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.
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).
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then he shouldn’t promise to when he has no intention of even trying.
He says he is. And that’s where it ends. You accept that as an accomplishment by itself
We would have to attempt to pass it for them to block it. We’re not making that attempt.