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.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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.