Author Topic: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act  (Read 6799 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #75 on: August 05, 2022, 12:26:51 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4515
  • Tommy Points: 456
In the interests of not giving the daily mail any more clicks, here is the study:
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/m4fdu/

And the abstract:
Quote
Emissions scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are central to climate change research and policy. Here, we identify subsets of scenarios of the IPCC 5th (AR5) and forthcoming 6th (AR6) Assessment Reports that project 2005-2040 fossil-fuel CO2 emissions growth rates most consistently with observations from 2005-2020 and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections to 2040—71% of these scenarios project between 2 degrees C and 3 degrees C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2 degrees C.

Though these IPCC scenarios do not represent all possible trajectories of future emissions and warming, and they assume continued mitigation progress, they do suggest the world is presently on a lower emissions trajectory than is often assumed. However, the scenarios also indicate that the world is still off track from limiting 21st-century warming to 1.5 degrees C.

Unsurprisingly, that second paragraph contains the important takeaway, whereas the Mail is framing this as something different.

Edit: if academic papers isn't your bag, one of the authors has put together a twitter thread on the subject:
https://twitter.com/matthewgburgess/status/1374737849094922241

Also worth noting that the other author, Roger A. Pielke Jr. is very much a scientist after your own heart, Roy, when it comes to climate skepticism. He's about as far from "the Al Gores and AOCs" as you can get:
https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/

To be clear it should also be noted there's actually been some pushback on this paper in the scientific community. I removed the article citing it from my post after looking more into it.

I think its fair to say that many think the predictions therein are at least "optimistic." The point the study is trying to make is the "worst case" scenarios of 4-5 degrees probably won't happen, assuming continued climate action in the coming years (that's actually built into their prediction). But even their "optimistic"  scenario still predicts a temperature rise above the 1.5 degree target.

In general I think there's a trend where the worst case scenario has gotten better, even if its still bad.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2022, 12:34:42 PM by keevsnick »

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #76 on: August 05, 2022, 01:10:28 PM »

Offline sgrogan

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 532
  • Tommy Points: 22
In the interests of not giving the daily mail any more clicks, here is the study:
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/m4fdu/

And the abstract:
Quote
Emissions scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are central to climate change research and policy. Here, we identify subsets of scenarios of the IPCC 5th (AR5) and forthcoming 6th (AR6) Assessment Reports that project 2005-2040 fossil-fuel CO2 emissions growth rates most consistently with observations from 2005-2020 and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections to 2040—71% of these scenarios project between 2 degrees C and 3 degrees C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2 degrees C.

Though these IPCC scenarios do not represent all possible trajectories of future emissions and warming, and they assume continued mitigation progress, they do suggest the world is presently on a lower emissions trajectory than is often assumed. However, the scenarios also indicate that the world is still off track from limiting 21st-century warming to 1.5 degrees C.

Unsurprisingly, that second paragraph contains the important takeaway, whereas the Mail is framing this as something different.

Edit: if academic papers isn't your bag, one of the authors has put together a twitter thread on the subject:
https://twitter.com/matthewgburgess/status/1374737849094922241

Also worth noting that the other author, Roger A. Pielke Jr. is very much a scientist after your own heart, Roy, when it comes to climate skepticism. He's about as far from "the Al Gores and AOCs" as you can get:
https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/

To be clear it should also be noted there's actually been some pushback on this paper in the scientific community. I removed the article citing it from my post after looking more into it.

I think its fair to say that many think the predictions therein are at least "optimistic." The point the study is trying to make is the "worst case" scenarios of 4-5 degrees probably won't happen, assuming continued climate action in the coming years (that's actually built into their prediction). But even their "optimistic"  scenario still predicts a temperature rise above the 1.5 degree target.

In general I think there's a trend where the worst case scenario has gotten better, even if its still bad.
This is good news but runs contrary to the dominant messaging which is "if we continue to do nothing the world ends in 10 years"

Why not messaging like
"Look, when we do stuff it matters. We are making progress but still have a long way to go. So we must continue to invest in further improvements"

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #77 on: August 05, 2022, 01:25:32 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4515
  • Tommy Points: 456
In the interests of not giving the daily mail any more clicks, here is the study:
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/m4fdu/

And the abstract:
Quote
Emissions scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are central to climate change research and policy. Here, we identify subsets of scenarios of the IPCC 5th (AR5) and forthcoming 6th (AR6) Assessment Reports that project 2005-2040 fossil-fuel CO2 emissions growth rates most consistently with observations from 2005-2020 and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections to 2040—71% of these scenarios project between 2 degrees C and 3 degrees C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2 degrees C.

Though these IPCC scenarios do not represent all possible trajectories of future emissions and warming, and they assume continued mitigation progress, they do suggest the world is presently on a lower emissions trajectory than is often assumed. However, the scenarios also indicate that the world is still off track from limiting 21st-century warming to 1.5 degrees C.

Unsurprisingly, that second paragraph contains the important takeaway, whereas the Mail is framing this as something different.

Edit: if academic papers isn't your bag, one of the authors has put together a twitter thread on the subject:
https://twitter.com/matthewgburgess/status/1374737849094922241

Also worth noting that the other author, Roger A. Pielke Jr. is very much a scientist after your own heart, Roy, when it comes to climate skepticism. He's about as far from "the Al Gores and AOCs" as you can get:
https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/

To be clear it should also be noted there's actually been some pushback on this paper in the scientific community. I removed the article citing it from my post after looking more into it.

I think its fair to say that many think the predictions therein are at least "optimistic." The point the study is trying to make is the "worst case" scenarios of 4-5 degrees probably won't happen, assuming continued climate action in the coming years (that's actually built into their prediction). But even their "optimistic"  scenario still predicts a temperature rise above the 1.5 degree target.

In general I think there's a trend where the worst case scenario has gotten better, even if its still bad.
This is good news but runs contrary to the dominant messaging which is "if we continue to do nothing the world ends in 10 years"

Why not messaging like
"Look, when we do stuff it matters. We are making progress but still have a long way to go. So we must continue to invest in further improvements"


Because that UNDER SELLS the issue. Maybe, and it is just a maybe, things don't look as bad as they did 30-50 years ago. We've made progress. That can be true while it also being true that the trajectory we're on is still very bad.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #78 on: August 05, 2022, 01:57:55 PM »

Offline sgrogan

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 532
  • Tommy Points: 22
In the interests of not giving the daily mail any more clicks, here is the study:
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/m4fdu/

And the abstract:
Quote
Emissions scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are central to climate change research and policy. Here, we identify subsets of scenarios of the IPCC 5th (AR5) and forthcoming 6th (AR6) Assessment Reports that project 2005-2040 fossil-fuel CO2 emissions growth rates most consistently with observations from 2005-2020 and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections to 2040—71% of these scenarios project between 2 degrees C and 3 degrees C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2 degrees C.

Though these IPCC scenarios do not represent all possible trajectories of future emissions and warming, and they assume continued mitigation progress, they do suggest the world is presently on a lower emissions trajectory than is often assumed. However, the scenarios also indicate that the world is still off track from limiting 21st-century warming to 1.5 degrees C.

Unsurprisingly, that second paragraph contains the important takeaway, whereas the Mail is framing this as something different.

Edit: if academic papers isn't your bag, one of the authors has put together a twitter thread on the subject:
https://twitter.com/matthewgburgess/status/1374737849094922241

Also worth noting that the other author, Roger A. Pielke Jr. is very much a scientist after your own heart, Roy, when it comes to climate skepticism. He's about as far from "the Al Gores and AOCs" as you can get:
https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/

To be clear it should also be noted there's actually been some pushback on this paper in the scientific community. I removed the article citing it from my post after looking more into it.

I think its fair to say that many think the predictions therein are at least "optimistic." The point the study is trying to make is the "worst case" scenarios of 4-5 degrees probably won't happen, assuming continued climate action in the coming years (that's actually built into their prediction). But even their "optimistic"  scenario still predicts a temperature rise above the 1.5 degree target.

In general I think there's a trend where the worst case scenario has gotten better, even if its still bad.
This is good news but runs contrary to the dominant messaging which is "if we continue to do nothing the world ends in 10 years"

Why not messaging like
"Look, when we do stuff it matters. We are making progress but still have a long way to go. So we must continue to invest in further improvements"


Because that UNDER SELLS the issue. Maybe, and it is just a maybe, things don't look as bad as they did 30-50 years ago. We've made progress. That can be true while it also being true that the trajectory we're on is still very bad.
I think that's still better than what we are getting in a lot of the media and prominent politicians.
And I don't mean you personally. You're making what I consider very persuasive points. Partially in response to the "predictions have been wrong for 50 years" argument. I'd like to see this type of discussion/presentation more broadly in the msm and political discourse.


Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #79 on: August 05, 2022, 03:11:36 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4515
  • Tommy Points: 456
In the interests of not giving the daily mail any more clicks, here is the study:
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/m4fdu/

And the abstract:
Quote
Emissions scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are central to climate change research and policy. Here, we identify subsets of scenarios of the IPCC 5th (AR5) and forthcoming 6th (AR6) Assessment Reports that project 2005-2040 fossil-fuel CO2 emissions growth rates most consistently with observations from 2005-2020 and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections to 2040—71% of these scenarios project between 2 degrees C and 3 degrees C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2 degrees C.

Though these IPCC scenarios do not represent all possible trajectories of future emissions and warming, and they assume continued mitigation progress, they do suggest the world is presently on a lower emissions trajectory than is often assumed. However, the scenarios also indicate that the world is still off track from limiting 21st-century warming to 1.5 degrees C.

Unsurprisingly, that second paragraph contains the important takeaway, whereas the Mail is framing this as something different.

Edit: if academic papers isn't your bag, one of the authors has put together a twitter thread on the subject:
https://twitter.com/matthewgburgess/status/1374737849094922241

Also worth noting that the other author, Roger A. Pielke Jr. is very much a scientist after your own heart, Roy, when it comes to climate skepticism. He's about as far from "the Al Gores and AOCs" as you can get:
https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/

To be clear it should also be noted there's actually been some pushback on this paper in the scientific community. I removed the article citing it from my post after looking more into it.

I think its fair to say that many think the predictions therein are at least "optimistic." The point the study is trying to make is the "worst case" scenarios of 4-5 degrees probably won't happen, assuming continued climate action in the coming years (that's actually built into their prediction). But even their "optimistic"  scenario still predicts a temperature rise above the 1.5 degree target.

In general I think there's a trend where the worst case scenario has gotten better, even if its still bad.
This is good news but runs contrary to the dominant messaging which is "if we continue to do nothing the world ends in 10 years"

Why not messaging like
"Look, when we do stuff it matters. We are making progress but still have a long way to go. So we must continue to invest in further improvements"


Because that UNDER SELLS the issue. Maybe, and it is just a maybe, things don't look as bad as they did 30-50 years ago. We've made progress. That can be true while it also being true that the trajectory we're on is still very bad.
I think that's still better than what we are getting in a lot of the media and prominent politicians.
And I don't mean you personally. You're making what I consider very persuasive points. Partially in response to the "predictions have been wrong for 50 years" argument. I'd like to see this type of discussion/presentation more broadly in the msm and political discourse.

Fair enough. But I think the point I'm trying to make is the issue with climate change coverage is a more a media/politics issue (combined with a general public scientific illiteracy) than an actual issue with the science. I disagree strongly with Roy H's initial post about how science has been bad at modeling the issue. It has, in fact, been very good.

There are certainly problems with how science is reported, there are even with problems with how that science is used by politicians in particular.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #80 on: August 05, 2022, 03:13:21 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51475
  • Tommy Points: -26028
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
In the interests of not giving the daily mail any more clicks, here is the study:
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/m4fdu/

And the abstract:
Quote
Emissions scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are central to climate change research and policy. Here, we identify subsets of scenarios of the IPCC 5th (AR5) and forthcoming 6th (AR6) Assessment Reports that project 2005-2040 fossil-fuel CO2 emissions growth rates most consistently with observations from 2005-2020 and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections to 2040—71% of these scenarios project between 2 degrees C and 3 degrees C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2 degrees C.

Though these IPCC scenarios do not represent all possible trajectories of future emissions and warming, and they assume continued mitigation progress, they do suggest the world is presently on a lower emissions trajectory than is often assumed. However, the scenarios also indicate that the world is still off track from limiting 21st-century warming to 1.5 degrees C.

Unsurprisingly, that second paragraph contains the important takeaway, whereas the Mail is framing this as something different.

Edit: if academic papers isn't your bag, one of the authors has put together a twitter thread on the subject:
https://twitter.com/matthewgburgess/status/1374737849094922241

Also worth noting that the other author, Roger A. Pielke Jr. is very much a scientist after your own heart, Roy, when it comes to climate skepticism. He's about as far from "the Al Gores and AOCs" as you can get:
https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/

To be clear it should also be noted there's actually been some pushback on this paper in the scientific community. I removed the article citing it from my post after looking more into it.

I think its fair to say that many think the predictions therein are at least "optimistic." The point the study is trying to make is the "worst case" scenarios of 4-5 degrees probably won't happen, assuming continued climate action in the coming years (that's actually built into their prediction). But even their "optimistic"  scenario still predicts a temperature rise above the 1.5 degree target.

In general I think there's a trend where the worst case scenario has gotten better, even if its still bad.
This is good news but runs contrary to the dominant messaging which is "if we continue to do nothing the world ends in 10 years"

Why not messaging like
"Look, when we do stuff it matters. We are making progress but still have a long way to go. So we must continue to invest in further improvements"


Because that UNDER SELLS the issue. Maybe, and it is just a maybe, things don't look as bad as they did 30-50 years ago. We've made progress. That can be true while it also being true that the trajectory we're on is still very bad.
I think that's still better than what we are getting in a lot of the media and prominent politicians.
And I don't mean you personally. You're making what I consider very persuasive points. Partially in response to the "predictions have been wrong for 50 years" argument. I'd like to see this type of discussion/presentation more broadly in the msm and political discourse.

Fair enough. But I think the point I'm trying to make is the issue with climate change coverage is a more a media/politics issue (combined with a general public scientific illiteracy) than an actual issue with the science. I disagree strongly with Roy H's initial post about how science has been bad at modeling the issue. It has, in fact, been very good.

There are certainly problems with how science is reported, there are even with problems with how that science is used by politicians in particular.

And there are problems with some of the scientists themselves.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #81 on: August 05, 2022, 06:23:55 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1710
  • Tommy Points: 410
In the interests of not giving the daily mail any more clicks, here is the study:
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/m4fdu/

And the abstract:
Quote
Emissions scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are central to climate change research and policy. Here, we identify subsets of scenarios of the IPCC 5th (AR5) and forthcoming 6th (AR6) Assessment Reports that project 2005-2040 fossil-fuel CO2 emissions growth rates most consistently with observations from 2005-2020 and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections to 2040—71% of these scenarios project between 2 degrees C and 3 degrees C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2 degrees C.

Though these IPCC scenarios do not represent all possible trajectories of future emissions and warming, and they assume continued mitigation progress, they do suggest the world is presently on a lower emissions trajectory than is often assumed. However, the scenarios also indicate that the world is still off track from limiting 21st-century warming to 1.5 degrees C.

Unsurprisingly, that second paragraph contains the important takeaway, whereas the Mail is framing this as something different.

Edit: if academic papers isn't your bag, one of the authors has put together a twitter thread on the subject:
https://twitter.com/matthewgburgess/status/1374737849094922241

Also worth noting that the other author, Roger A. Pielke Jr. is very much a scientist after your own heart, Roy, when it comes to climate skepticism. He's about as far from "the Al Gores and AOCs" as you can get:
https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/

To be clear it should also be noted there's actually been some pushback on this paper in the scientific community. I removed the article citing it from my post after looking more into it.

I think its fair to say that many think the predictions therein are at least "optimistic." The point the study is trying to make is the "worst case" scenarios of 4-5 degrees probably won't happen, assuming continued climate action in the coming years (that's actually built into their prediction). But even their "optimistic"  scenario still predicts a temperature rise above the 1.5 degree target.

In general I think there's a trend where the worst case scenario has gotten better, even if its still bad.
This is good news but runs contrary to the dominant messaging which is "if we continue to do nothing the world ends in 10 years"

Why not messaging like
"Look, when we do stuff it matters. We are making progress but still have a long way to go. So we must continue to invest in further improvements"


Because that UNDER SELLS the issue. Maybe, and it is just a maybe, things don't look as bad as they did 30-50 years ago. We've made progress. That can be true while it also being true that the trajectory we're on is still very bad.
I think that's still better than what we are getting in a lot of the media and prominent politicians.
And I don't mean you personally. You're making what I consider very persuasive points. Partially in response to the "predictions have been wrong for 50 years" argument. I'd like to see this type of discussion/presentation more broadly in the msm and political discourse.

Fair enough. But I think the point I'm trying to make is the issue with climate change coverage is a more a media/politics issue (combined with a general public scientific illiteracy) than an actual issue with the science. I disagree strongly with Roy H's initial post about how science has been bad at modeling the issue. It has, in fact, been very good.

There are certainly problems with how science is reported, there are even with problems with how that science is used by politicians in particular.

And there are problems with some of the scientists themselves.

I work with several scientists, mainly at the collegiate level. Some, at worst, are just information collectors. Others, are innovative in asking questions and performing experiments and happy to get a "yes or no" answer to their question. They pretty much all stop at "we should do x because of what I've discovered". They let organizations and politicians wield their data to determine the next steps of how that information shapes policy and perceptions. One particular guy I work with (data collector), his work is pointed to by companies to further their agenda /project while at the same time an activist group will use that same data to fight against said agenda/project. It actually creates a lot of frustration amongst the populace where I live, that the people with the knowledge dont commit to a side.

What i do and where i do it is pretty small beans in the bigger picture, so my slice of perspective isn't all encompassing. I'm sure, especially in government jobs and amongst scientists competing for big funding, there are many with an agenda that they put before the acquisition of information. But that's not what science should be and we should be indeed wary of such scientists.


Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #82 on: August 05, 2022, 08:44:55 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47098
  • Tommy Points: 8708
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Climate change as a science was in it's infancy 50 years ago. Any predictions being off 50 years later should be understandable by any with even a modicum of scientific knowledge.

And when it comes to future predictions, especially ones decades out, if they aren't 100% correct as we get closer, again this should be understandable. Climate isn't weather. Climate is much more difficult just due to all the variables involved. That said, meteorologists can't even get tomorrow's weather 100% correct 100% of the time. And let's not even get into how difficult it is to predict how strong hurricanes will be or where they will be 5 days out. So expecting climatologists to get the entire world climate 100% right 20 to 50 to 100 years out, is pretty strange.

Climate change science is new. There is still much not known. Future predictions should be fluid. That said, they know enough to be able to determine major trends and directions and the alarm from that community is well founded. They should be heeded.

But if a decade from know things aren't as good or as bad as current projections say, remember, it's still a new science. Man has been studying geology for over a thousand years and still can't prediction earthquakes or volcano eruptions. Physics has been study for a thousand years and we are still clueless about so much in that field.

The media and politicians that deny or sensationalize climate change are doing a massive disservice to the science and the messages coming from the good people that make up 98-99% of the field.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #83 on: August 05, 2022, 08:59:01 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • Global Moderator
  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27711
  • Tommy Points: 1423
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
Can someone explain to me how $260 billion in spending over 10 years, with a $326 billion raise in taxes over the same period doesn't increase inflation?  These numbers are from left wing propagandists: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/business/dealbook/inflation-reduction-act-analysis.html

The notion that corporate elites will "pay their fair share" is absurd.  When officials pushed the COVID fear-mongering and shutdown our economy, who benefited the most? Amazon, Wal Mart, etc... while small businesses were forced to close.  When the unsafe and ineffective COVID vaccines were pushed and the pandemic was blamed on the "unvaccinated," who benefited the most? Probably Pfizer, who sponsors the mainstream media that stoked all of your worst fears, knowing full well that none of it was true. All of your favorite politicians who are holding the "corporate elites" accountable are the ones make them rich, as they collect their kickbacks and buy up their stocks. This bill raises the taxes on everyone making over $30,000 per year, and it's all going to fall on the backs of the middle class, as it always does. 

Can anyone provide evidence of man-produced climate change? This should be addressed in the decades of climate scare tactics that also failed to produce. And why would the common person believe that the government can control the weather (if we give them more of our money) when they couldn't manage a virus with a 99.7% survival rate (which is likely an underestimate). Is there any evidence that a reduction in CO2 emissions would improve the climate? Or evidence that American changes would make any difference, in the context of India and China? And why would we sell out all of our businesses to China (now also for decades) if we were so concerned about climate change and human rights?
Left wing propagandists hahaha. This post is all-time RWNJ

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #84 on: August 06, 2022, 01:09:16 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51475
  • Tommy Points: -26028
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
Well, this sucks:

Quote
Democrats' plan to control drug prices for 180 million Americans with private health insurance has suffered yet another setback.

The Senate parliamentarian ruled Saturday that a core piece of the party’s plan can’t pass the chamber with fewer than 60 votes, following arguments from both parties last week.

… [The] plan will now move forward without a provision that would have penalized drugmakers for hiking costs faster than inflation in private insurance plans as well as Medicare.

The exclusion of the private insurance price limits means there is little left that will reduce costs for the vast majority of Americans who receive health insurance through their private sector employer. Democrats are still waiting on a separate parliamentarian ruling on their policy to cap the cost of insulin both inside and outside of Medicare.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #85 on: August 07, 2022, 01:27:07 PM »

Offline Cman

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13059
  • Tommy Points: 119
Quote
Senate Democrats fell short of an effort to overrule a decision by the parliamentarian that effectively struck down a proposal sponsored by Sen. Raphael Warnock to cap out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 a month for people not covered by Medicare.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3591586-democrats-fail-to-overrule-parliamentarian-on-insulin-price-cap-as-gop-votes-no/
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #86 on: August 07, 2022, 02:01:02 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51475
  • Tommy Points: -26028
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
Quote
Senate Democrats fell short of an effort to overrule a decision by the parliamentarian that effectively struck down a proposal sponsored by Sen. Raphael Warnock to cap out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 a month for people not covered by Medicare.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3591586-democrats-fail-to-overrule-parliamentarian-on-insulin-price-cap-as-gop-votes-no/

Stupid.  Insulin should be essentially free.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #87 on: August 07, 2022, 03:27:56 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23178
  • Tommy Points: 1164
Quote
Senate Democrats fell short of an effort to overrule a decision by the parliamentarian that effectively struck down a proposal sponsored by Sen. Raphael Warnock to cap out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 a month for people not covered by Medicare.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3591586-democrats-fail-to-overrule-parliamentarian-on-insulin-price-cap-as-gop-votes-no/

Stupid.  Insulin should be essentially free.

Agreed. Special interest groups win again. It's pretty sad that our elected representatives can't manage to get something like this accomplished, something simple that would clearly benefit all of our citizens and most everyone would approve of.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #88 on: August 07, 2022, 04:22:57 PM »

Offline Cman

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13059
  • Tommy Points: 119
Quote
Senate Democrats fell short of an effort to overrule a decision by the parliamentarian that effectively struck down a proposal sponsored by Sen. Raphael Warnock to cap out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 a month for people not covered by Medicare.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3591586-democrats-fail-to-overrule-parliamentarian-on-insulin-price-cap-as-gop-votes-no/

Stupid.  Insulin should be essentially free.

Agreed. Special interest groups win again. It's pretty sad that our elected representatives can't manage to get something like this accomplished, something simple that would clearly benefit all of our citizens and most everyone would approve of.

Not the headlines the RNC wanted:
"Republicans block cap on insulin costs for many Americans from Democratic deal"
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/07/republicans-block-cap-on-insulin-costs-for-many-americans-from-democratic-deal.html
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #89 on: August 07, 2022, 04:42:20 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20182
  • Tommy Points: 2164
Quote
Senate Democrats fell short of an effort to overrule a decision by the parliamentarian that effectively struck down a proposal sponsored by Sen. Raphael Warnock to cap out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 a month for people not covered by Medicare.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3591586-democrats-fail-to-overrule-parliamentarian-on-insulin-price-cap-as-gop-votes-no/

Stupid.  Insulin should be essentially free.

Agreed. Special interest groups win again. It's pretty sad that our elected representatives can't manage to get something like this accomplished, something simple that would clearly benefit all of our citizens and most everyone would approve of.

Not the headlines the RNC wanted:
"Republicans block cap on insulin costs for many Americans from Democratic deal"
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/07/republicans-block-cap-on-insulin-costs-for-many-americans-from-democratic-deal.html

Republicans are honing their eye-rolling and sarcastic lilt as they mock the “Inflation Reduction Act” as they assure that the 30 million diabetic Americans continue to pay more than anywhere else in the world.  Nicely done Republican party - keep it up.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-insulin-by-country