed for the PAC in Wisconsin, said field organizers recently told campaigners there they weren’t reaching daily objectives and were on track to miss an ultimate goal of contacting 450,000 voters by Election Day. In one meeting with canvassers, recorded by McMillan and reviewed by Reuters, a manager warned of the shortfall.

“We’re not going to hit 450,000, not with what we’ve got now,” the manager said in the Oct. 8 meeting. It isn’t clear how many knocks the Wisconsin teams have reached so far.

McMillan, who worked for two local contractors hired by America PAC to knock on voter doors, said she is speaking out because she is concerned a shortfall could cost the former president a victory. “If this isn’t looked into in a timely manner, this can result in a waste of time and money and risk President Trump winning the election,” she told Reuters.

McMillan said she was fired by one contractor, after a pay dispute, but was hired by another shortly afterward.

One canvassing manager in Arizona said leaders there had issued similar warnings. Three other people familiar with the outreach told Reuters that Chris Young, a Musk aide and longtime Republican operative, had recently traveled to Nevada to audit whether door-knocking tallies there had been inflated by some of the workers hired by contractors. Another person briefed on the matter said America PAC was struggling to find sufficient people to conduct audits in other states.

A person close to America PAC’s operations said McMillan’s account of a Wisconsin shortfall is inaccurate and that the group will reach its goals. Senior operatives, the person added, routinely visit field offices to check on performance.

Young didn’t respond to a request for comment.

America PAC’s ongoing outreach is built around door-to-door efforts to convince “low propensity voters” – those who may support Trump, but could stay home instead of voting – to cast their ballots. The work has focused on battleground states, where any small difference in voter turnout could clinch victory for Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, in an election that polls continue to say is too close to call.

Musk, ranked by Forbes as the world’s richest person, so far has supplied at least $75 million to America PAC, according to federal disclosures, making the group a crucial part of Trump’s bid to regain the White House. The entrepreneur behind carmaker Tesla and rocket and satellite venture SpaceX has increasingly supported Republican causes. This year, the mogul became an outspoken supporter of Trump, who has said if elected he would appoint Musk to head a government efficiency commission.

Musk didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A Trump campaign spokesperson declined to comment.

Despite the influx of cash, some of America PAC’s outreach has been plagued by disarray, the people familiar with its efforts told Reuters. As with many campaign operations, the group has hired contractors to carry out grass-roots efforts, relying on hourly workers to knock on doors and speak face-to-face with potential voters.

Some of those workers have been difficult to retain. Three canvassers, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters the work isn’t worth the pay, starting at some contractors at as low as $20 per hour. In some cases, they added, canvassers drive long distances in remote areas and don’t get reimbursed for gasoline.

In Nevada, it isn’t clear whether Young’s audit has concluded, reached any findings or prompted any change in America PAC’s outreach. Text messages reviewed by Reuters show managers at one Nevada contractor, Lone Mountain Strategies, fretting because they had to fire canvassers who used smartphone apps to disguise their locations and lie about their door-knocking numbers.

“Our auditors keep catching people cheating,” one of the messages read. “We’ve fired two people today and auditors are going around checking doors for flyers.”

Lone Mountain Strategies didn’t respond to emails or phone calls seeking comment.

America PAC recently updated its website to prominently display advertisements seeking canvassers. “Pay starts at $30 per hour, with bonuses for performance,” the site reads.

]]> https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/pro-trump-group-funded-by-musk-struggles-with-outreach-targets-inflation-of-door-knocking-figures/feed/ 0 https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/drug-costs-abortion-obamacare-how-trump-and-harris-could-change-u-s-health-care/ https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/drug-costs-abortion-obamacare-how-trump-and-harris-could-change-u-s-health-care/?noamp=mobile#respond Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:00:01 +0000 https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/drug-costs-abortion-obamacare-how-trump-and-harris-could-change-u-s-health-care/

President Donald Trump talks to the press outside the White House, July 19, 2019, left, and Democratic presidential nominee and U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris speaks to mark the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, at the vice president’s residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, Oct. 7, 2024.

Getty Images (L) | Reuters (R)

Prescription drug costs. Abortion rights. The future of Obamacare. 

The fast-approaching presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump could lead to a huge range of outcomes for patients on those issues and others in the sprawling U.S. health system.

Both candidates are pledging to make care more affordable in the U.S., an outlier in the developed world due to its higher health-care spending, worse patient outcomes and barriers to access. But the candidates appear to have different approaches to doing so if elected. 

The candidates have not yet released detailed proposals on health policy, which ranks slightly lower than other issues at the top of voters’ minds, such as the economy. But each candidate’s track record provides a glimpse of what drug costs, health care and reproductive rights could look like over the next several years. 

“A Trump administration will try to slash federal health spending to pay for tax cuts and reduce the role of the federal government in health,” Drew Altman, CEO and president of health policy research organization KFF, told CNBC. He said a Harris administration “will build on existing programs, increasing federal spending to make health care more affordable for people.”

It wouldn’t be easy for either administration to make sweeping changes: The U.S. has a complicated and entrenched health-care system of doctors, insurers, drug manufacturers and other middlemen, which costs the nation more than $4 trillion a year. Any overhaul of the U.S. health-care system would also depend on which party controls Congress, and on the policies state lawmakers pass.

Despite spending more on health care than any other high-income country, the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest rate of people with multiple chronic diseases and the highest maternal and infant death rate among those nations, according to a 2023 report published by The Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group.

Around half of American adults say it is difficult to afford health care, which can drive some patients into debt or lead them to put off necessary care, according to a May poll conducted by KFF. 

Here’s how Harris and Trump differ in their approaches to key health-care issues. 

nearly three times higher than those in other countries, according to the nonprofit research firm RAND. 

About 1 in 5 adults say they have not filled a prescription in the last year because of the cost, while roughly 1 in 10 say they have cut pills in half or skipped doses, according to the March KFF survey.

Activists protest the price of prescription drug costs in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services building in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 6, 2022.

Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images

Many of Trump’s efforts to rein in drug prices have either been temporary or not immediately effective, according to some health policy experts. On the campaign trail, the former president has also provided few specifics about his plans for lowering those costs. 

Some of Harris’ proposals are not fully fleshed out, but if elected she can build on the Biden administration’s efforts to save patients more money, experts said. 

Harris plans to expand certain provisions of President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, part of which aims to lower health-care costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare. In 2022, she cast the tie-breaking Senate vote to pass the legislation. 

Harris’ campaign says she intends to extend two provisions to all Americans, not just older adults in Medicare: a $35 limit on monthly insulin costs and a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket drug spending. 

She also plans to expand and speed up the pace of Medicare drug price negotiations with manufacturers to cover more expensive drugs. The landmark policy, passed as part of the IRA, has faced fierce opposition from the pharmaceutical industry, as some companies have challenged its constitutionality in court. 

Trump has not indicated what he intends to do about IRA provisions.

Many Republicans have been vocal critics of the drug pricing negotiations, claiming they harm innovation and will lead to fewer cures, according to Dr. Mariana Socal, a health policy professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Trump made a similar argument in 2020 when he opposed a separate Democratic bill that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. 

Still, Socal said a Trump administration wouldn’t have much flexibility to dismantle or scale back the law without change from Congress.

Some of Trump’s efforts to lower drug prices during his presidency “didn’t really come into fruition,” Socal added. 

In 2020, he signed an executive order to ensure Medicare didn’t pay more than the lowest price that select other developed countries pay for drugs. But the Biden administration ultimately rescinded that policy following a court order that blocked it. 

The Trump campaign this month said the former president would not try to renew the plan if reelected.

Also in 2020, Trump issued a rule setting up a path to import prescription drugs from Canada, where medication prices are 44% of those in the U.S. But it took years for the measure to gain momentum. The Biden administration only in January approved Florida’s plan to import some prescription treatments from Canada. 

Trump also set a $35-per-month cap on some insulin products for seniors through a temporary program that Medicare prescription drug plans, also known as Part D plans, could choose to join. The program was in effect from 2021 to 2023, and less than half of all Part D plans opted to participate each year, according to KFF. 

But that measure was much more limited than the Biden administration’s insulin price cap, which requires all Part D plans to charge no more than $35 per month for all covered insulin products. It also limits cost-sharing for insulin covered by Medicare Part B plans. 

Both administrations would likely continue to scrutinize pharmacy benefit managers, the drug supply chain middlemen who negotiate rebates with manufacturers on behalf of insurance plans, according to Dr. Stephen Patrick, chair of the health policy and management department at Emory University.

Lawmakers and the Biden administration have recently ramped up pressure on PBMs, accusing them of raking in profits while inflating prescription medication prices and harming U.S. patients and pharmacies. 

she would not back the program as president.

But Harris has supported the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, since she was a senator, consistently voting against bills to repeal the plan and reasserting her commitment to strengthen it during the presidential debate on Sept. 10.

The ACA was designed to extend health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and implement reforms to the insurance market. The law expanded Medicaid eligibility, mandated that Americans purchase or otherwise obtain health insurance, and prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions, among other provisions.

The IRA extended enhanced subsidies that made ACA health plans more affordable for millions of households through 2025 — a provision Harris plans to make permanent if elected, her campaign said. 

Harris may also work with Congress to try to extend Medicaid coverage in the 10 states that haven’t expanded it under the ACA, some experts said. Medicaid provides coverage for 81 million people, or more than 1 in 5 Americans, according to KFF.

The program is the largest source of federal funding to states. It covers low-income patients and families, as well as those with complex and costly needs, such as people with disabilities and individuals experiencing homelessness.

But if Republicans control even one branch of Congress, boosting Medicaid coverage will “be much tougher, if not impossible to do,” KFF’s Altman said.

Democrats face a difficult path to retaining their slim Senate majority, while Republicans are trying to cling to narrow control of the House.

Vice President Kamala Harris greets guests after speaking at an event celebrating the 13th anniversary of the Affordable Care Act in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., March 23, 2023.

Nathan Posner | Anadolu | Getty Images

Meanwhile, Trump led multiple failed crusades to repeal the ACA during his first term. In a campaign video in April, Trump said he was not running on terminating the law and would rather make it “much, much better and far less money,” though he has provided no specific plans. Many Republicans have abandoned their promises to repeal the law after it grew more popular in recent years.

During the Sept. 10 debate, Trump reiterated his belief that the ACA was “lousy health care.” But he did not offer a replacement for the law when asked, saying only that he has “concepts of a plan.” 

KFF noted that Trump’s previous replacement proposals would have made the ACA less expensive for the federal government but raise out-of-pocket premiums for patients, lead to more uninsured Americans and increase risks for states. 

A Trump administration would likely have major implications for Medicaid, Altman said.

Notably, Trump has said he would not cut spending for Medicare and Social Security. But that makes Medicaid, which costs the federal government more than $600 billion a year, a target for severe cuts, Altman noted.

He said Trump could make fundamental changes to the program to curtail enrollment, such as lifetime limits on how many years people can get Medicaid coverage. 

A rally against Medicaid cuts in front of the U.S. Capitol on June 6, 2017.

Bill Clark | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images

Trump could also revisit some of his earlier attempts to reduce spending on Medicaid. As president, he approved eligibility restrictions such as work requirements, and proposed changing the way the federal government gives money to states for Medicaid into a “block grant” program. 

That refers to the government providing states with a fixed amount of money to administer and provide Medicaid services in exchange for more flexibility and less oversight.

The Biden administration withdrew some of those restrictions and encouraged waivers that would expand Medicaid coverage and reduce health disparities, which Harris would likely pursue if elected, experts said.

A Democratic House or Senate would likely block any of Trump’s sweeping changes to Medicaid, according to Altman. 

“My theory is that if the Democrats hold even one house in Congress, all of that will fail,” he said. “There’ll be a big debate, but it will fail. Medicaid is too big.”

a late August poll by The New York Times and Siena College. 

This is the first presidential election held since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. in 1973.

Abortion access in the U.S. has been in a state of flux in the roughly two years since the court’s decision, which has given conservative governors and legislatures the power to limit the procedure in their states. As of last year, more than 25 million women ages 15 to 44 lived in states where there are more restrictions on abortion than before the court’s ruling in 2022, PBS reported.

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks about Florida’s new 6-week abortion ban during an event at the Prime Osborn Convention Center in Jacksonville, Florida, May 1, 2024.

Joe Raedle | Getty Images

The future of abortion rights could look starkly different depending on which candidate holds office, according to Stacey Lee, professor of health law and ethics at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. That leaves the reproductive well-being of many women, especially lower-income people and people of color, hanging in the balance.

Harris has long been a staunch advocate of abortion access and has seized the opportunity to highlight what some health policy experts and voters consider the extreme and often inconsistent views of Trump and the broader Republican Party. 

She has blamed Trump, who appointed three members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and urged Congress to pass a national law codifying abortion rights. Democrats have not had enough votes in Congress to pass such protections under Biden.

Last month, Harris also said she supports eliminating the filibuster in the U.S. Senate to restore federal abortion protections as they existed under Roe v. Wade. The filibuster rule requires a 60-vote threshold for most legislation to pass, which makes it difficult for lawmakers to approve bills in a closely divided Senate.

Harris has also “been a firm proponent” of defending the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone, Lee said. Anti-abortion physicians squared off with the Food and Drug Administration in 2023 in an unprecedented legal battle over the agency’s more than two-decade-old approval of the medication. 

In June, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the challenge to mifepristone and sided with the Biden administration, meaning the commonly used medication could remain widely available. The administration’s FDA also revised restrictions on medication abortion, allowing certain certified retail pharmacies to dispense the pills. 

Meanwhile, Trump vaguely suggested in August that he would not rule out directing the FDA to revoke access to mifepristone. Just days later, his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, of Ohio, attempted to walk back those remarks. 

Trump’s comments appear to be a shift from his stance in June, when the former president said during a CNN debate that he “will not block” access to mifepristone.

During his time in office, Trump introduced several anti-abortion measures. That includes a “gag rule” that would have made clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, ineligible for federal health funds if they provided abortions or referrals for them. 

Vance this month also said a future Trump administration would defund Planned Parenthood.

But Trump has also waffled over the last few years on abortion policy, appearing to soften his stance on the issue to appeal to more moderate and independent voters.

He takes credit for Roe v. Wade’s demise since he reshaped the court, and his latest stance is that abortion policy should be set by the states. Earlier this year, however, Trump lamented that certain state laws go “too far.”

During a radio interview in March, Trump said he would consider a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks of pregnancy. 

But earlier this month, he said he would not support a federal abortion ban, writing in a post on X he would veto one. He added that he supports exceptions in cases of rape and incest and to save the life of a pregnant woman.

“It is difficult to find consistency within his policies, but that lack of consistency should amplify that perhaps anything is possible in terms of a more restrictive stance to abortion and reproductive rights,” Lee said. 

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at the 47th annual anti-abortion “March for Life” in Washington, D.C., Jan. 24, 2020.

Nicholas Kamm | Afp | Getty Images

Meanwhile, both Harris and Trump have recently expressed their support for in vitro fertilization, a type of fertility treatment performed outside of the body in a lab. It accounts for roughly 2% of births in the U.S. but is extremely costly for many low- and middle-income people who need the technology to start families. 

It became a campaign issue after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos created during the IVF process could be considered children, which threatened the availability of those services in the state. 

Trump has called for the government or private insurers to pay for IVF treatment. Harris has said she would defend the right to both IVF and contraception, but has not specified how she would do so.

]]> https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/drug-costs-abortion-obamacare-how-trump-and-harris-could-change-u-s-health-care/feed/ 0