This happened two years ago. They needed to win with a 60 vote margin. It didn’t pass.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/house-insulin-prices/
The bill didn't need to pass with a 60 vote margin. The House is simple majority, and it passed the house. It's a little murky to me what happened next, but it seems like the Democrats were arguing that it could be treated as budget reconciliation in the Senate, only needing simple majority. However, the parliamentarian said it's not budget reconciliation, and so it would have needed 60 votes total in the Senate to get past the filibuster, which it didn't have.
Then, strangely, the Senate amended the entire title and text of the bill and turned it into a general appropriations bill, which passed both houses and became law, but with the entire original text of the bill struck.
Maybe someone a little more familiar than me with the machinations of government can fill in some of the gaps of what exactly happened and why. My point is, you're right that it didn't pass, but neither house of Congress requires a 60 vote margin. The Senate requires 60 votes total for a bill to be filibuster proof.
The Senate has a de facto requirement for a 60 vote margin because Republicans will, without fail, use the filibuster to block any bill that doesn't sufficiently own the libs. (I was gonna say any bill they don't like, but they'll even block their own bills if Democrats decide to support it.)
"This is corruption"
"This is lobbying"
No, it's FUCKING EVIL
Those people are evil enough to put money ahead of the health of other humans
And if you stand by and watch people doing evil things and just say "Well, it's lobbying" you're a wretched coward
It's all of the above, comrade
It's worse. They put money above the life of other humans. Type 1 diabetics literally cannot live without insulin.... Not for very long at least (days at most).
And it's not a nice death either. Anyone who has seen, first hand, the effects of diabetic ketoacidosis, can confirm.
We see pictures all the time of dafties walking about with signs in the US protesting all sorts of inane, brain-damaged shite
How the fuck are yous not standing outside these evil fuckers' houses with signs?
"This evil cunt chose to kill diabetics because some evil cunt gave him cash. Let's hang him from a fucking tree, he's an absolute cancer on society"
How are yous just sitting back and watching?!?
Republicans Republicans is triggering my paranoia and OCD
It's like one of those things that goes:
I bet that you're not reading this very carefully. You almost certainly won't even notice the the mistake in it at first.
Except they fucked up where to put the line break
That's called chunking. Basically, you don't read every word in a sentence you just process units, or chunks, that you are familiar with, in this case "the mistake". The first the is in a different chunk than the one right next to "mistake" and since that chunk is not restricting or altering proper resolution (based on your expectation), it gets scrapped at the end of processing the text.
Another culminating factor that makes it hard to spot the duplicate has something to do with eyesight. Essentially, our eyes have 2 modi: fixation and sacchades. Fixation is the standard modus and the optical nerve sends the stimuli to the brain uninterruptedly. Since the duplicates are at the end and the beginning of the next line, you have to move your eyes a longer distance to keep reading; you are performing a so-called sacchade. In order to prevent blurry sight and nausea stemming thereof when you move your eyes to another focal point (same principle like a blurry image from moving a camera while taking a picture), the optical nerve stops sending pictures to the brain during the movement. Upon reaching your new focal point, the brain backfills your memory of the travel time with the first picture it receives from the new position. This masking is called chronostasis because a very noticeable occurrence of this is that the time seems to stop for a brief moment when looking at a clock and the first second feels way longer than the following ones.
Maybe it’s an attempt to cancel them out. Like multiplying -1 by -1.
Republicans
"The government shouldn't control anything"
"The government needs to ban abortion people tho"
Republicans Republicans*
Can't even read the memes... I'm going back to Reddit.
/s
Republicans are the fucking worst, prove me wrong
They want everyone poor and pregnant
prove me wrong
Easy. Every democrat is as well
So do it
Easy.
Didn't do it.
Repubs convincing working-class people that they're on their side is the biggest con of my lifetime. I don't know how they managed that, but it's insanely wrong. Wait, now I remember. It's all about hating the same people. That's all that matters.
I'm a school bus driver and we're unionized (Teamsters) yet most of my co-workers are Trump supporters. We even have a few lesbians and they're still trumpers. You're right: the one thing they have in common is that they all really hate black people.
I'm going to vote for the party that actively seems to want me and my family to suffer, because that's what mAkEs 'MuRiCa GrAtE aGiN!
Or,
I'm going to not vote and let in the party that actively seems to want me and my family to suffer, because... bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe... LoL?
Two flip sides of the same political weak minds, both subjugated by abusive right-wing propaganda.
Democrats in 2008: "If you vote for us, we'll cap the price of Insulin at $35/mo"
Democrats in 2018: "No, for real, this time we're going to do it."
Democrats in 2024: "Its happening, we promise. We just need a majority in Congress."
Democrats in 2032: "Do you want $35/mo insulin or not? Then JUST VOTE!"
Listen, I get it. Trump's a fascist and he's going to shit all over the country if he wins this year. But can we stop it with the Lucy-and-the-Football shit, where we all pretend neoliberals are going to do literally anything that undermines profits for the pharmaceutical industry? Ya'll needed the Bush Administration to get Medicare Plan D because the Clintonites fumbled the bag so badly. Obama endorsed legislation delivering bigger cuts to Medicare and Social Security than his GOP counterparts ffs. Democrats in the House Majority deliberately fought to keep Eli Lilly as an exclusive provider of insulin back in 2014.
This isn't the party of universal health care. It isn't even the party of cheaper health care.
Do you not remember the clusterfuck that led to the Affordable Care Act? It was most certainly the best they could do at the time, and because the vote margin was so razor thin and Republicans were all in on stopping it, it had to be watered down a lot to appease one asshat on the Democratic side: Joe Lieberman. 95% of the Democrats were trying to pass a bill that would have, among many other things, made insulin much easier to get, but they were derailed by one traitor and every single Republican. What exactly is the logic of blaming Democrats for that?
It's an older story but it's important to bring up though because there's a lot of "Do nothing democrat" BS that's coming up repeatedly.
I can already hear the arguments ringing in my head. This is a matter that is near and dear to my heart. As a disclaimer, I'm Canadian, if the USA doesn't want cheap insulin, I can't really do anything to stop that.
With all that being said, I have a family member who is a type 1 diabetic. I have experienced the following, ignorant, argument from enough people that I'm pretty sure those that voted against this, at least in part, believe. Diabetes is a self inflicted condition that you can cure with proper diet and exercise. While that argument could be true for some portion of type 2 diabetes, it is wholly untrue for T1D. I won't speculate on how many people are in that scenario with type 2, so I'll focus on my main argument.
Type 1 diabetes, sometimes also referred to as juvenile diabetes, isn't exclusive to young people. It's diagnosed young, which gives it the "juvenile" title. Type 2 is generally a problem that comes with age (and sometimes obesity), so it's referred to as "adult" diabetes. I'll point out these "titles" only apply to when you are likely to be diagnosed with it and have nothing to do with how long you'll have it. Type 1 is typically caused by the pancreas being unable to function. Sometimes there's a little function, but in general, it's an issue with the pancreas itself, which will not heal. The cause of the dysfunction is varied and not relevant to the point, but genetics, disease, injury, etc, can all play a role in it. The fact is, the pancreas does not, and will never, operate correctly. For a T1D, the only "diet" that can keep their condition in check is essentially starvation, resulting in death, which would arguably cure the disease. You can't be unwell if you're dead.
People with T1D didn't ask for it, they didn't do anything that gave them the condition. They can't do anything that relieves the condition. They are obligated to take insulin, or die. Shit choice if you ask me. Forcing diabetics to essentially pay to live is cruel, at the same time, producing a medical/pharmaceutical grade substance costs money and someone has to pay for it. Limiting the cost of insulin to a reasonable amount that can adequately cover the costs of production is the compromise. So those who are unemployed and/or underpaid can still afford to live.
Insulin for type 2 diabetics, which usually comes as a pill, whereas type 1 generally needs an injection, can be the exception if you're hellbent on "punishing" those that "do it to themselves", but even for that, you'll get an argument from me. There's a gap in knowledge for what is proper nutrition, and how to take care of yourself in such a way that you won't end up obese. Many people who can take care of themselves, learned these traits at home. A nontrivial amount of the population didn't get this same education and think that fast food is good food, or at least adequate; or that frozen is a good alternative to fresh, since fresh doesn't really keep very long, which can be true for some things, but I assure you that buying a 1KG frozen lasagna that feeds 4, isn't a good, singular meal for one person.
I'm not here to lecture anyone on diet and nutrition, I'm only trying to point out that the misconceptions about what is good or healthy for you to eat, are very common. The education system hasn't done anything to fix this. Not really. I was taught the food pyramid, which, I believe, at the time, it was not considered a good guide on nutrition, at the very least. It's basically speculation from the 70s that's essentially pseudo science. Learning and having good nutrition is kind of a joke at this point, at least when it comes to public education. Add that to the fact that almost everything that's made is laced, injected, or otherwise coated in sugars, and you get a recipe for obesity and eventually type 2 diabetes. I'm certain a nontrivial number of type 2 diabetics didn't learn about proper nutrition until they became diabetic. At that point, changing your eating habits for the better, isn't an easy task.
So, I would argue that for many type 2 sufferers, they're simply a product of a system (that we designed) which failed them. They were not taught, nor given the required knowledge to adequately avoid contracting the disorder.
IMO, anyone against a cap on insulin is either poorly informed, or cruel. If you know how and why both types of diabetes exists, then you're cruel if you don't want a cap on the prices. If you don't, you need education to learn about it and why, for many, it's not really a choice.
I'll add the disclaimer that I'm sure there are those out there that are type 2 diabetics who knew all along and essentially did it to themselves. I will only say this about it: there's no reasonable way to have them monetarily pay for their choices, without significantly and negatively impacting those who did not have a choice in the matter.
And even to those that did it to themselves. Why would you want to financially ruin or straight up killing people for making mistakes? That,is simply sadistic and very much unchristian of the so outspoken Christians of the GOP
Didn't someone once say that they "liked" Christ, but didn't like Christians because they were so "un-christ-like" or something?
I seem to recall that, and I've always regarded it as the most apt description of most Western religious beliefs.
Me here buying entire month worth of insulin for 10$ in India without arguing over morality and ethics.
I don't know why Americans have made it so complicated. Large number of people need it, make it first priority to set cost as low as possible. Profiting over starving people of medical supplies is completely ignored and instead other ethical points are brought up.
The arguments I hear most around this kind of stuff is something along the lines of, "the innovators have a right to charge however much the market will bear" and, "if we take away the incentive to innovate, these drugs will not exist."
My thoughts against these lines is that patents cause monopolies, so they are not "free markets," and there would still be an incentive to innovate because of things like the first-mover advantage, and that reducing costs is also a form of innovation.
My thoughts against "punishment" arguments, are that punishment just for punishment's sake is cruel, useless, and often counter-productive. I don't think people have as much agency as we'd like to think. In the case of type-2 diabetes, insulin is part of the rehabilitation.
I'm sure we could go deep into rehab and how it's a net-good for society, but given your comments so far, I feel it would be a lot like preaching to the choir.
Rehab in all forms is good, whether physical rehabilitation, mental, or medical/drug related.
More healthy people in society means a more productive society. Period. Charging people out the ass to simply live and exist without constant discomfort is detrimental to the productivity of our society at large. Rehab is one tool to help society obtain and maintain a high level of productivity continually.
There's obviously more to the discussion of productivity but it kind of falls outside the context of the discussion.
“the innovators have a right to charge however much the market will bear”
ie "it hasn't affected me negatively yet so I don't care."
Both sides suck, but at least the Democrats don't want to turn America into an ultra-capitalist evangelical dictatorship and a white ethnostate.
Gotta preserve those family values of inter-generational diabetes and related diseases
It builds character!
Ok but who are those 11 that voted correctly?
Probably some of ones with diabetes or a family member who has diabetes since Republicans only care about things that affect them personally.
Apparently it ended up being 12. You can look them up here:
- Don Bacon, Nebraska
- Brian Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
- Andy Harris, Maryland
- Jaime Herrula Beutler, Washington
- Richard Hudson, North Carolina
- John Kakto, New York
- Nicole Malliotakis, New York
- Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
- Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
- Bill Posey, Florida
- Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey
- Frederick Stephen Upton, Michigan
Keep the price low for medic and increase the tax on sugar.
This is from 2022. It's worth noting that in this vote it was bundled with a Marijuana decriminalization bill, which is probably why the Republicans voted against it.
So they voted against 2 things that would have been good for the working class.
That soubds like an excuse as they regularly vote against any kind of regulation that would help the average person. They voted against the ACA, remember?
Remember how much they talked about "repeal and replace" but never did even with full party control of all branches of the federal government? I remember that. It was simultaneously scary and hilarious to see that crowd fall apart when it came to actually trying to bring their vague talking points into real legislation and pass them
What a piss poor justification. They don't want to help sick people or get tax money?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/04/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-secure-the-border/ Biden has the most funding and strictest punishments for the border in us history. Just because Republicans are evil doesn't mean Democrats aren't. Both parties are upholding the colonist American government, that has persecuted poc and indigenous peoples especially. Vote for Harris but don't be fooled into thinking either party will make this country better.
Harris isn't Biden, though. What's her position on the border?
It's a shame you're getting downvotes.
You're only pointing out that both parties are incredibly shitty in their own rights, which is something that is undeniably true. Despite that, you still advocate for voting against the orange dictator.
I guess people are missing the point and interpreting your comment as "both sides bad vote neither"
One side is less corrupt than the other. We're still stuck with two bad choices. One is extremely bad, the other is just passively bad and tries to work and compromise with the extremely bad side for no discernable reason.
We're allowed to criticize politicians even if we vote for them. We don't have to like them just because they're the only option.
It's like asking if I'd like to wipe my ass with single ply or sixty grit sandpaper.
Both parties are super corrupt but one wants to force 12 year old rape victims to carry babies to term that they had no choice in the making of, segregate minorities and shove every non-straight cis person back into the closet at best, and the other party sometimes passes legislation that actually helps average people a little. But don't worry, both parties will whole heartedly support a genocide an ocean away, so at least they can agree on something!
Not only do they no longer represent the people they consider most of the population... The Enemy
Now I am not very versed in US-politics, but in Europe it is pretty normal to vote no or in the best case abstain from voting if you are not part of the government, save for some exceptions. What I find interesting are the 11 people who voted yes across party lines - that may hold more significance than the 193 who didn't. Don't get me wrong, it still sounds pretty dumb, but it may not be an "we hate poor-people" issue.
It's more of a "we get money from pharma", but they absolutely give no shits about the struggling people in their regions.
This should not be a party line vote issue, but the only platform Republicans have is voting against what the Democrats want.
In a pairlamentary democracy
republic, which most states in Europe are, the government is elected by the pairlament and thus, (usually) has the majority of seats in the pairlament anyway. Therefore, it doesn't matter how the opposition votes.
As the US is a presidential republic, the administrationgovernmentis appointed by the president and, thus does not necessarily have the majority of seats in the pairlament. Therefore, the administrationgovernmentand the pairlament need to elaborate compromises.Edit: replaced republic with democracy, as many states have a king and thus are no republics. Changed parts are emphasised.
Replaced US government by administration.Therefore, the government and the pairlament need to elaborate compromises.
This sentence is probably confusing to a lot of Americans, because "the government" in the US includes the legislature, courts, and all executive agencies. I believe what Europeans call a government is what Americans typically call an administration. I'm not quite sure on that, though. An administration is a President and people appointed to executive positions by the President, but I get the impression that, in international usage, "the government" also includes MPs of the ruling party/coalition.
As the US is a presidential republic, the government is appointed by the president and, thus does not necessarily have the majority of seats in the pairlament. Therefore, the government and the pairlament need to elaborate compromises
This oversimplification isn't really wrong, but it isn't correct either. Many very consequential positions are appointed by the president, such as the heads and governing bodies for many government agencies (and the president has official power to instruct agencies to do certain things, however those agencies do have the right to choose not to follow those instructions) but ultimately the president's power is held in check by the judicial and legislative branches of government which are both elected positions from the states. It's honestly impressively well thought out that the 3 branches of government rely on each other, and ultimately can't make significant changes without engaging the other branches, but each is given specific duties that that branch can govern independently
or almost as if most politicians are nothing but puppets to more powerful organisations
Ah there's that "both sides" again
