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.

  • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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.