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.
This article feels a little like a backhanded compliment.
Yes, i really dislike the articles tone, as if we are children. Overall vibe is like Mom telling me how good broccoli is for me and anyhow im not eaving till i eat it anyway so id better get going before it gets cold
It’s especially frustrating because it seems to imply that Biden is owed fealty and gratitude because he did something good for the people. It’s the other way around. Biden owes the people good works, and good public policy. The cost of healthcare shouldn’t be as high as it is, and doing something about it is what we ought to expect of elected Representatives.
It also gives him credit for the pharmaceutical companies voluntarily offering insulin at the same price as Medicare pays. It is not due to regulation or negotiation, but a PR move designed to stave off actual regulations. Insulin is one drug, one example that was a perfect metaphor for the unfettered profiteering from the healthcare industry.
They don’t want the government to limit how much they can charge for insulin, because it wouldn’t stop with insulin. So they lower the price of insulin and let Biden dance around the ring with his arms raised like he knocked out the champ. Thank him! Praise him! He’s doing this for you, you ungrateful peasants! He’s not a misogynist or a fascist like the last guy, so you better be on your knees in front of his altar, or the bad guys are going to come back.
I mean, you don’t even have to click into the article to read that it was only “voluntary” because the government was about to enforce the new law and force them to lower prices. A law that was Biden’s BTW, part of the inflation reduction act. This would never have happened under a Republican.
One doesn’t have to be some kind of raving Biden Stan to acknowledge that his administration has been incredibly productive, both in terms of using damage that Trump did, and passing laws and using orders to move us forward. I think that’s all this article is trying to say.
Your rant at the end is weird, unhelpful, and uninformed.