President Biden’s FTC chairwoman Lina Khan is on a crusade to make your healthcare even more expensive. Khan has made a reputation as one of the most left-wing bureaucrats in Washington D.C. Her efforts are designed to ruin free enterprise and hand more power to leftist bureaucrats like herself. Thankfully, many of her efforts have been defeated in court.

However, her losses haven’t dissuaded her from further attempts to interfere with the market. One of her primary targets right now is pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). These are third-party operators that negotiate drug prices with big pharmaceutical companies on behalf of health insurance recipients. Studies prove that PBMs make a significant impact in reducing drug costs for the average American.

Khan apparently doesn’t like these savings. The FTC recently issued a complaint against PBMs alleging the rebates they obtain for health insurance beneficiaries amount to an “unfair method of competition” under federal law. While Khan styles herself as a bold progressive standing up for the little guy, this move does the opposite. It helps Big Pharma keep prices high and maintain its stranglehold over the drug market.

This move drew the ire of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. The board sees this as another example of government meddling in the market to make things worse for consumers. The rebates often benefit the average person by lowering drug premiums. Khan’s complaint claims that the rebates have led to “artificially inflated list prices that are disconnected from the actual cost of the drugs to insurers.” But, as the WSJ editors point out, the FTC “admits that net insulin prices after rebates have declined over time.”

“This suggests competition fueled by the PBMs is working,” the editorial board argues.

The board further slices through this bad argument:

As the FTC complaint notes, health plans can mitigate high list prices “by applying drug rebates directly at the pharmacy counter when the patient purchases the drug”—known as a point-of-sale rebate. It says employers aren’t doing this, but why is that the PBMs’ fault?

What might be most damning for Khan is who she is choosing to stand up for with this complaint. It’s not the ordinary American trying to pay less for the medication he needs. It’s instead Big Pharma. “The FTC’s essential charge is that PBMs play insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Sanofi against each other to obtain higher rebates, which their clients use to reduce premiums for all patients,” the editorial board notes.

“You have to smile at Ms. Khan portraying big drug makers as victims in her suit,” the board concludes.

The government cracking down on PBMs would greatly benefit the pharmaceutical giants. No longer would they have to worry about third-party operators pushing them to lower drug prices. The price Big Pharma sets would be the one the average American pays–no changes allowed. This action would allow one powerful force to have even more control over the drug market, making a mockery of the FTC’s purpose. How can one claim to stand up for the little guy and serve Big Pharma’s interest?

Khan’s action would exacerbate one of the problems causing America’s healthcare woes. The government has interfered many times to try to make healthcare better in this country. It’s only made the problem worse, as can be seen by the disaster wrought by Obamacare.

The FTC chair isn’t bothered by this. Her goal is to impose more government control over the economy. It doesn’t matter if it hurts the American consumer. What matters is that people like Lina Khan are in charge and can dictate how we live our lives.

That’s the definition of socialism–and it’s the vision Khan wants to make a reality. The PBM complaint, along with Khan’s other actions, are all small steps pushing America in that terrible direction.