raise drug prices faster than inflation, they ll have to write a check to medicare unless they can prove additional research they can t raise the price beyond the cost of inflation for that particular drug and by the way, put this in her speck tif, last year the price of 100 specific prescription drugs went up faster than inflation, we re going to put a stop to that, for now on, they re going to have to rebate the money back to medicare, we re also capping the cost of insulin, for seniors on medicare at $35 per prescription instead of the average $400 per month. [ applause ] like some are paying now. we passed tax credits to help
expedited vote. no filibuster robert byrd, when he was in the senate, made sure that this would only apply to things that dealt with the budget, with fiscal policy, and did not have, predominantly, other policy affects. they go through a process that is called, a bird bath. one part of a prescription drug benefit. one that would require drug companies to pay some more, if their prices went up faster than inflation for private insurers, which were taken out. but we have to emphasize is the things that were kept in. that includes all climate provisions, and that crucial set of provisions enabling medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, and capping the cost for seniors on medicare, and drugs, to $2,000 per year, which is huge. it is interesting to watch an unelected bureaucrat, the parliamentary, and have all of this power. this gets to the necessity of
their prices went up faster than inflation for private insurers, which were taken out. but we have to emphasize is the things that were kept in. that includes all climate provisions, and that crucial set of provisions enabling medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, and capping the cost for seniors on medicare, and drugs, to $2,000 per year, which is huge. it is interesting to watch an unelected bureaucrat, the parliamentary, and have all of this power. this gets to the necessity of using reconciliation. the other procedural element that is happening, at least, we have what is being called, vote-a-rama. which is, and unlimited amendment vote that republicans can just subject the process to until, basically, tire out. that is how it goes. as we understand, most democratic senators, including joe manchin, seem to be on the same page. they will not vote for any amendments, even the ones that
dismiss that portion of it, they just zeroed it out. so that s still there. but even if even if by chance you could stretch the argument to say that the individual mandate were gone, and it s not, what does that have to do with pre-existing conditions? what does that have to do with young adults who get to stay on their parents insurance coverage until they re 26? what does that have to do with seniors on medicare, some 60 million of them, who get preventive care for free and also prescription drug coverage? so why would all those things disappear simply because through a tax code change republicans in 2017 decided to zero out the penalty for not getting insurance? when do you think you get a decision at this appeals court stage? it may take a few months. and we ll find out. they may act sooner. the court may act sooner. my sense is that everyone agrees that whatever the decision is, we re probably going up to the next level, the supreme court. and therefore we will probably h
argument will unfold before the supreme court if it makes it that far? actually, lawrence, i d use different language because the congress in 2017 through a tax code change did not get rid of the individual mandate. what it did was it zeroed out the penalty that must be paid by individuals who don t get insurance. so instead of charging you a tax, a personal responsibility charge if you don t secure insurance, they just zeroed it out. the law would have required you to pay a fine essentially for not getting insurance. republicans say we re going to zero that out. so they didn t they didn t dismiss that portion of it, they just zeroed it out. so that s still there. but even if even if by chance you could stretch the argument to say that the individual mandate were gone, and it s not, what does that have to do with pre-existing conditions? what does that have to do with young adults who get to stay on their parents insurance coverage until they re 26? what does that have to do wit