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.

  • 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@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      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@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          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@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              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@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  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.

                  • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

        • 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?