this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
599 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4380 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Lots of Americans say they are prepared to vote against President Joe Biden in November. Among the many reasons seems to be a persistent belief that Biden has accomplished “not very much” or “little or nothing” (according to an ABC-Washington Post poll from the summer), or that his policies have actually hurt people (according to a Wall Street Journal poll from last month).

...

I suspect most Americans do grasp that Biden supports and wants to strengthen “Obamacare,” while his likely opponent ― i.e., Trump, currently the GOP front-runner ― still wants to get rid of it. But most Americans seem unaware that Biden and the Democrats have also been working to make insulin cheaper, through a pair of changes that are already taking effect.

The first of these arrived as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the sweeping 2022 climate and health care legislation that included several initiatives to reduce the price of prescription drugs. Among them was a provision guaranteeing that Medicare beneficiaries ― that is, seniors and people with disabilities ― could get insulin for just $35 a month.

The provision took effect a year ago and, at the time, the administration estimated that something like 1.5 million seniors stood to save money from it. Indeed, there’s already evidence that fewer seniors are rationing their own insulin in order to save money. But as of August, polling from the health research organization KFF found that just 24% of Americans knew the $35 cap existed.

...

As of Jan. 1, the three companies that dominate the market (Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi) have all lowered prices and made some of their products available to non-elderly, non-disabled Americans for the same $35 a month that Medicare beneficiaries now pay. The companies announced these changes last year, presenting them as a voluntary action to show they want to make sure customers can get lifesaving drugs.

But by nearly all accounts, it was primarily a reaction to an obscure policy change in Medicaid, the joint federal-state program for low-income people. The effect of the tweak was to penalize drug companies financially if they had been raising commercial prices too quickly.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 96 points 10 months ago

It's not JUST insulin though. Diabetes runs in my family, so I grew up experiencing all the highs and lows. (HA! BEETUS JOKE!)

EVERYTHING about managing it is expensive. The needles are expensive, the test strips are STUPID expensive, as are the meters and CGM systems.

Imagine this... you're a type 1 and have to test multiple times a day.

$38 for 90 strips. Now that doesn't sound AWFUL, does it? Except a type 1 is supposed to test at least 4 times a day... Suddenly those 90 strips aren't even a full months supply. I've seen folks test 6 times a day, now that 90 strips lasts 15 days.

And $38 for 90 is CHEAP. They can easily run $1 a strip.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 68 points 10 months ago (14 children)

This is a great step forward. You can't change the majority of pharmaceutical companies overnight, but it's fantastic that it is finally changing.

Regulation. For all the people that are going to argue that regulation is bad, regulation means forestalling the inevitable profit driven greed of corporate pharmacy.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This article feels a little like a backhanded compliment.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yes, i really dislike the articles tone, as if we are children. Overall vibe is like Mom telling me how good broccoli is for me and anyhow im not eaving till i eat it anyway so id better get going before it gets cold

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FartsWithAnAccent@kbin.social 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! AFFORDABLE LIFE SAVING MEDICINE IS SOCIALISMMM!!!1"

-GQP

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

HISSSS....SOCIALISM!!! lol

[–] snownyte@kbin.social 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If there's anything I've learned in the past several presidencies in my life time. Voters tend to disregard the beneficial efforts one president makes because of their party background. So even if Biden did this tremendous achievement, it's still going to be watered down by the Republican cultists because it wasn't a Republican who did this. They would've preferred a Republican to charge people $1,000 or more for insulin and while being told to be pulling up the boot straps to make the costs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Bbubut he's 80 and cognitively impaired!

/s

[–] Yewb@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Lets socialize pharmaceutical production these fucks are literally killing us and holding back life saving treatments for corporate profits.

[–] hanni@lemmy.one 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Cheaper for Boomers? Fucking goodie.

[–] Thann@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, IDK if helping less than 1% of Americans is enough. If it makes sense for insulin why doesn't it make sense for every other drug that big pharma has exorbitant prices for?

[–] forrgott@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

Well, any actual path from here to there can only be traveled one step at a time.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Still doesn't negate him condoning and funding genocide, funding endless proxy war and starting another, and telling us we are not struggling while ignoring our pleas.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Listening to the masses? That's the first step towards communism, you godless commie. listening to what the property and business owners say is what the fondant fathers and jesus died for

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

O let us love our occupations,

Bless the squire and his relations,

Live upon our daily rations,

And always know our proper stations.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Turns out Republicans are very efficient manipulators.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Or Democrats absolutely suck at messaging.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Many people who need insulin aren’t on Medicare, of course. But now, non-Medicare patients also have access to cheaper insulin, thanks to the way another policy implementation has played out.

As of Jan. 1, the three companies that dominate the market (Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi) have all lowered prices and made some of their products available to non-elderly, non-disabled Americans for the same $35 a month that Medicare beneficiaries now pay. The companies announced these changes last year, presenting them as a voluntary action to show they want to make sure customers can get lifesaving drugs.

But by nearly all accounts, it was primarily a reaction to an obscure policy change in Medicaid, the joint federal-state program for low-income people. The effect of the tweak was to penalize drug companies financially if they had been raising commercial prices too quickly.

“This is a smart PR move and to some extent a response to market pressure... but drug companies are not lowering insulin prices to be generous,” KFF executive vice president Larry Levitt told me in an email. “They’re lowering prices to avoid paying rebates to Medicaid programs and therefore maximize profits.”

So if you're not old or poor, continue to pay hundreds in either scam insurance fees or scam MSRP insulin prices lol.

Also I could be wrong, but I believe the old (medi-X) price was around $50-$60. So at least that's an improvment.

[–] oakey66@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

All of meds went down since the beginning of the new year. Some of them significantly.

[–] fidodo@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

1/4th of Americans know about it? That sounds like a lot considering it's something that impacts far fewer than that.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

this narrative of "joe biden is actually great for everyone it's just that everyone is too stupid to notice how great they have it" while we're slowly being muscled out of the economy sounds like a french aristocrat's last plea from the scaffold.

[–] Pizza_Rat@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

would have rather he followed through with that campaign promise to offer a public option health insurance plan like Medicare

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1558/offer-public-option-health-insurance-plan-medicare/

instead we get the quarter ass version of all his campaign promises if at all

[–] MicroWave@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

According to your link, he did try to follow through and got shut down in the Senate:

President Barack Obama envisioned a public option as a key part of his health insurance reform law, but gave up on it during negotiations with opponents in Congress. As a presidential candidate, Biden proposed adding the public option as a way to fix the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act.

But for all the attention the public option got during the campaign, it has faded from the Democratic agenda on Capitol Hill.

With Democrats barely controlling the Senate, and universal opposition to his agenda from GOP senators, Biden has had to rely on a special procedure known as "budget reconciliation" to bypass the filibuster and pass his agenda.


EDIT: Adding this video interview of his administration talking about working behind the scenes to negotiate the public option with the Senate. Relevant portion starts at 1:25.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Where in that quote does it say that Biden tried anything to try to follow through on the public option?

The next two paragraphs go on to say (emphasis mine):

The Biden administration has used the reconciliation process to pursue two bills: a coronavirus and economic relief bill called the American Rescue Plan, which passed on a party-line vote weeks after Biden was inaugurated, and a safety net expansion bill known as the Build Back Better bill, which is currently pending in the Senate following passage in the House.

Neither of these bills included the public option.

The only thing Biden has done about the public option is make promises he had no intention of even pursuing, let alone keeping.

[–] MicroWave@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Check out this video interview of his administration working behind the scenes to negotiate the public option with the Senate. The part you need to see starts at 1:25. In the end, it just didn't have Senate support.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)

A public option would be impossible to pass through reconciliation rules. All that process can do is allocate money. A law creating a public insurance option would need to be passed the normal way, which means controlling the house at the same time as either getting a super majority in the senate or ending the filibuster. Or you know alternatively, even a small minority of Republicans not being horrible and breaking a filibuster. They wouldn't even have to vote for it, just agree to allow debate to end so a vote can go through.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ares35@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

without a cooperative congress, that cannot happen. you want a public option? you want full single-payer tax funded comprehensive health care for all? student debt relief? no-cost public school lunches? ubi? higher taxes on the wealthy?

you already know what to do. congress needs to go hard left--and stay there. vote progressive in primaries, vote democrat in generals. every. single. time.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

not able to vote

my right to vote was taken due to laws and policies crafted by politicians over the years

one of those politicians are now running the country with a prosecutor

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›