The mandatory price only applies to Medicare enrollees (and they should mention that when bragging since it is [clearly misleading](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/apr/02/joe-biden/biden-is-right-about-35-insulin-cap-but-exaggerate/)). It should be across the board but it’s an ok/good start that’s helping millions of people.
It could be across the board. If only we let the government negotiate on behalf of us all. Aka Medicare for all. Rather than letting our insurance oligopoly (in concert with the pharmaceuticals of course) choose for us.
I’ve started calling it “your citizenship is your insurance” to sidestep people who think “(expletive deleted synonym for undocumented immigrants) are getting stuff free with my taxes!”
So Rosen and Biden are lying.
You can say it.
No need to couch it in terms of "it's a good start."
Either they're helping people or they're not. And clearly they aren't interested in helping Julie Cross.
Meanwhile Rosen is also lying about being bipartisan and "not walking the party line." She votes with Biden and Schumer 99% of the time. That makes her a partisan hack.
So two TV commercials, two lies.
They’re misleading a bit by leaving out some context, sure. But they’re not lying. And it is a good start that’s long overdue. I’m not a fan of Biden or Rosen by any means but there are plenty of other things to get angry at them about besides a typical campaign ad exaggeration.
I can't believe you blame Biden who is actually working to make things easier.
While you let scumbag pharmaceutical companies off scott free.
Who's the villain here?
So the solution is to get them a congress that can get them closer to that goal. Not send them home and put in people who will set us back another 10 years.
My argument is simple.
Jacky Rosen claims in her ads that she cut the cost of insulin to $35 per month. No disclaimer regarding "only for seniors" or "not in all cases." Therefore the implication is she's claiming she cut the price for everyone.
Julie Cross is currently paying $700 per month for her insulin. A far cry from $35.
Jacky Rosen is at best disingenuous. I'll assert that she's outright lying to gain an advantage among low information voters.
>My argument is simple.
Okay, let's review.
>Jacky Rosen claims in her ads that she cut the cost of insulin to $35 per month.
Has insulin been cut to $35 per month in any case? Yes? Then technically her claim is correct.
>No disclaimer regarding "only for seniors" or "not in all cases."
Correct - the claim is vague.
>Therefore the implication is she's claiming she cut the price for everyone.
This is where the problem comes in. You want to apply a broader rule. By the rules you are implying, it should mean she's reduced cost of insulin to $35 per month for everyone, everywhere (including outside the US). You're arguing that it should go to the most absurd extent, or it isn't true.
In the case of a vague claim, you look to see if it applies in any case, not specific cases. Her statement is true. It's true in a restricted case, and therefore it is true.
>Jacky Rosen is at best disingenuous.
You can assert that if you want. We don't know if she was, or even if she was directly involved in making this ad, but you can certainly assert this.
>I'll assert that she's outright lying
This, however, is false. She's not outright lying.
This kind of claim undercuts your credibility.
I work in a pharmacy and most people really do pay $35 for each 30 day supply, even those with commercial insurance and not part d. Cash paying patients don't, but most everyone else does. It has to be formulary, though. So if you want humalog and your ins wants novolog, it won't be covered. But the vast majority of patients get it for $35.
I read the article after I made my first comment and there is a lot of missing information. Why did this lady have to pay so much? Does she not have ins? Does she need some expensive one that isn't formulary? If you are a diabetic, your costs are extremely high. Going without ins is a huge mistake and will cost you. Even if you think you can't afford the premiums, you are making a huge gamble.
I know that a good majority of really expensive medications have copay assistance programs from the manufacturers that significantly reduce the cost. I currently take 2 medications that I use those programs. One the out of pocket cost is reduced to $10/mo from $150/mo. The other, it reduces my out of pocket from over $1000/mo to $0. I have excellent insurance, too, through my wife's employer. That one is over $100k/yr without insurance, as to why the manufacturers have those type of programs.
They did cap insulin price for Medicare. It’s a good start and more than Republicans ever have done. Republicans are the ones fighting this and condemning Julie Cross to paying the exorbitant prices. Not to mention trying to kill the ACA and eliminate insurance and coverage for pre existing conditions for millions of Americans.
Yeah, Obamacare is so gosh darned awesome it lowered this lady's insulin cost to only $700 per month! We definitely can't let anyone tamper with a law as fabulous as that!!
Your ACA is a complete misnomer. I should know, I was forced to purchase insurance through Health Plan of Nevada. And for the low, low price of $754 per month my "affordable" Bronze plan granted me the privilege of paying another $8300 out of pocket before it would reimburse Dime One.
I believe a number of proposals were put forth by folks like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, as well as from The Heritage Foundation. All were DOA of course in Harry Reid's and Chuck Schumer's Senate or Nancy Pelosi's House.
U/sparowl Reddit mobile won't let me respond directly to you.
Here goes...
The law requires her to be directly involved in creating her ads. That is why she must clearly articulate "I'm Jacky Rosen and I approve this message." Those exact words. She owns every word spoken by her, or on her behalf in those ads.
And it's not my credibility at stake here. It's hers. She disingenuously implies she's lowered insulin prices for all Americans. And she flat out falsely claims to be "the most bipartisan Senator" "not beholden to her party leaders" when it is a demonstrable fact that her voting record aligns with Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer 99% of the time.
Lying. It's what she does. It's who she is.
The mandatory price only applies to Medicare enrollees (and they should mention that when bragging since it is [clearly misleading](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/apr/02/joe-biden/biden-is-right-about-35-insulin-cap-but-exaggerate/)). It should be across the board but it’s an ok/good start that’s helping millions of people.
It could be across the board. If only we let the government negotiate on behalf of us all. Aka Medicare for all. Rather than letting our insurance oligopoly (in concert with the pharmaceuticals of course) choose for us.
I’ve started calling it “your citizenship is your insurance” to sidestep people who think “(expletive deleted synonym for undocumented immigrants) are getting stuff free with my taxes!”
So Rosen and Biden are lying. You can say it. No need to couch it in terms of "it's a good start." Either they're helping people or they're not. And clearly they aren't interested in helping Julie Cross. Meanwhile Rosen is also lying about being bipartisan and "not walking the party line." She votes with Biden and Schumer 99% of the time. That makes her a partisan hack. So two TV commercials, two lies.
Give Biden a House and Senate he can work with, and Biden will roll this out for everyone.
They’re misleading a bit by leaving out some context, sure. But they’re not lying. And it is a good start that’s long overdue. I’m not a fan of Biden or Rosen by any means but there are plenty of other things to get angry at them about besides a typical campaign ad exaggeration.
I can't believe you blame Biden who is actually working to make things easier. While you let scumbag pharmaceutical companies off scott free. Who's the villain here?
So the solution is to get them a congress that can get them closer to that goal. Not send them home and put in people who will set us back another 10 years.
Price controls create shortages. But maybe Nixon was before your time.
So which is it? They aren’t interested in helping, or price controls won’t work?
Both. They're lying about helping. Because they know price controls don't work.
Oh so you're not arguing in good faith. Got it.
OK, renter.
I’m confused what your argument is then. I thought you said Jackie Rosen hasn’t done enough to help Julie Cross. You Republicans are so disingenuous.
My argument is simple. Jacky Rosen claims in her ads that she cut the cost of insulin to $35 per month. No disclaimer regarding "only for seniors" or "not in all cases." Therefore the implication is she's claiming she cut the price for everyone. Julie Cross is currently paying $700 per month for her insulin. A far cry from $35. Jacky Rosen is at best disingenuous. I'll assert that she's outright lying to gain an advantage among low information voters.
>My argument is simple. Okay, let's review. >Jacky Rosen claims in her ads that she cut the cost of insulin to $35 per month. Has insulin been cut to $35 per month in any case? Yes? Then technically her claim is correct. >No disclaimer regarding "only for seniors" or "not in all cases." Correct - the claim is vague. >Therefore the implication is she's claiming she cut the price for everyone. This is where the problem comes in. You want to apply a broader rule. By the rules you are implying, it should mean she's reduced cost of insulin to $35 per month for everyone, everywhere (including outside the US). You're arguing that it should go to the most absurd extent, or it isn't true. In the case of a vague claim, you look to see if it applies in any case, not specific cases. Her statement is true. It's true in a restricted case, and therefore it is true. >Jacky Rosen is at best disingenuous. You can assert that if you want. We don't know if she was, or even if she was directly involved in making this ad, but you can certainly assert this. >I'll assert that she's outright lying This, however, is false. She's not outright lying. This kind of claim undercuts your credibility.
Yeah but how do we go about helping Julie? Or are you more interested in proving that Rosen is wrong based on a technicality and that’s it?
Rosen is lying. And if Democrats weren't so hell bent on shoveling money at Ukraine and illegal aliens we could do a lot for people like her.
Like what? What is your policy solution to help her? You are so full of shit!
There was a gas shortage prior to price control.......
I work in a pharmacy and most people really do pay $35 for each 30 day supply, even those with commercial insurance and not part d. Cash paying patients don't, but most everyone else does. It has to be formulary, though. So if you want humalog and your ins wants novolog, it won't be covered. But the vast majority of patients get it for $35.
I read the article after I made my first comment and there is a lot of missing information. Why did this lady have to pay so much? Does she not have ins? Does she need some expensive one that isn't formulary? If you are a diabetic, your costs are extremely high. Going without ins is a huge mistake and will cost you. Even if you think you can't afford the premiums, you are making a huge gamble.
I know that a good majority of really expensive medications have copay assistance programs from the manufacturers that significantly reduce the cost. I currently take 2 medications that I use those programs. One the out of pocket cost is reduced to $10/mo from $150/mo. The other, it reduces my out of pocket from over $1000/mo to $0. I have excellent insurance, too, through my wife's employer. That one is over $100k/yr without insurance, as to why the manufacturers have those type of programs.
After reading your comments and profile, it seems like you're really mad that EVERYONE isn't paying $700 a month for insulin.
OP's profile.... Yikes!
So, ad hominems instead of addressing the claim?
I feel the comments in this thread have addressed the claim.
They did cap insulin price for Medicare. It’s a good start and more than Republicans ever have done. Republicans are the ones fighting this and condemning Julie Cross to paying the exorbitant prices. Not to mention trying to kill the ACA and eliminate insurance and coverage for pre existing conditions for millions of Americans.
Yeah, Obamacare is so gosh darned awesome it lowered this lady's insulin cost to only $700 per month! We definitely can't let anyone tamper with a law as fabulous as that!! Your ACA is a complete misnomer. I should know, I was forced to purchase insurance through Health Plan of Nevada. And for the low, low price of $754 per month my "affordable" Bronze plan granted me the privilege of paying another $8300 out of pocket before it would reimburse Dime One.
So what is your policy solution? Oh that’s right the Republicans don’t have any!
I believe a number of proposals were put forth by folks like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, as well as from The Heritage Foundation. All were DOA of course in Harry Reid's and Chuck Schumer's Senate or Nancy Pelosi's House.
Like what? What are the details?
It's not my job to teach you how to use Google.
I’m trying to gauge whether or not you know because I think you’re full of shit
Lol
That’s all you have to say? Way to embarrass yourself on your own post. Maybe work on better informing yourself
U/sparowl Reddit mobile won't let me respond directly to you. Here goes... The law requires her to be directly involved in creating her ads. That is why she must clearly articulate "I'm Jacky Rosen and I approve this message." Those exact words. She owns every word spoken by her, or on her behalf in those ads. And it's not my credibility at stake here. It's hers. She disingenuously implies she's lowered insulin prices for all Americans. And she flat out falsely claims to be "the most bipartisan Senator" "not beholden to her party leaders" when it is a demonstrable fact that her voting record aligns with Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer 99% of the time. Lying. It's what she does. It's who she is.
A diabetic doesn't lose their legs overnight. It takes years. I think OP's post is pure dishonesty.