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.
This is why I don't use the term "baby steps". It is an inaccurate labeling of a small step, engendering it with some sort of illogical inevitability that must grow to maturity.
It doesn't matter if something is a "baby step". It matters that steps are taken in the right direction.
This legislation is a step in the right direction.
It matters if we let that step be the only step, which Democrats do all too often.
As do Republicans. Your statement means nothing in practice.
This is a small, societally practical beneficial step.
That is what matters.
I resent the implication that I support Republicans.
And if we're satisfied, Democrats will stop right here and progress no further.
That is a strange and illogical conclusion.
Why would you stop once you begin making progress?
Don't stop. The fact that you are making progress implies that you can make further progress.
I don't know. Why did Democrats stop pushing for the minimum wage increase? Why did we stop pushing for codifying Roe? Why did we stop pushing for restoring the Voting Rights Act? Why did we stop pushing for the public option?
Democrats stop if you don't apply pressure.
Nope, these are four dumb and incorrect conservative talking points.
The minimum wage has increased in a dozen states in the last 2 years.
Multiple progressive groups are currently working to codify abortion rights for women in the United States
Nobody has stopped furthering the civil rights act. I'm not sure what you're referring to.
This one's really vague, what do you mean by the public option? Direct democracy? That would be awesome. Is that what you mean?
It is a conservative talking point that Democrats stop fighting for their beliefs much more than it is a reality.
There are groups fighting for civil rights that benefit all of society constantly, and the fact that they haven't succeeded fully yet does not mean that they are not still fighting for your rights, and it's intensely disrespectful, disdainful, and frankly embarrassing for you to imply that.
Public option they're talking about is with the ACA. The one Lieberman torpedoed and they conceded the public option to get it passed. It's another favorite talking point of conservatives on here.
Ah great. The "all criticism from my left is actually from my right" dismissal.
Oh, thank you very much. Talk about a constantly contested public service.
I hate the cynicism in the states, it's unfathomably ignorant and disrespectful of how much effort and literal hours have been put into working for the benefit of American society by civil servants.
But it's so 'cool' to be like " trust me that'll never happen", " Yeah that doesn't surprise me", "Pfff things will never change".
Come on guys!, The reason you have the time to make those impractical cynical statements is because generations before you and alongside you fought and are fighting so hard to give you that free time and speech.
We all here blaming and shaming while forgetting that most of us are complicit in that we've taken, at best, baby steps to fix the situation as a whole. That is the entire overarching situation in the U.S.