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.

  • Varyk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      not really

      eventually babies grow up and adult steps should be taken

      US policy on everything is either do nothing or take small baby steps

      Roe vs Wade was a baby step that was supposed to be codified but baby steps we were told are enough

      • Varyk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t matter if something is a “baby step”. It matters that steps are taken in the right direction.

          It matters if we let that step be the only step, which Democrats do all too often.

          • Varyk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            As do Republicans. Your statement means nothing in practice.

            This is a small, societally practical beneficial step.

            That is what matters.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              1 year ago

              As do Republicans.

              I resent the implication that I support Republicans.

              This is a small, societally practical beneficial step.

              And if we’re satisfied, Democrats will stop right here and progress no further.

              • Varyk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why would you stop once you begin making 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.

                  • Varyk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Nope, these are four dumb and incorrect conservative talking points.

                    1. The minimum wage has increased in a dozen states in the last 2 years.

                    2. Multiple progressive groups are currently working to codify abortion rights for women in the United States

                    3. Nobody has stopped furthering the civil rights act. I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

                    4. 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.

          • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dems use ‘baby steps’ as an excuse for doing nothing, and when voters start getting loud about no progress they can reply with ‘it takes time’ Baby steps is how the DNC went from antiwar war to warmongering and centrists to right wing. Small unnoticeable steps to the right

        • cheesebag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dems started 2021 with a 50-50 split in the Senate. In 2023 they no longer had the trifecta. Do you understand the limits of lawmaking?

      • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I want you to tell me when we had 60 senators - let alone a house composition - remotely willing to sign on legislation that would’ve codified abortion rights. The president literally can’t do anything like that so let’s remove Bill Clinton/Obama/Biden from the equation. I hope it’s self evident why I’m not even bothering to mention prior to the 90s.

        I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to not feel the pressure when it’s stood for half a century after the Supreme Court decision. You can argue we should have over the last couple of years, but the speed and tactics used by the right to capture the supreme court was unprecedented and we definitely did not have any sort of congressional make up that could’ve remotely passed that.

        Edit: I was sort of burying the lead here but I’m realizing it comes off as not knowing. Just in case folks aren’t aware, the house did pass such a bill in 2022. As one would expect, it could not pass the senate.