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

politics

18863 readers
3977 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 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)

[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So all he's done is make promises.

I can do that just as effectively right now sitting on the commode.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Ah, so you wouldn't support any politician, unless they are a dictator who will unilaterally impose their laws and ideas without Congress, got it.

Save some hate for the Republicans, the main reason we don't have a public option. Sure you can find a rare democrat here or there that doesn't support it. But then you have a republican party where 100% of the individuals are against it, and won't even let it be voted on in the senate.

"All he's done is make promises." Take this hyperbolic, bad-faith nonsense elsewhere. He's about done all he can within the bounds of current laws, and helped get some things through congress that could fit into the reconciliation process. Again, not a dictator.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/07/fact-sheetpresident-biden-announces-new-actions-to-lower-health-care-costs-and-protect-consumers-from-scam-insurance-plans-and-junk-fees-as-part-of-bidenomics-push/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-action-to-lower-health-care-and-prescription-drug-costs-for-americans/

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2021/what-has-president-biden-done-health-care-coverage-his-first-100-days

I agree they should do more, but that's going to involve getting republicans in congress out of the way of progress somehow. Whether that's electing enough democrats to over ride them (unlikely with the urban rural divide and how we elect senators), convincing even a handful of republicans to step down and not support a filibuster, or ending the filibuster entirely (which I think is most likely thing to happen, but wouldn't make sense to do until they have clear house and senate majorities and could actually do something good with it).

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ah, so you wouldn’t support any politician, unless they are a dictator who will unilaterally impose their laws and ideas without Congress, got it.

No, I just won't give Biden credit for a mere promise he hasn't tried to do anything about. He simply hasn't attempted to fulfill his campaign promise regarding the public option.

"Fait accompli" is not French for "campaign promise."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So now politicians should not state their policies on any issue, unless they are somehow prescient, know the exact makeup that congress will have when they are elected, and what exactly will end up getting through or not? I would like to know where people stand on things, and him continuing to state support for a public option is important, even if it's not possible for him to enact it by himself. And people have already pointed out to you he did make attempts. Biden is not the reason we don't have a public option.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He hasn't even tried to get the public option. Trying and failing is one thing. I'm not going to give him credit for a campaign promise by itself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

He literally has, as people pointed out to you. Last comment because it's clear now you're not discussing this in good faith. President does not pass laws. Congress does. They don't even need a president to pass a law, you could pass a public option or Medicare for all even with a president opposed to it. So attack Biden all you want (though I don't know why you would in this case, he's on your side for this issue), swap out presidents all you want, you won't get a public option by focusing on the presidency. Your ire should be directed at congress, specifically the Republicans that continue to block the public option or other potential reforms like Medicare for all.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago

He literally has, as people pointed out to you.

He has done nothing of the sort. He made empty promises and has done nothing else to even try to make the public option happen.

President does not pass laws.

Then he shouldn't promise to when he has no intention of even trying.

So attack Biden all you want (though I don’t know why you would in this case, he’s on your side for this issue)

He says he is. And that's where it ends. You accept that as an accomplishment by itself

Your ire should be directed at congress, specifically the Republicans that continue to block the public option

We would have to attempt to pass it for them to block it. We're not making that attempt.