"Democrats always promise to make it happen, yet they still haven’t succeeded."
That phrasing is dishonest.
Democrats keep bringing it up, but Republicans keep blocking it.
The Dems are trying to do something that 80% of us want done, but Republicans block it every time, and they don't even have to try to justify their obstruction because they can count on the Press Poodles never to hold them accountable for it.
Press Poodles, please add the following to your Style Books:
Democrats are not responsible for the lousy behavior of the GOP.
WaPo: (pay wall)
Opinion
If GOP senators don’t fear this vote, what could possibly scare them?
Fear is a part of every elected official’s life. To keep their jobs, they must worry about whether something they do or say will anger their constituents. Many a bill has died because officeholders thought, “If I vote for this, my opponent in the next election will wrap it around my neck.”
But how do we square that universal fact of representative democracy with the struggle Democrats have had passing legislation that would reduce the cost of prescription drugs?
Or more precisely, why is it that Democrats are laboring to pass such a bill, while Republicans don’t fear opposing it?
Under current law, Medicare is barred from negotiating prices for prescription medicines; drug companies set the price, and Medicare must take it or leave it. Polls have long found that allowing Medicare to negotiate better prices is absurdly popular, with support sometimes exceeding 80 percent.
Democrats always promise to make it happen, yet they still haven’t succeeded.
Now Democrats are gearing up to vote for a new plan along these lines as part of an upcoming reconciliation package that will probably include extended Affordable Care Act subsidies as well. Democrats are anticipating passing this with no Republican votes.
The current plan would allow Medicare to begin negotiating drug prices and would cap the amount any senior pays for medicine at $2,000 a year. It would offer extra help to low-income seniors and forbid drug companies from raising prices on existing drugs beyond the rate of inflation.
But the bill has real limitations. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2026, and at first it would allow negotiation on only 10 of the most expensive drugs; the list would expand to 20 drugs in 2029. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime supporter of price negotiation, called it “a weak proposal.”
Even so, the pharmaceutical lobby is working hard to kill it. And one would think they’d have to offer powerful inducements for a legislator to risk getting pummeled relentlessly on an issue so important to voters, particularly to older voters who turn out at high rates.
Yet there are no indications Republicans will support the bill. Democrats seem genuinely flummoxed by the GOP’s willingness to stand against this proposal.
“This is the most straightforwardly popular thing we are doing, and we are being unanimously opposed by Republicans,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told us. “The attack ads write themselves.”
“This isn’t an issue with a ton of nuance,” Schatz added. “It’s about whether you want people on Medicare to go broke or not.”
But clearly, Republicans don’t agree.
Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, shed light on why Republicans might not fear this vote: They can argue that Medicare Part D costs far less than expected because of vigorous competition among drug companies for the business of seniors.
“If you say, ‘Drug prices are too high, do you think government should do something to lower them,’ it’s a no-brainer answer,” Ayres said.
But, said Ayres, Republicans can instead say: “Private sector competition has been successful at lowering drug prices without the deleterious effects of government price controls. Do you really think it’s better if a bunch of bureaucrats step in?”
“Government negotiation really means government price-setting,” Ayres said, noting that Republicans have tested these arguments over the years.
So put yourself in the mind of a Republican senator confronting such a proposal. As a believer in free markets, you probably have a philosophical objection to any government action that cuts into corporate profits.
And maybe you can tell yourself you won’t pay for opposing this bill; legislation is complicated, and most voters don’t pay much attention to it. You can toss around some of those anti-government arguments during floor debate. And perhaps by the time you’re up for reelection, everyone will have forgotten about it anyway.
You may also believe — not without reason — that Democrats aren’t very good at making Republicans pay for taking unpopular stances. There are lots of unpopular things Republicans do — cutting taxes for the wealthy, opposing action on climate change, trying to make abortion illegal — and much of the time, it doesn’t seem to affect Election Day.
Which suggests there’s a fundamental weakness in our system. We don’t want legislators beholden to the latest poll; we elect them to represent us, yes, but also to exercise judgment and be guided by their conscience. But when there’s something the public so clearly wants, and it’s so hard to get done, what does that say about our democracy?
Which suggests there’s a fundamental weakness in our system. We don’t want legislators beholden to the latest poll; we elect them to represent us, yes, but also to exercise judgment and be guided by their conscience. But when there’s something the public so clearly wants, and it’s so hard to get done, what does that say about our democracy?
No comments:
Post a Comment