this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
415 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3262 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Key Points

  • President Joe Biden said the federal Medicare program should negotiate prices for at least 50 prescription drugs each year, up from the current target of 20 medicines.
  • That proposal is one of several new health-care policy plans Biden will outline during his State of the Union address Thursday.
  • But the fate of his new proposals will be in the hands of a divided Congress, making it highly uncertain whether they will pass into law.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 26 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Or we could just readdress healthcare since in 2008 we got a more conservative version of the Republican's plan and then promptly forgot about ever improving it

We need actual progressives to get shit done, Biden and other "moderates" just won't even try, and want us to be happy for crumbs.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 35 points 8 months ago

Biden could be spontaneously replaced with Mao Zedong and that still wouldn't suddenly make a Congress with a Republican House start passing laws.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (57 children)

Healthcare reform is passed by Congress, not the president. So first you need 50, or better yet 60, Senators who are interested in getting it done.

load more comments (57 replies)
[–] theworstshepard@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I am not an American so there's parts of this I don't get. My national health agency negotiates prices for all drugs, thousands of them so this reads weird to ke.

Article says even these measures are uncertain to become law, does that mean it would be even less likely if something more ambitious was planned?

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Medicare negotiating prices is a fairly new thing for the US and something that could ultimately be killed by the supreme court (it shouldn't be, but we have a majority of extremists on the court).

Why it's uncertain to become law is because our right wing party (republicans) have historically been completely opposed to any social program. Our "left" party is also fairly centrist and arguably even right leaning in parts so it's uncertain that even with a majority of them in power that improvements would pass.

The problem we have is the filibuster in the senate. It allows any senator to kill a bill. To overturn it takes 60 votes (out of 100) and the senate is currently split 50/50.

The meager changes we got under obamacare literally happened because a republican senator died which opened the gate to ram through a few pieces of legislation which would otherwise not pass. Obamacare was overall an OK bill with some good stuff in it, but it really just re-enforced the current crazy capitalist market system. That was all the right leaning democrats would stomach. There was talk about an option for using government healthcare but that was quashed.

[–] theworstshepard@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I know all political systems have their problems and limitations, gotta say that sucks especially the part about one man blocking new laws and also having extremists running a court? That's literally the opposite of what a court should be in my opinion.

I guess that would make it really hard for anyone, even a president, to put meaningful changes in place.

Over here we have a competent leader totally bogged down and derailed by their party extremists. He could be good, but the system itself means he's really not. Sounds like America has a version of that too.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I guess that would make it really hard for anyone, even a president, to put meaningful changes in place.

Yup. We can pass legislation that says "hey SC, you are wrong about the interpretation of this legislation so do it right". However, they've invented this "major questions doctrine" principle that basically lets them strike down "big" things that they don't like.

The only solution to that problem is either justices dying or legislation being passed to raise the cap on justices and the president packing the court. Which runs right into the filibuster problem.

At the beginning of biden's term democrats nearly nuked the filibuster. However, 2 centrist democrats squashed that.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I assumed you were talking about the UK until you said competent leader.

At least you don't have an unelected, actively malicious kleptocrat in charge, emboldened by the extremists like we do in good ol' blighty right now.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

"Actual progressives" can't get shit done because they can't get elected.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

Sometimes they get elected, but the system is so filled with corruption that it seems those progressive values are quickly abandoned. Justice Dems are, sadly, often good examples of this.

We have to end the legalized bribery and get money out of politics before any true progressive agenda can be implemented.

[–] go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

“Actual progressives” can’t get shit done because they can’t get elected.

But then the people who won't vote for progressives browbeat progressives into voting for their pro-corporate trash candidates. Or scream and cry when their pro-corporate trash candidate loses in the general.