Illinois should create a prescription drug affordability board to protect patients from price-gouging

I’m writing in support of bills in the Illinois General Assembly that would create a prescription drug affordability board. They are House Bill 4472 and Senate Bill 3108.

Although I’m only 53, my medical history includes many illnesses. I also have the distinct honor of being a newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis patient. Needless to say, I have a lot of experience dealing with insurance and pharmaceuticals.

My family is directly affected by the lack of prescription drug policies. Record profits go to ‘Big Pharma’ based not on merit but contractual obligations. This just isn’t sustainable, and it isn’t fair to the people of Illinois.

With my recent diagnosis, I’m fearful that the prices of MS drugs that will be needed to maintain my physical and mental baseline will be so high that the longevity of my life will be reduced. Shortened because I’m unable to consistently afford these lifesaving drugs. And, believe me when I say I’m not the only one who shares this concern. Other families with multiple sclerosis or cancer patients fret daily over drugs not being affordable.

Big Pharma must be willing to lower their ceiling to an acceptable level of profitability, and the cost floor needs to be raised because there are too many families falling through the cracks, fighting for our lives in emergency rooms.

We need government intervention to bring equity to these prescription drug affordability negotiations because insurers are allowed to protect their profits over our lives.

I support Illinois creating a prescription drug affordability board to monitor the prescription drug price-gouging that Big Pharma has historically been known to practice.

Patients with chronic illnesses have enough worries.

Josef Michael Carr Jr., South Shore

Biden’s still got it

Anyone still balking on backing Biden for reelection because of his age after watching him give his State of the Union address March 7 simply was not paying attention, or watching with a jaded eye. For 90 minutes he aired every topic of voter concern without once referring to his notes, dispelling all doubts about his mental acuity and ability to continue leading our nation. He spoke naturally, without stumbles, with requisite good humor, and left no pressing issue unaddressed. A bravura performance. Run, Joe, run!

Ted Z. Manuel, Hyde Park

Bring on Trump

Anybody who still believes that “Sleepy Joe” trope should watch the State of the Union address, more than once, if necessary. Is Donald Trump sure that he wants to debate this guy? He seems pretty sharp.

Curt Fredrikson, Mokena

Buy American? That’s costly

Attempting to wrap himself in the American flag, Biden, much like Trump before him, preached the flawed gospel of “buy American,” whatever that means.

Does it mean that no parts of foreign invention/manufacture can be used? Does it mean that no foreign (e.g. immigrant) labor can be employed in the design, manufacture, distribution and maintenance of the product/service in question? If so, it would be difficult to identify transgressions, and if somehow that could be accomplished, that policy would bring our economy to a grinding halt.

More importantly, if Biden’s and Trump’s cries to buy American were only self-serving, politically motivated exhortations while displaying a remarkable lack of economic understanding, they would not necessarily do any particular harm, as producers and consumers could do as they wished. On the other hand, if “buy American” is enforced by law, as per Trump’s executive orders and Biden’s intentions, that policy would raise prices and, much like the tariffs which both of these economic airheads have supported, it, in effect, would be a tax on consumers.

Biden’s and Trump’s economic populism of “buy American” should be recognized for what it is — costly and stupid!

William Gottschalk, Lake Forest

Don’t let Trump tell lies

Television stations have a responsibility to provide accurate news. One particularly obvious example of their failure is the recent visit by the president and the former president to Texas to talk about immigration.

The news reported that thousands of immigrants had entered the country, and then showed former president Donald Trump claiming that “millions and millions and millions” of immigrants had entered.

The broadcast choice of the excerpt from his speech should never have been shown, as it contradicted what had just been presented to the public. How can viewers be expected to understand the issues if they are presented in such a flagrantly contradictory way?

Marian Tomlinson, Glen Ellyn

Life begins at conception

The Sun-Times recently published a letter from a person from West Ridge who claimed “pro-lifers are only interested in the life of the fetus.” The writer refers to a person as “it” when talking about children while pretending to know what pro-lifers think. As a pro-lifer, I believe life is sacred from conception until natural death, which the writer seemed unable to comprehend.

Donald Nauyokas, Brighton Park

France and Japan are exceptional

France is the first country to embed in its constitution the right to an abortion. I recently read that there were only four gun-related deaths in Japan in all of 2022, according to the website Statista. It seems that so-called American exceptionalism will have to take a back seat to the real exceptionalism that exists in France and Japan.

Larry Vigon, Jefferson Park