The best zingers from the Harris-Trump ABC News debate

(WASHINGTON) — Senators grilled Novo Nordisk CEO Lars Jørgensen Tuesday at a hearing over the costs of Ozempic, Wegovy and similar weight loss drugs, requesting explanations for why the U.S. faces a higher list price than other countries.

Since first entering the market nearly six years ago, the drugs have risen in popularity for diabetic patients and others looking to combat obesity. But doctors and patients have faced challenges in access and affordability.

Sitting in front of a chart showing the lower prices for Wegovy and Ozempic in other countries, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the chair of the Senate Health Committee, pressed Jørgensen on why it’s fair to charge more in the U.S.

“All we are saying, Mr. Jørgensen, is treat the American people the same way that you treat people all over the world. Stop ripping us off,” Sanders said to Jørgensen.

Sanders asked Jørgensen why the U.S. faced higher prices. Novo Nordisk charges $969 per month for Ozempic in the U.S., compared to $155 per month in Canada and $59 in Germany. For Wegovy, the price is $1,349 per month in the U.S., but $265 in Canada and $137 in Germany.

“Bottom line is, you are charging the American people substantially more for the same exact drug than you are charging people in other countries. And my question is, why?” Sanders asked.

The CEO said the company was spending $30 billion to increase its production and access to the drugs. He also highlighted a 40% decrease in cost since Ozempic came on the market and a sliding scale of costs for people across the U.S., including programs for low-income Americans to access the medicine for cheaper.

But ultimately, Jørgensen cast the blame on the complexities of the U.S. health care system.

“Senator, we are very committed to make sure that Americans have access at an affordable price point for our medicines. There’s nothing we would rather see happen. We have just announced $30 billion in investments to increase capacity to serve these patients. There is a market we have to operate in, and we negotiate hard to make sure that Americans have access,” he said.

“With that said, it is clear that patients too often struggle to navigate the complex US health care system. It’s also clear that no single company alone can solve such vast and complicated policy changes,” Jørgensen added.

Novo Nordisk isn’t responsible for deciding what price patients pay their insurance companies, he said, and he argued that pharmacy benefit managers, or companies that help oversee prescription drug benefits and control costs, get in the way of companies passing discounts on directly to patients.

But Jørgensen didn’t provide a direct answer to why the U.S. faces a higher list price than other countries, instead pointing to “a very complex market and very complex health care system that creates a lot of misunderstandings.”

“Everyone blames everyone else,” Sanders said, from pharma companies to PBMs to insurance companies.

Sanders connected the high prices of Wegovy and Ozempic to something he’s made the center point of his career, including his 2016 and 2020 campaigns: corporate greed.

“Are they acting illegally by charging us some such high prices? Are they violating the law? No, they’re not. What they’re doing is perfectly lawful. They are simply taking advantage of the fact that, until very recently, the United States has been the only major country on earth not to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs,” Sanders said.

“In other words, Novo Nordisk and other drug companies, not just Novo Nordisk, can charge us as much as the market can bear, and that is precisely what they are doing,” he added.

Jørgensen and a handful of Republican senators, including ranking member Sen. Bill Cassidy, pointed out that wholesale prices don’t offer a completely apples-to-apples picture because, in the U.S., insurance and rebates typically reduce the price patients pay by a significant amount.

“There is a tension, a tension between the need to incentivize innovation and the ability to afford that innovation. We are here struggling with that balance,” Cassidy, who is a physician, said. “If anyone thinks going after big pharma is the silver bullet that if you do that, boom, health care costs or drug costs go down, they don’t understand what happens with pricing a drug.”

Sanders dismissed that argument, however, saying it’s still unfair for the initial list prices to be higher in the U.S. It trickles down to the U.S. patient, Sanders said, leaving Americans with higher prices even with rebates or insurance. Of course, uninsured Americans — around 8% of the country — also pay the full list price.

“Even factoring in all of the rebates that [pharmacy benefit managers] receive, the net price for Ozempic is still nearly $600 — over nine times as much as it costs in Germany. And the estimated net price of Wegovy is over $800 — nearly four and a half times as much as it costs in Denmark,” Sanders said.

When it comes to insurance coverage, drug prices become a “pass through to the insurance companies” resulting in higher plan prices, Sanders argued.

“What must also be understood is that not everybody can take advantage of the net price of these drugs. If you are uninsured, you pay the full list price. If you have a large deductible, you pay the full list price. If you have co-insurance, the percentage of the price you pay at the pharmacy counter is based on the list price,” Sanders said.

Novo Nordisk continued to place the blame on health insurance middlemen for the high drug prices in a statement released after the hearing.

“Our hope is that the conversation with the HELP Committee will result in real and tangible solutions that benefit patients and allow millions of people living with these serious and chronic diseases to be the direct beneficiaries of real change,” the company said. “While no single company can fix the American healthcare system alone, we look forward to continuing to work with policymakers and other stakeholders toward meaningful solutions for the people who rely on our medicines.”

ABC News’ Eric Strauss contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Moments before a convicted Jan. 6 rioter was sentenced to eight years in prison on Thursday, he sought a full pardon by claiming that Donald Trump’s victory on Election Day vindicated his actions.

Zachary Alam told the court that he wanted a new classification of pardon, which he called a “full pardon of patriotism,” for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021. That would come with monetary compensation, expungement of the charges from his criminal record and the assurance that he would never again be charged for his crimes.

Alam seemed to characterize anything less as a “second-class pardon” and implied that he would not accept it.

Although Alam did not deny his actions during the riot on the Capitol, stating, “I will 100% admit my actions were not lawful on January 6,” he also justified them by saying he was doing the right thing to protect democracy.

“True patriots do the right thing in spite of everything else,“ he claimed, adding that his fellow rioters had “fought, cried, bled and died for what is right.”

“Trump wasn’t lying,” Alam said in court, emphasizing that the American people voted for him “four years later.”

Judge Dabney Friedrich described Alam’s actions as a “full-throated” attack on the Constitution and “not the acts of a patriot.”

She called Alam one of the “most violent and aggressive” rioters that day, noting that Capitol Police officers also described him as the loudest among them.

At his trial, law enforcement officials recalled him repeatedly telling them, “I’m going to f— you up.”

Lawyers for the Justice Department, meanwhile, noted that Alam stood out on Jan. 6 “because of his actions.”

Those included knocking out the glass door of the Speaker’s Lobby and pushing up against three Capitol Police officers who were trying to keep the mob from entering the floor of the House of Representatives.

He scaled four floors of the Capitol, kicked doors and threw a velvet rope over a balcony in an attempt to hit officers below.

In the courtroom, the Justice Department asserted, “There are consequences to taking law into your own hands.”

Leaving the Capitol after Ashli Babbitt was shot, Alam shouted to fellow rioters that they “need guns.”

He then fled and tried to conceal his identity.

He was arrested about a month later.

Alam also claimed in court that the Justice Department coerced defendants into taking plea deals — an argument the judge dismissed on Thursday.

He asked if the insurgence on Jan. 6 had truly threatened democracy, observing in court that the American people had reelected Trump just 48 hours prior.

“Sometimes you have to break the rules to do the right thing,” he said.

Alam’s attorney Steven Metcalf argued that his client should serve five years in prison, including the nearly four years he had already served, along with time in a halfway house.

Metcalf noted that his client had no friends and had been in and out of solitary confinement, both for his behavior and concerns about his safety.

The attorney said in court that some people are not going to change their beliefs, but conceded that Alam “can’t choose to take things in his own hands.”

He emphasized the need for rehabilitation to help people like his client.

Alam’s attorney depicted him as a defendant who lacked a support system. At the time of the Jan. 6 riot, he was living inside a storage unit and was not close with his family, according to Metcalf. His parents never appeared in court.

He asserted that Capitol Police officers were not traumatized by Alam specifically, arguing that they were not physically hurt by him or his direct actions.

The judge challenged Metcalf’s argument, emphasizing that the Capitol Police officers stationed in the Speaker’s Lobby were the “last stand” between rioters and lawmakers.

She said Alam’s actions contributed to the trauma that those officers faced on Jan 6.

Alam said that he was willing to undergo rehabilitation, but the judge — citing his lack of remorse — instead sentenced him to over eight years in prison and three years of supervised release.

ABC News’ T. Michelle Murphy contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Ohio Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz met on stage Tuesday for what was likely the last debate of the 2024 presidential election.

The two vice presidential candidates struck a cordial tone as they spoke in-depth about everything from immigration to health care and democracy.

Looming large over the showdown was Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, as Walz and Vance were forced to answer for their running mates’ records while also presenting their own visions for the future.

Here are some key takeaways from the CBS News debate:

Civility ruled the day

While Walz and Vance sparred on issues, they did so with decorum and largely steered clear of the personal attacks that defined the past two presidential debates.

They started off by shaking hands and ended the night with closing statements in which they thanked each other and the American people for tuning in. As one commercial break came to a close, they were seen smiling at each other.

At times, they tried to highlight areas where they might be in agreement. In one exchange on gun violence, Walz spoke about his son witnessing a shooting at a local recreation center.

“First of all, I didn’t know your 17-year-old witnessed a shooting and I’m sorry about that,” Vance said, to which Walz said he appreciated the comment.

At other times they were more pointed, though, especially when it came to immigration and democracy. Walz said he was troubled by Vance’s indirect response when asked if he’d challenge the results of the 2024 election.

A more policy-focused debate

Viewers got to hear several substantive policy exchanges.

On health care, Vance was pressed on Trump’s comment that he only had “concepts of a plan” to replace the Affordable Care Act and how their administration would protect people with preexisting conditions.

“We have current laws and regulations to protect people with pre-existing conditions and want to keep the regulations in place and help the insurance marketplace function a little better,” Vance said though he did not dive into specifics.

He also distorted many of Trump’s actions on the ACA and claimed Trump made the law stronger, which was false.

Walz was asked about Harris’ plan to build three million new homes (which he argued would not drive up prices and would lead to generational wealth) and whether he believed it was likely Congress would agree to her proposal for an enhanced Child Tax Credit. He said both high housing and child care costs were the biggest burdens on American families.

Amid the devastating damage from Hurricane Helene, both were asked if climate change was contributing to such extreme weather events. Walz emphatically said climate change was “real” while Vance expressed skepticism about “weird science,” stating carbon emissions were contributing to the climate crisis.

In one notable moment on abortion, Vance adopted a different tone from the one he and Trump have voiced in the past.

“We’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American people’s trust back on this issue, where they frankly just don’t trust us and I think that’s one of the things that Donald Trump and I are endeavoring to do,” he said.

At the same time, he claimed during the debate that he never supported a national abortion ban, despite previously signaling support for a bill introduced by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham that would ban abortion after 15 weeks nationwide.

Walz, meanwhile, spoke about the women whose health has been negatively impacted by state-level restrictions since the fall of Roe v. Wade. Walz blamed Trump for the Supreme Court nominations he said “put this all into motion.”

Both forced to answer for past comments

For Vance, it was his calling Trump unfit to be president and likening him to Hitler in 2016. The moderator addressed Vance about his past criticisms of Trump and his shifts in policy to align with the former president’s, asking why should Americans trust that he will give Trump the advice he needs to hear.

“Because I’ve always been open and sometimes, of course, I’ve disagreed with the president, but I’ve also been extremely open about the fact that I was wrong about Donald Trump,” Vance said.

Vance blamed the media for its coverage of Trump and then said he changed his mind in part because of Trump’s record in office.

Walz, meanwhile, was asked why he previously said he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing.

The governor has repeatedly claimed he was in China during the protests during his year-long stint as a high school teacher in the southeastern Chinese town of Foshan starting in 1989, though according to local newspaper clipping obtained by ABC News, it appears he did not actually travel to the country until August 1989, about two months after the protests ended.

Asked about that discrepancy during the debate, Walz said that he’s “a knucklehead at times” and that his extensive travel to China “is about trying to understand the world, it’s about trying to do the best you can for the community.”

When pressed by the moderator further, he conceded that he “misspoke” and that he was in Hong Kong the year of the massacre but not at the time it happened.

Vance refused to say if he will accept election, doesn’t condemn Jan. 6

As the debate winded down, Vance was asked if he would seek to challenge the 2024 election even if every governor certified the results. However, the senator sidestepped the question and pivoted to what he claimed was Harris and tech companies censoring people. He also brought up the endorsements of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.

Walz said he was troubled by Vance’s statement and said such denials needed to come to an end.

“Here we are, four years later, in the same boat. I will tell you, that when this is over, we need to shake hands, this election, and the winner needs to be the winner. This has got to stop. It’s tearing our country apart,” the governor said.

Walz continued to deflect from the question and at one point attacked Hillary Clinton.

“Did he lose the 2020 election?” Walz asked Vance, referring to Trump.

“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Vance responded.

“That is a damning non-answer,” Walz shot back.

Vance did not back down on false claims about Springfield

The ongoing controversy stemming from Vance’s false claims about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, continued when Walz talked about the dangers it created for the community.

“The governor had to send state law enforcement to escort kindergartens to school. I believe Senator Vance wants to solve this but by standing with Donald Trump and not working together to find a solution, it becomes a talking point. And when it becomes a talking point like this, we dehumanize and villainize other human beings,” he said.

Local leaders and law enforcement have said there have been no valid reports of the Haitian immigrants stealing pets or spreading diseases that Vance has promoted. Vance did not promote those falsehoods on Tuesday but did continue to call the protected migrants with legal status “illegal.”

Vance also reiterated his claims that undocumented immigrants are contributing to a housing crisis and leading to a rise in crime.

“The people that I’m most worried about in Springfield, Ohio, are the American citizens who have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harris’s open border,” he said.

Vance got heated when CBS News moderator Margaret Brennan again brought up the fact that the Haitian immigrants in Springfield were in the U.S. legally by being granted Temporary Protected Status.

As Vance tried to dispute her statement — and went back and forth with her and with Walz, the moderators said they needed to move on to the next topic before resorting to muting the candidates’ microphones.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.