Senate Republicans block $35 cap on price of insulin from Democratic bill

H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
A more reasonable question is why should the government have any say whatsoever what a product from a private concern costs on the open market?
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
Or better yet - why not open up markets for healthcare products so that those who need insulin could, for example, purchase from a Canadian source?
 
glhs837

glhs837

Power with Control
vraiblonde said:
A reasonable person (read: not a Democrat) would ask that because Democrats are notorious for padding these bills with bullshit, then screaming like banshees when Republicans vote it down.
Click to expand...

"THE REPUBLICANS BLOCKED 9/!!! FIRST RESPONDER AID!!!!!!!, EVVVVIIIIILLLLLLLL!!!!!!!"

Never mind it was like 500 million for them and 20 billion for pet projects like the SSSBs (Stenys stupid sidewalk bricks).
 
D

DaSDGuy

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
A reasonable person (read: not a Democrat) would ask that because Democrats are notorious for padding these bills with bullshit, then screaming like banshees when Republicans vote it down.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what happened. They were trying to stuff an amendment into the bill and bypass the budgetary process.
 
PrchJrkr

PrchJrkr

Long Haired Country Boy
Ad Free Experience
Patron
You can't expect @Bushy23 to understand these things. He's a liberal, so his brain stopped developing around age 16 and he's stuck there. Evil Republicans!!!!1!
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
Bushy23 said:
Cruelty is the point I guess.

www.cbsnews.com

Senate Republicans block $35 cap on price of insulin from Democratic bill

Seven Republicans voted to allow the insulin cap in the legislation, but it failed to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to include it.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...
No, I think the point is to stand against further expansion of government mandated wealth redistribution (as hypocritical and unprincipled as many would-be standers may be in that regard). We already have way too much of that.

Yes, this expansion would represent a mere drop in the bucket of government mandated (and government implemented) wealth redistribution. But standing against it isn't cruel; it's a choice to prioritize individual autonomy over collective imposition. Some of us still believe in doing that to the greatest extent reasonably possible.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
BOP said:
It does lead a reasonable person to ask: what else was in the bill?
Click to expand...
vraiblonde said:
A reasonable person (read: not a Democrat) would ask that because Democrats are notorious for padding these bills with bullshit, then screaming like banshees when Republicans vote it down.
Click to expand...
It isn't a question of what else was in the bill as the vote in question only related to these particular provisions (i.e. caps on patients' costs for certain insulin products covered by private insurers). The effect of the vote was to determine whether these provisions would remain in the bill which the Senate was getting ready to pass.

The relevant question is: What would have been the effects of these provisions? One answer is, they would have meant further redistributing health care coverage costs. Health care coverage providers would have, effectively, been forced to charge a little more to everyone with health care coverage in order to cover the costs they could no longer recoup from beneficiaries who received certain insulin products.

It may be worth noting that these provisions wouldn't have capped what insulin providers could charge for certain products, though I'm generally inclined to oppose that as well. Rather, it would have capped the co-pays which health care coverage providers could require people to pay for such products and prevent deductibles from applying to those products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
Tilted

Tilted

..
DaSDGuy said:
Which is exactly what happened. They were trying to stuff an amendment into the bill and bypass the budgetary process.
Click to expand...
That was, more or less, the procedural problem with these provisions (as distinguished from the policy problem which I addressed above) and why Senate Republicans were able to defeat them.

This wasn't about an amendment though. These provisions were already in the larger bill - i.e., they were already in the omnibus amendment in the form of a substitute which became the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. Rather, this vote was the result of a challenge by Senate Republicans to these provisions being included in the bill.

The Senate Parliamentarian had ruled they were extraneous provisions, I assume because they didn't make a change in government revenue or outlays. This bill was being passed through the reconciliation process, meaning it didn't need 60 votes to get past a filibuster, so it could only include certain kinds of provisions. The vote was, in effect, on whether the requirement to change revenue or outlays would be waived such that these provisions could remain in the bill.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
herb749 said:
Is the fed offsetting the actual cost of insulin with tax funds .?
Click to expand...
No, the federal government wouldn't have been covering the costs. Health care coverage providers would have (1) eaten the costs or (2) recouped them by charging everyone a little more for their health care coverage.

If Senate Democrats had been willing to have the federal government cover the costs of these caps, they likely could have left the caps in the bill. But, for whatever reasons, they didn't want to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
BOP

BOP

Well-Known Member
Tilted said:
No, the federal government wouldn't have been covering the costs. Health care coverage providers would have (1) eaten the costs or (2) recouped them by charging everyone a little more for their health care coverage.

If Senate Democrats had been willing to have the federal government cover the costs of these caps, they likely could have left the caps in the bill. But, for whatever reasons, they didn't want to do that.
Click to expand...
After I sat and thought about it yesterday, I kind of had a hunch that that was what was going on. There was zero analysis of what happened when I googled; just a whole lot of "those evil, dastardly Republicans hate sick people."

PS: good to see you posting, sir. Why, just the other day, I was asking myself "self, whatever happened to that one guy who used to post all the time?"
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
HemiHauler said:
A more reasonable question is why should the government have any say whatsoever what a product from a private concern costs on the open market?
Click to expand...

They probably shouldn't. But the government allowed the high prices by making it basically impossible for a "generic" formulation of insilin to be sold here.

That said, they have eased some of those regulations and there are supposed to be generic options available in the next couple of years.

What would have been more appropriate instead of capping the price, they should have granted an exception to FDA testing for some existing manufacturers from other countries since this isn't a new or novel drug nor is it protected by patent. Then competition would bring the price down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top