@mikemcdaniel689

(Reuters) - UnitedHealth shares fell more than 6% on Wednesday after the UK's Guardian newspaper reported the company made secret payments... See more

Population Welfare vs. Elite Interests: An Analysis of Governance, Corporate Power, and the 2025 Policy Landscape

by Gemini 2.5 Pro, Deep Research. Warning, LLMs may hallucinate!

I. Executive Summary

This report examines the complex interplay between population characteristics—specifically health and intelligence—and the objectives of various governing structures, including democratic states, corporations, and governments significantly influenced by corporate interests. It establishes that while a healthy and intelligent populace is demonstrably advantageous for robust democratic governance and broad-based economic prosperity, alternative scenarios exist where a less informed or less healthy population might be perceived as beneficial to entities prioritizing control or narrow commercial gains.

The analysis reveals a strong consensus in economic and public health literature: healthy, educated populations drive productivity, innovation, and social stability, forming the bedrock of sustainable national prosperity.¹ Conversely, an uninformed populace can be more susceptible to manipulation, a condition potentially favored by authoritarian regimes or interests seeking to minimize public scrutiny and dissent.³Similarly, ill-health can create significant commercial opportunities for specific sectors, sometimes incentivizing practices that may not align with overall public well-being.⁵

The report then transitions to a detailed case study: the policy agenda associated with a hypothetical 2025 Trump administration, primarily through the lens of Project 2025. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks and significant corporate and billionaire donors ⁷, proposes sweeping changes across federal agencies and public policy. The stated justifications for these changes—such as enhancing efficiency, promoting economic growth, and restoring certain values—are critically examined against their potential impacts on citizen rights, public health, education, and environmental protections.

The core finding of this report is that a substantial portion of the policies advocated by Project 2025, and supported by identifiable commercial interests and billionaires, appears geared towards generating commercial benefits for these supporters. These benefits often seem to come at the potential expense of the rights, protections, and well-being of the broader U.S. citizenry. The proposed dismantling or significant alteration of provisions related to public health, education, environmental regulation, and labor rights aligns with a model of governance where corporate interests could be elevated above public welfare. This dynamic suggests that the potential erosion of citizen well-being may be a calculated consequence, or even a facilitative condition, for achieving specific commercial and ideological objectives.

II. The Symbiotic Relationship: Why Healthy and Intelligent Populations Benefit Democratic Governance and Broad Economic Prosperity

The assertion that a nation's strength and prosperity are intrinsically linked to the health and intelligence of its populace is well-supported by a vast body of research. This section explores the multifaceted advantages that accrue to societies and democratic governments when their citizens are healthy and well-educated.

A. Economic Advantages: Productivity, Innovation, and Fiscal Health

Good population health and high educational attainment are not merely desirable social outcomes; they are fundamental drivers of sustainable economic growth and national prosperity.¹ The British Medical Association emphasizes that a healthy population is essential for a prosperous economy, challenging the "flawed view that economic growth drives population health" and instead highlighting "the role of population health in driving economic prosperity".¹ Poor population health, conversely, adversely impacts national productivity and prosperity through increased sickness absence, reduced workforce participation due to illness or caring responsibilities, and increased pressure on health services.¹

A well-educated workforce is a cornerstone of a competitive and productive economy. Businesses are attracted to areas with skilled and trained workers because such a labor pool enhances competitiveness and productivity.² As business needs evolve, access to a larger pool of experienced employee candidates becomes crucial for adaptation and growth.² Furthermore, higher educational attainment generally translates to higher wages, which in turn fuels consumer spending, supports stronger property values, and generates more tax revenue for public investments.² This creates a virtuous cycle of shared prosperity. An economy's productivity rises as the number of educated workers increases, since skilled workers can perform tasks more efficiently and are better equipped for roles requiring literacy and critical thinking.⁹

The World Economic Forum introduces the concept of the "economy of well-being," which posits that long-term, sustainable economic growth is best achieved by cultivating individual well-being through investments in good education, healthcare, equality, and social support systems.¹⁰ High population health and "human functioning"—encompassing both biological health and the lived experience of health—increase the probability of higher productivity, greater lifetime earnings, and extended periods of good health.¹⁰ This framework suggests that societal investment in health and education yields significant returns, protecting societies against demographic shifts like population aging and systemic shocks.¹⁰

The economic benefits are manifold:

• Increased Labor Supply and Productivity: Healthy individuals are more likely to participate in the workforce and be more productive while employed.¹ Educated workers are often more driven, perform tasks more efficiently, and can adapt to new challenges, boosting overall output.²

• Reduced Healthcare Expenditure: A healthier population naturally incurs lower healthcare costs, both for individuals and for the public purse.¹ Preventable long-term conditions, for instance, account for a significant portion of healthcare demand; improving population health can stem this growing burden.¹

• Greater Innovation: Educated and healthy populations are more likely to drive innovation, entrepreneurship, and technological breakthroughs, which are critical for long-term economic dynamism.⁹

• Attraction of Investment: Companies are drawn to regions with a well-educated and skilled talent pool, fostering economic growth and competitiveness.²

The failure to prioritize population health and education has direct economic costs for governments through lost tax revenue, increased benefit payments, and higher healthcare system costs.¹ Investing in these areas is not just a social imperative but a sound macroeconomic policy, particularly as global competition increasingly hinges on human capital.⁹

B. Societal Advantages: Stability, Civic Engagement, and Democratic Resilience

Beyond direct economic benefits, healthy and educated populations contribute significantly to social cohesion, stability, and the robustness of democratic institutions. Education, in particular, plays a vital role in fostering an informed and engaged citizenry, which is the lifeblood of a functioning democracy.

Educated individuals are more likely to live longer, healthier lives and are less likely to commit crimes.² This has positive ripple effects, as families with educated parents tend to raise children who also value learning, are healthier, and achieve more, thereby perpetuating a cycle of positive social outcomes across generations.² Socioeconomic status (SES), which encompasses income, educational attainment, and financial security, is a consistent predictor of a wide array of life outcomes, including physical and psychological health.¹² Low SES and its correlates, such as lower educational achievement and poor health, not only affect individuals but also have broader societal impacts, contributing to inequities in health distribution and quality of life.¹²Addressing these foundational socioeconomic inequities, often through improved access to quality education and healthcare, benefits society as a whole.¹²

The link between education and democratic resilience is particularly strong. An educated electorate is better equipped to understand complex policy issues, discern misinformation, and hold leaders accountable.³ As Glaeser et al. (2007) argue, education raises the benefits of civic participation, including voting and organizing, thereby increasing support for broad-based regimes like democracy relative to narrow-based regimes like dictatorships.¹⁴ Schooling teaches people how to interact with others and lowers the costs of social interactions, facilitating civic involvement.¹⁴This socialization aspect of education, rather than mere indoctrination, appears to be the key mechanism through which education bolsters democratic participation and stability across different political systems.¹⁴ Consequently, countries with higher levels of education are more likely to transition to democracy and withstand anti-democratic challenges.¹⁴ Conversely, a poorly educated populace may be more susceptible to demagoguery and less capable of effective democratic participation, potentially leading to the erosion of democratic institutions.³

The benefits of health and education are not merely separate advantages but are deeply intertwined, creating a synergistic effect. A healthy population is better positioned to pursue and benefit from education. Children from low-income families, who often face greater health challenges and live in environments with poorly performing schools, are less likely to graduate or attend college, leading to fewer opportunities for safe, high-paying jobs and a higher likelihood of health problems in adulthood.¹³ This illustrates a cycle where poor health can impede educational attainment, and lower education can lead to occupations and life circumstances that further compromise health.¹⁵ Conversely, investments in education can lead to better health outcomes, and improved health enables greater educational and economic achievement.²

This interconnectedness underscores a critical point: a narrow governmental focus on economic indicators like Gross Domestic Product (GDP), without a corresponding emphasis on equitable distribution of resources to improve population health and education, can be counterproductive.¹ Economic growth alone does not automatically translate into better population health if the benefits are not strategically invested in the social determinants of health.¹ A more holistic approach, such as the "economy of well-being" ¹⁰, which places health and education indicators at the center of how national success is measured, is essential for fostering true, sustainable prosperity and societal stability. This requires cross-government accountability for population health, transcending partisan politics and recognizing that the foundations of good health and a capable citizenry are laid early in life and require sustained support.¹

III. The Alternative Calculus: Scenarios Favoring an Uninformed or Unhealthy Populace

While the advantages of a healthy and intelligent population for democratic societies and broad economic prosperity are clear, the initial query posits whether a "dumb and unhealthy population" could be advantageous for certain types of governments or corporations. This section explores scenarios where such a calculus might hold, revealing a divergence in interests between public good and specific elite or commercial objectives.

A. Ease of Control and Manipulation

A primary perceived advantage of a less educated or uninformed populace, particularly for authoritarian or oligarchic regimes, lies in the increased ease of control and manipulation. An electorate lacking advanced education or critical thinking skills may be more susceptible to demagoguery, simplistic slogans, and misinformation.³One commentator on Reddit argues that "Demagoguery can really only occur if the population is ignorant enough to believe that the would-be tyrant isn't lying; or that history repeats itself".³ In such contexts, complex policy issues can be framed in misleading ways, and populist rhetoric can gain traction without rigorous scrutiny.³

In systems where power is concentrated and not subject to popular accountability, such as dictatorships or oligarchies, there is little incentive for the ruling elite to foster a wise and informed population. Indeed, the opposite may be true: "the stupider the better," as one source bluntly puts it, because an ignorant populace is less likely to challenge authority or demand political change.³ Education is strongly correlated with civic participation and support for democratic institutions.¹⁴ Educated individuals are more likely to engage in activities that can challenge autocratic rule, such as organizing and protesting.¹⁴ Therefore, regimes focused on maintaining power through control rather than consent may view widespread critical education as a threat.

B. Commercial Opportunities in Ill-Health and Ignorance

An unhealthy population, paradoxically, can create significant commercial opportunities for certain industries. The healthcare sector, particularly aspects focused on treatment rather than prevention, naturally expands in response to widespread illness. More specifically, the pharmaceutical industry and manufacturers of medical devices find larger markets when disease prevalence is high.

The food and beverage industry also presents a complex case. While healthier food portfolios can be profitable, evidence suggests that companies with the narrowest, most unhealthy food product portfolios can achieve the highest average profit margins.⁵ This indicates a powerful financial incentive to market and sell products that may contribute to poor dietary habits and associated health problems like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.⁶ Corporate practices, including aggressive marketing (often targeting vulnerable groups), supply chain consolidation favoring processed foods, and political activities aimed at resisting public health regulations, can actively shape food environments to drive consumption of these unhealthy products.⁶ For instance, transnational food corporations have been shown to displace traditional, local, and minimally processed foods with highly processed, less nutritious alternatives, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.⁵

A population with diminished critical thinking skills, potentially resulting from inadequate education, may be more susceptible to sophisticated marketing campaigns for unhealthy products or less likely to demand robust consumer protections and transparent labeling. This creates a scenario where ill-health and ignorance can become mutually reinforcing from a commercial perspective. The costs of treating diet-related illnesses are often externalized onto the public health system and individuals, while the profits from selling the contributing products are privatized.¹

C. Implications for Authoritarian or Corporatized Governance

For governments that are authoritarian in nature or heavily controlled by corporate interests (corporatocracies), a populace that is less healthy, less educated, and consequently more dependent may be perceived as less capable of resisting policies that erode rights, concentrate wealth, or prioritize elite interests over public welfare.

An unhealthy and poorly educated workforce can, in some circumstances, exert downward pressure on wages, particularly in industries with low barriers to entry that do not require specialized training or degrees.⁹ While overall national productivity suffers with a generally unhealthy and uneducated workforce ¹, specific sectors might benefit from a pool of labor that is less able to demand higher wages or better working conditions. However, this is a double-edged sword, as such a workforce is also less adaptable and innovative.⁹

Furthermore, the increasing sophistication of artificial intelligence (AI) and data-driven systems designed for efficiency, profit, and control raises concerns about diminished individual agency.¹⁸ Individuals with lower cognitive skills or less understanding of these technologies may be more vulnerable to manipulation and control through these digital tools, particularly if such systems are deployed without robust ethical oversight and governance that prioritizes human autonomy.¹⁸ If corporate entities retain unbridled control over AI-driven algorithms, the loss of autonomy could largely benefit these corporations.¹⁸

The dynamics described suggest a potential feedback loop: policies that lead to a less healthy and less educated population can concurrently strengthen the position of entities that benefit from such conditions. For example, if corporations profit from products contributing to ill-health and simultaneously exert political influence to weaken public health initiatives and educational standards, they consolidate both their market dominance and their capacity to shape policy in their favor.⁶ A population struggling with poor health and limited education may possess diminished capacity to critically evaluate corporate messaging or to organize effectively to demand policy changes that would serve the broader public interest.³ This creates a cycle where corporate influence fosters conditions that further reduce public capacity to counter that influence.

Ultimately, the perceived "advantage" of an unhealthy and less intelligent population is highly dependent on the objectives of the governing entity. For a state focused on long-term national strength, innovation, democratic vitality, and global competitiveness, such a population is a profound liability.¹ However, for an extractive regime, whether authoritarian or corporatized, primarily concerned with short-term elite enrichment, maintaining control, or maximizing specific commercial profits, the disempowerment resulting from poor public health and education might be viewed as a strategic advantage or, at best, a tolerable consequence of policies benefiting the ruling interests.³ This highlights a fundamental conflict between governance for the public good and governance for narrow, private, or autocratic ends.

IV. The Rise of Corporatocracy: When Commercial Interests Steer State Policy

The concept of "corporatocracy" describes a system where economic, political, and judicial frameworks are controlled or significantly influenced by corporate interests.¹⁹This model of governance stands in contrast to democratic ideals where public interest is paramount, and it provides a critical lens for understanding how and why policies detrimental to population health and education might be enacted.

A. Defining Corporatocracy and Its Mechanisms

Corporatocracy, or corpocracy, signifies a state where the levers of power are effectively, if not always overtly, in the hands of large business corporations.¹⁹ This influence can manifest in various forms, including:

• Connivance Capitalism: Corporations collude to form oligopolies or cartels, limiting competition and shaping market rules to their advantage.¹⁹

• Authoritarian Capitalism: Corporations align with repressive political regimes, gaining protection and impunity in exchange for supporting the regime.¹⁹

• Inverted Totalitarianism: Theorized by Sheldon Wolin, this describes a system where economic powers, like corporations, exert substantial yet subtle control over a seemingly democratic system.¹⁹

The mechanisms through which corporate influence is exerted are manifold and often intertwined. Campaign finance plays a significant role, with corporations and wealthy individuals channeling substantial funds to political candidates and parties, often through super PACs that can accept unlimited donations following decisions like Citizens United v. FEC.⁷ This financial leverage can translate into access and influence. Lobbying is another powerful tool, with industries spending vast sums to shape legislation and regulation in their favor, often employing former government officials in a "revolving door" system.²⁰ This influence extends to international bodies; for example, corporate lobbying has been shown to target U.S. policy towards the World Health Organization (WHO) to ensure global health governance aligns with commercial interests rather than solely public health objectives.²⁰

A fundamental tension arises from the legal mandate of corporations, particularly in shareholder-centric models, to maximize shareholder wealth.¹⁹ While this can drive efficiency and innovation, it can also conflict directly with the public good when the pursuit of profit leads to the externalization of costs—such as the environmental damage from pollution or the public health burdens from unhealthy products—onto society.⁶ In a corporatocracy, the state may be less inclined or less able to compel corporations to internalize these costs.

B. Impact on Public Health, Education, and Citizen Protections

When corporate interests heavily influence state policy, the consequences for public health, education, and general citizen protections can be severe.

• Public Health: Corporate influence can lead to policies that prioritize profits over public health. This is evident in the food and beverage industry's resistance to regulations on unhealthy products, efforts to shape dietary guidelines to favor their offerings, and marketing practices that promote overconsumption of processed foods.⁶ Similarly, pharmaceutical companies may lobby against measures to control drug prices or to promote transparency, even if such measures would benefit public health.²¹ The strategic framing of public health regulations as an infringement on "individual responsibility" or as a "nanny state" is a common tactic used by commercial actors to resist government intervention.⁶

• Education: While direct evidence within the provided snippets on corporatocracy and education is less explicit, the logic of corporatized governance suggests potential negative impacts. Commercial interests might push for the privatization of public education, creating markets for educational services that prioritize profit over equitable access and quality. Curricula could be shaped to serve narrow corporate needs (e.g., vocational training for specific industries) rather than fostering broad civic engagement and critical thinking, which, as discussed, can be seen as a threat by entities prioritizing control. Section V.C will explore this in detail in the context of Project 2025.

• Environmental, Labor, and Consumer Protections: In a corporatocracy, regulatory agencies tasked with protecting the environment, workers, and consumers can be "captured" by the very industries they are meant to oversee.¹⁹This can lead to the weakening of environmental standards, the erosion of labor rights (such as the right to organize or fair wages), and inadequate consumer protection laws.²² The result is often a transfer of risk and cost from corporations to the public and the environment.

Perceived symptoms of corporatocracy in the United States, as outlined by various critics, include rising income inequality, declining effective corporate tax rates, a preference for stock buybacks over wage increases or investment in workers, increasing industry concentration, mass incarceration (potentially linked to private prison interests and managing marginalized populations), and austerity measures that disproportionately affect public services and the vulnerable.¹⁹ These symptoms suggest a system where the economic and political power of corporations translates into policies that benefit a narrow elite, often at the expense of the broader population's well-being and security.

The systemic nature of corporatocracy implies that it is not merely about isolated instances of corporate lobbying or policy favoritism. Instead, it represents a more profound shift where the logic of commercial interest—profit maximization, market expansion, and competitive advantage—becomes a dominant, if not the primary, driver of governmental decision-making.¹⁹ This can lead to a situation where the state apparatus actively facilitates these commercial objectives, sometimes by dismantling regulations designed to protect public welfare or by reorienting public services to create new markets for private enterprise. This phenomenon is not confined by national borders; the globalization of corporate power means that corporatocratic tendencies in influential nations can project outwards, shaping international norms and impacting public welfare in other countries, particularly those with less economic leverage.¹⁹ For example, the influence of transnational corporations on global food systems can undermine local food security and promote unhealthy dietary patterns worldwide.⁶

V. Case Study: The 2025 Trump Administration, Project 2025, and the Ascendancy of Commercial Interests

The theoretical frameworks discussing the advantages of population characteristics for different governance models, and the nature of corporatocracy, find a contemporary and highly relevant case study in the policy agenda associated with a potential 2025 Trump administration, largely encapsulated by "Project 2025." This section will dissect this agenda, examining its stated goals against its potential outcomes for public welfare, and specifically analyzing its implications for public health, education, citizen rights, and the influence of its billionaire and corporate backers.

A. Project 2025: Stated Goals vs. Potential Outcomes for Public Welfare

Project 2025, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and involving over 100 conservative organizations, is a comprehensive, 900+ page "Mandate for Leadership" designed to provide a detailed blueprint for a future conservative presidential administration, widely understood to be a potential second Trump term.⁸ Its core ambition is to reshape the federal government by consolidating executive power, based on an expansive interpretation of the unitary executive theory, and by staffing federal agencies with personnel loyal to this agenda.⁸

Stated Justifications and Goals:

Proponents of Project 2025 articulate several overarching justifications for its sweeping proposals:

• Dismantling an "Unaccountable Bureaucracy": A primary claim is the need to dismantle what they describe as a vast, unaccountable, and predominantly liberal federal bureaucracy that thwarts conservative governance.⁸

• Restoring Traditional Values: The project aims to "restore the family as the centerpiece of American life" and secure "God-given individual rights to live freely," often reflecting a Christian nationalist perspective.⁸

• Economic Growth and Efficiency: Policies are often framed as promoting economic growth through deregulation, tax cuts, and increased business flexibility.²⁸ The creation of a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk was initially framed in these terms.³¹

• Energy Independence and Dominance: A significant focus is on achieving U.S. energy independence by prioritizing fossil fuel production and reducing regulations on the energy sector.³²

• Parental Rights in Education: In education, a major theme is enhancing "parental rights" and "school choice," advocating for funds to follow students to private or alternative schooling options.³⁶

• Market-Based Healthcare Solutions: Healthcare reforms are often justified as promoting market-based solutions, competition, and patient choice, for instance, through Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) drug pricing proposals or pushing enrollment towards Medicare Advantage.³⁸

Criticisms and Potential Negative Outcomes:

Conversely, a wide array of critics, including civil rights organizations, policy experts, and academics, have raised profound concerns about Project 2025's potential impacts:

• Authoritarianism and Erosion of Democracy: Many view the project as an authoritarian roadmap that would undermine the rule of law, separation of powers, and civil liberties, potentially steering the U.S. toward autocracy by creating an "imperial presidency".⁸

• Benefits Skewed to Elite Interests: A consistent critique is that the agenda disproportionately benefits wealthy individuals and corporations through tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization, at the expense of the general public.²⁵

• Undermining Public Services and Safety Nets: Proposed cuts to social programs, public education, healthcare access, and environmental protections are seen as detrimental to public welfare, particularly for vulnerable populations.²⁴

• Erosion of Civil Rights: The project's stance on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive freedom, and voting rights is viewed as a significant rollback of hard-won civil rights protections.²⁴

The tension between these stated justifications and the widely anticipated negative outcomes forms the central analytical challenge. The subsequent subsections will delve into specific policy areas to assess the alignment between Project 2025's proposals, the interests of its financial backers, and the potential consequences for U.S. citizens.

B. Targeting Public Health and Healthcare Access

Project 2025 and associated policy proposals signal a significant overhaul of the U.S. healthcare landscape, with potentially far-reaching consequences for public health and citizen access to care. Many proposed changes align with longstanding conservative goals of reducing government regulation, promoting market-based mechanisms, and limiting federal spending on health programs, which could commercially benefit private insurers and certain segments of the pharmaceutical industry while increasing costs and reducing access for many Americans.

Key Policy Changes and Proposals:

• Repeal and Replacement of Existing Protections: A 2025 Trump administration has signaled intent to rescind various executive orders and regulations related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), access to affordable health coverage, COVID-19 relief measures, prescription drug cost controls, and worker health and safety.⁴⁸This includes proposed rule changes to ACA marketplaces that would likely increase out-of-pocket maximums for consumers and provide insurers with greater flexibility in plan design, potentially leading to skimpier coverage for higher premiums.⁴⁹ One study estimated that proposed changes to how out-of-pocket maximums are calculated could cost a family of four earning $85,000 annually an additional $313 in premiums and $900 more in out-of-pocket costs if the maximum is reached.⁴⁹

• Undermining Medicare and Medicaid: Project 2025 advocates for making Medicare Advantage, which is administered by private insurance companies, the default enrollment option for Medicare beneficiaries.²⁵ It also calls for repealing key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), such as the $35 per month cap on insulin for Medicare recipients and the $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket prescription drug costs.²⁵ Furthermore, there are proposals for significant cuts to Medicaid and the imposition of lifetime caps on coverage or work requirements, which could lead to millions losing coverage.²⁵

• Drug Pricing Policies: While Project 2025 calls for ending the IRA's government drug price negotiation program ⁴⁰, the Trump administration has also revived the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) drug pricing model. This policy aims to ensure the U.S. pays no more for certain prescription drugs than the lowest price paid in a selection of other developed countries.²³ The MFN approach could pressure pharmaceutical manufacturers to lower some prices but also creates uncertainty and has been criticized for potentially limiting access to new medicines or not accounting for rebates that already lower net prices in the U.S..⁴¹ The interaction between repealing IRA negotiations and implementing MFN is complex, with some analyses suggesting the administration sees MFN as a preferred alternative to the IRA's approach.⁵¹

• Restricting Reproductive Rights: A significant component of Project 2025 is the restriction of reproductive rights, including efforts to ban or severely limit access to medication abortion (e.g., mifepristone) by potentially reviving the Comstock Act or reversing FDA approval, and penalizing states that require abortion coverage in private insurance.²⁴

• Redefining Sex and Transgender Healthcare: Executive orders aim to define sex strictly as biological and binary, which would strip gender identity protections from federal policies and procedures, deny transgender healthcare in federal prisons, and ban transgender individuals from military service.⁴⁸

Potential Commercial Beneficiaries:

• Private Insurance Industry: The push towards Medicare Advantage as the default, coupled with increased flexibility and potentially higher consumer costs in ACA marketplaces, could significantly benefit private health insurers by expanding their market share and potentially their profit margins.⁴⁰

• Pharmaceutical Industry (Mixed Impacts): Ending IRA drug price negotiations could be seen as a win for pharmaceutical companies concerned about revenue loss from negotiated prices.⁴⁰ However, the MFN policy introduces a different form of price control that could negatively impact revenues for specific drugs.⁴¹The overall impact may depend on which drugs are targeted by MFN and how aggressively it is implemented. Deregulation of drug promotion or direct-to-consumer advertising could also be beneficial.³⁸

• Entities Opposing Reproductive Health Services: Organizations and businesses aligned with restricting abortion access would see their goals advanced.

Impact on Citizen Health and Access:

Continue reading here (due to post length constraints): https://p4sc4l.substack.com/p/while-a-healthy-and-intelligent-populace