• Former President Donald Trump recognized that the price of insulin is lower under President Joe Biden but still tried to take credit for it.
  • Trump has lagged Biden on the issue of health care in recent voter surveys.
  • Trump spent much of his term trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which covers roughly 45 million Americans, without offering an alternative health-care option.
  • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    From what I’ve read, and I’m happy to be corrected, what Trump tried to dictate through executive orders (that would get thrown out in courts), Biden lead Congress to actually write laws about.

      • johker216@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        61
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Biden did not “strike it down”, he halted all EOs not in effect so their administration can review them (see: the first paragraph of the linked article). Instead of re-issuing an EO, something that can be withdrawn on a whim (see: your post), Biden did the actual hard work of working with Congress to help pass the Inflation Reduction Act. The $35 cap is now backed by law rather than by diktat. Trump took the lazy path and issued the EO in the last days of his Presidency - a Presidency he spent quite a long time using to try and repeal the Affordable Care Act.

        Try understanding the issue instead of spamming MAGA talking points.

        • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Try understanding the issue instead of spamming MAGA talking points.

          The majority of conservatives are completely incapable of understanding the world at anything except a surface level. They wouldn’t be conservatives in the first place if they had the capacity.

          Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated.

          sources

          Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

          We report longitudinal data in which we assessed the relationships between intelligence and support for two constructs that shape ideological frameworks, namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). Participants (N = 375) were assessed in Grade 7 and again in Grade 12. Verbal and numerical ability were assessed when students entered high school in Grade 7. RWA and SDO were assessed before school graduation in Grade 12. After controlling for the possible confounding effects of personality and religious values in Grade 12, RWA was predicted by low g (β = -.16) and low verbal intelligence (β = -.18). SDO was predicted by low verbal intelligence only (β = -.13). These results are discussed with reference to the role of verbal intelligence in predicting support for such ideological frameworks and some comments are offered regarding the cognitive distinctions between RWA and SDO.

          Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States’ universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.

          [T]here exists a solid empirical paper trail demonstrating that lower cognitive abilities (e.g., abstract-reasoning skills and verbal, nonverbal, and general intelligence) predict greater prejudice. We discuss how the effects of lower cognitive ability on prejudice are explained (i.e., mediated) by greater endorsement of right-wing socially conservative attitude. […]

          Right-wing ideologies offer well-structured and ordered views about society that preserve traditional societal conventions and norms (e.g., Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Such ideological belief systems are particularly attractive to individuals who are strongly motivated to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity in preference for simplicity and predictability (Jost et al., 2003; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011). Theoretically, individuals with lower mental abilities should be attracted by right-wing social-cultural ideologies because they minimize complexity and increase perceived control (Heaven, Ciarrochi, & Leeson, 2011; Stankov, 2009). Conversely, individuals with greater cognitive skills are better positioned to understand changing and dynamic societal contexts, which should facilitate open-minded, relatively left-leaning attitudes (Deary et al., 2008a; Heaven et al., 2011; McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999). Lower cognitive abilities therefore draw people to strategies and ideologies that emphasize what is presently known and considered acceptable to make sense and impose order over their environment. Resistance to social change and the preservation of the status quo regarding societal traditions—key principles underpinning right-wing social-cultural ideologies—should be particularly appealing to those wishing to avoid uncertainty and threat.

          Indeed, the empirical literature reveals negative relations between cognitive abilities and right-wing social-cultural attitudes, including right-wing authoritarian (e.g., Keiller, 2010; McCourt et al., 1999), socially conservative (e.g., Stankov, 2009; Van Hiel et al., 2010), and religious attitudes (e.g., Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013).

          With Donald Trump the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee for the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, speculations of why Trump resonates with many Americans are widespread-as are suppositionsof whether, independent of party identification, people might vote for Hillary Clinton. The present study, using a sample of American adults (n=406), investigated whether two ideological beliefs, namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) uniquely predicted Trump supportand voting intentions for Clinton. Cognitive ability as a predictor of RWA and SDO was also tested. Path analyses, controlling for political party identification,revealed that higher RWA and SDO uniquely predicted more favorable attitudes of Trump, greater intentions to vote for Trump, and lower intentions to vote for Clinton. Lower cognitive ability predicted greater RWA and SDO and indirectly predicted more favorable Trump attitudes, greater intentions to vote for Trump and lower intentionsto vote for Clinton.

          In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            34
            ·
            7 months ago

            The issue is some people have become tricked I to thinking of you don’t like Biden then you have to support trump.

            It’s an easy way for the wealthy to stop the country from moving left.

            Instead of listening and thinking, you just scream “MAGA” if someone doesn’t say Biden is FDR.

            The same shit trumpers do.

            Likely all comes back to the conservative billionaire from WBs board saying he wants to make CNN more like Faux News. So the “moderates” act like Republicans.

            Faux News was created to get republicans voters to the point where they’d never hold a Republican accountable…

            It’s been two years, and the moderate CNN watchers are excusing genocide at our border, in the Middle East, and openly denying reality…

            I can admit when I’m wrong, I didn’t think “moderates” would fall for it, I thought they’d just stop watching CNN.

            • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              If you don’t like being painted as a reich-winger, maybe stop repeating reich-wing talking points and try to think for yourself?

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                20
                ·
                7 months ago

                Mate, just read the article…

                For Trump’s part, the former president signed an executive order in the last year of his administration to issue his own $35 price cap on insulin. Biden later paused that policy when he took office as part of a larger freeze to allow his administration to review new regulations set to go into effect.

                If anyone is acting like trumpets, it’s the ones ignoring reality

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    Yep, I’m never a fan of means testing, and that was included in it. Not sure where your numbers are coming from since you didn’t link it tho.

                    https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/trumps-executive-orders-on-prescription-drugs/

                    Another executive order pertains to insulin and epinephrine. It calls on the HHS secretary to require Federally Qualified Health Centers, or FQHCs, to make those drugs available at low prices to low-income individuals who don’t have health insurance or have high cost-sharing for those drugs.

                    More specifically, the order aims to have the FQHCs, which provide primary care in underserved areas, offer the drugs to those individuals “at the discounted price paid by the FQHC grantee or sub-grantee under the 340B Prescription Drug Program” plus a “minimal” fee. The 340B program enables certain entities to buy drugs at discounted prices.

                    Unfortunately that’s still the case…

                    The Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden signed in 2022, caps out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 a month for Medicare enrollees. The cap took effect in 2023. In response, three drug manufacturers said they planned to reduce the price of insulin to $35 through price caps or savings programs.

                    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/apr/02/joe-biden/biden-is-right-about-35-insulin-cap-but-exaggerate/

                    But even if it did do what Biden claims, why pause Trump’s for years?

                    What about those people that got it under Trump’s means testing and under Biden’s means testing?

                    Why did Biden not want them to be covered under Trump’s in the meantime?

                    I’m legitimately trying to find out why, and I’m just not getting any answers.

                • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  You’re like a parody of yourself. Even the snippet you quoted says that the policy was paused to “review new regulations set to go into effect”, and as somebody already tried to tell you, the old executive order about the price was simply replaced with a law.

                  If you want to tell others they’re ignoring reality you really ought to stop, you know, ignoring reality. Did you even read that quote you copied yourself? If you did, did you understand it? Did you understand what the other commenter said about the price cap now being a law instead of an executive order?

                  You can now throw your petulant downvote my way and keep insisting everybody else is wrong, apparently that’s all you’re capable of even when quoting sources you yourself dug up

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          31
          ·
          7 months ago

          Try understanding the issue instead of spamming MAGA talking points.

          This is why the horseshoe theory is bullshit.

          The far right wings of any party are similar. Like, if a Republican shit talks trump, or says what trump is saying isn’t true, they’re called a commie Biden supporter. If a Dem says something isn’t perfect with Biden, or mentions how what he’s saying isn’t true, “moderates” they’re called a fascist trump supporter.

          Meanwhile, the bulk of potential voters are so far left, that neither party comes close to represent you.

          Big corporations have you out here defending Biden, when we should be protesting him. Just because the only other option they put up for you, is even worse.

          Not only did a disappointing amount of people fall for it, both groups are so smug about it for some reason.

          Sit down and think about Biden as a candidate sometime, not just as “not trump” because literally every fucking person besides trump is also “not trump”.

          Both parties don’t give a fuck about you, or what you want.

          And Dems are fine stopping one of the only good things trump ever did, just so a few years later Biden can take credit for it.

          Fucking embarrassing

          • DefiantBidet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            7 months ago

            So when proven wrong, rather than defend your point - you change the argument to both sides are the same? You have to see how disingenuous that makes you look. It’s arguing in bad faith it’s why people laugh at you and don’t take you seriously.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              7 months ago

              So when proven wrong

              Where was I proven wrong?

              trump did this, Biden paused it for years, and now people are giving Biden credit and saying trump never did it…

              Moderate Dems have been acting like trumpets since 2016, but I never thought we’d get to this level of reality denial.

              Which is why I mentioned WB buying CNN and their openly announced plan for it.

              I didn’t think they could, but look at this shit

              • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Per your own comments others comments, and the damn article, Trump didn’t do this. Trump took the easy way out and signed an EO. An EO that could be overturned or paused at any time. Biden did the hard work and got a law passed. Laws can’t just be overturned, in fact Jefferson was in favor of a 19 year sunset term on every law that wasn’t part of The Constitution, because laws are so hard to repeal he called it the tyranny of dead generations.

                Maybe try to live up to your username, and pay attention when multiple people spell out for you your erroneous feelings with the actual facts?

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Trump didn’t do this. Trump took the easy way out and signed an EO. An EO that could be overturned or paused at any time.

                  Cool, so far you’re good

                  But why did Biden pause it for years, then codify it (apparently, I keep being told Biden has nothing to do with that so stop asking him to).

                  We don’t even get into why if he did this, he can’t do anything else.

                  Why did he pause probably the only good thing trump did to codify it? Why was that one of Biden’s first acts?

                  Why not let Trump’s EO ride until it was passed by law?

                  Like, you just said:

                  An EO that could be overturned or paused at any time.

                  But why did Biden have to pause that almost immediately after assuming office?

                  • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    The Biden administration paused all the EOs that Trump signed, not just this one, though it may have been limited to the last year in office. They did so because Trump signed so many EOs in the last few months, that there is absolutely no way that he read them, and someone needed to do so. This one just happened to get caught up in that, and the Biden administration decided to make it so that this one would be permanent. I’m unsure how much Biden himself would have been involved in such decisions.

          • rusticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Biden is the most progressive president in the last 50 years. I dare you to name a better president in that time frame. Lmao.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              7 months ago

              What kind of question is that?

              Obama and Bill Clinton where both more progressive than Biden…

              • rusticus@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Tell us you know nothing about politics without telling us you know nothing about politics…

      • UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        While the Final Rule implementing EO 13937 was intended to increase access to affordable insulin and epinephrine, it did not fully understand FQHC operations and 340B Program mechanics, nor did it consider the possible negative consequences. If the Final Rule is implemented, it will do more harm than good in terms of ensuring access to care and medications for underserved populations

        https://howardbrown.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Public-Comment-on-Proposed-Rescission-of-Executive-Order-13937.pdf