If you’ve ever tried reading one of those congressional megabills, bless your heart. Most of us can’t even get through Leviticus without needing a break, and at least Leviticus came with divine authority. These megabills? They’re more like legislative casseroles: a thousand ingredients, half of which are mystery meat, and no one’s really sure what the final flavor is supposed to be.

Speaker Mike Johnson has rightly raised red flags about one of the key ingredients buried in the White House’s latest megabill stew: a sweeping drug pricing reform proposal for Medicaid. While it’s being framed as a way to cut costs and help Americans, it’s worth stepping back and asking: At what cost? And who’s really benefitting?

The Problem with Megabills (and It Ain’t Just the Length)

Let me start out by saying I’m not a fan of megabills. Never have been. Probably never will be. They’re legislative Trojan horses—huge, hard-to-handle bills that get stuffed full of unrelated or controversial policies that wouldn’t stand a chance on their own. Remember when Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”? That wasn’t a gaffe. That was a glimpse behind the curtain. And it’s still happening.

Lawmakers get backed into corners. They’re forced to either vote yes and hold their nose, or vote no and get accused of opposing veterans, children, clean water, or puppies—whatever shiny headline was attached to the bill. It’s legislative blackmail, plain and simple. It’s also fundamentally un-American. Our Republic was built on debate, deliberation, and accountability—not “pass now, figure it out later.”

So, What’s the Drug Pricing Policy That Johnson Is Against?

Tucked inside this new megabill is a policy backed by the White House that would tie Medicaid drug prices in the U.S. to the “most favored nation” (MFN) prices—basically, the lowest prices paid by other developed countries like Germany, Canada, or the UK. This would apply to high-cost drugs and would give the federal government more power to negotiate or set prices under Medicaid.

On paper, it sounds good: “Let’s pay less for drugs, like other countries do.” But as always, the devil’s in the details—and as Christians, we know the devil loves a good disguise.

The Arguments For the Policy

Let’s be fair. The idea isn’t without merit. Prescription drugs are outrageously expensive in the U.S., and it’s true that Americans often pay double—or more—compared to citizens in other countries for the exact same medications.

Supporters of the policy argue:

• It would save Medicaid billions of dollars—potentially protecting the program without needing to slash coverage or raise taxes.
• It uses the free-market principle of comparative pricing to our advantage.
• It would bring some much-needed accountability to Big Pharma, which sometimes treats the American market like a bottomless ATM.

From a Christian standpoint, the desire to reduce the financial burden on struggling families is a noble one. Proverbs 22:16 warns us, “He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches… shall surely come to want.” There’s no excuse for gouging people who are already suffering.

The Arguments Against the Policy

But here’s the other side—and it’s a big one.

Critics, including Speaker Johnson, worry that this is nothing more than government price-fixing. And historically, price controls have a track record about as reliable as the internet on dial-up. When government starts setting prices, it often leads to:

• Reduced access: Drug manufacturers may choose to pull products from the U.S. market if profits shrink, leading to shortages or delays.
• Less innovation: If pharmaceutical companies can’t recoup the enormous costs of R&D, they may simply stop investing in new drugs. That’s not a scare tactic—it’s simple economics.
• Global freeloading: Other countries benefit from American innovation because we pay more. If we stop footing the bill, they may have to start paying more—or medical innovation may slow worldwide.

From a Christian conservative lens, this is also a matter of stewardship. God calls us to wisely manage the resources He has given us, and that includes both money and knowledge. Proverbs 13:11 says, “Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase.” If government policies discourage the labor of discovery, we shouldn’t be surprised when the fruit of innovation dries up.

The Bigger Issue: Centralized Power and Quiet Tyranny

Let’s not ignore the bigger danger here: increasing government control over the economy and healthcare. This is another step toward a soft-socialist model that relies on bureaucratic panels and centralized planning. As a conservative, I believe in freedom—freedom for families, for churches, and yes, for markets too.

The government doesn’t have a great track record of running things efficiently. You don’t solve a bloated healthcare system by adding more bureaucracy and top-down mandates. You fix it by increasing transparency, encouraging competition, and empowering people—not unelected D.C. technocrats—to make decisions about their own care.

Principled Policy, Not Political Shortcuts

So where do we land? Here’s the bottom line:

• Cutting drug costs? Yes, that’s a good goal.
• Helping the poor and sick? Absolutely—Jesus Himself ministered to the sick and downtrodden.
• Using a megabill and foreign price controls to do it? Not so fast.

We can’t sacrifice long-term innovation and freedom on the altar of short-term savings. That’s not wise stewardship, and it’s certainly not constitutional governance. If we want real reform, let’s push for it the right way—through open debate, targeted legislation, and policies that reward good work rather than punish it.

And while we’re at it, let’s stop the megabill madness. Our lawmakers should read the bills they vote on—and so should we.

As Matthew 10:16 reminds us, “Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” That means seeing through the shiny promises and asking the hard questions—even when it’s politically inconvenient.