 The skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs has become a matter of life and death for so many. We've heard the heartbreaking stories of individuals who could not afford their insulin, were forced to ration and skip doses, and as a result, they lost their lives. I remember quite vividly a conversation I had with an Iowa mother explaining how she lost her son, who as a young man was rationing his insulin because he could not afford to do more. It was a heartbreaking discussion, and having that discussion with that mother, I could not help but thank then of my own brother and sister, who had been reliant on insulin as juvenile diabetics for nearly all of their lives. When we talk about the cost of prescription drugs, folks, lives are literally on the line. And Iowans have been very clear with me where they stand on this issue. They want to see us come together to advance solutions that drive down those drug prices. That was a speech Republican Senator Joni Ernst made in 2020, emphasizing the need for bipartisan support to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, specifically naming insulin as one of those drugs that are just too expensive. Now lucky for her, she actually had the opportunity to do something about this, put those words into action. However, she decided to block capping the cost of insulin to $35. And she's not alone because 43 Republicans in total successfully blocked an amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act that would have capped the cost of insulin to $35. And she's not the only hypocrite here because Republican Senator Rob Portman also called insulin price hikes shameful before, however, he still voted against capping the cost of insulin along with most of his GOP colleagues. So that is the modern day Republican Party in a nutshell. They vote for things that are just common sense. It would help a lot of people, including many members of their own base, but they still voted against it overwhelmingly. Now, it's not all Republicans who voted against this to be clear. There were seven who supported this. That includes Cassidy Collins, Holly Heidsmith, Kennedy Murkowski and Sullivan, but they needed 10 and most Republicans were not in favor of this. Now, lately they've been showing people how extreme they are voting against protecting doctors from legal culpability when it comes to women's reproductive health, voting against same sex marriage, voting against access to contraception as a right. And now their own base is starting to realize how extreme they are. So we're going to get to the Inflation Reduction Act and what's in it, but I want to share the reactions by conservatives to their party voting against capping the cost of insulin. So this is from the conservative subreddit where this user vocalized anger at the fact that his party voted against this. He says it's unfortunate, but our party just ate a big pile of shit by opposing capping insulin for all instead of just Medicare. I've been conservative my entire life and for the first time questioning my political choice. I can't stand the Democrats, but as a type one diabetic, the GOP really fucked me. Now, in the same thread, this person asks why they even oppose the insulin cap and this person adds doesn't even make sense politically. Guess we know who's paying their real salary. So this is what the Republican Party is doing. They've shifted so far to the right, become so extreme that they're alienating their own base now. Now, I'd argue that this is who they've always been, but I'm still glad that people in the Republican Party base are waking up and realizing that this party doesn't care about them at all. Now capping the cost of insulin for individuals who aren't on Medicare wasn't the only thing that didn't make it into the final bill. Because as NBC News's Sahil Kapoor explains, universal pre-K, childcare, elder care, child tax credit, housing, community college, the earned income tax credit expansion, closing Medicaid gap, immigration tax rate hikes, millionaire surtax, ending carried interest loophole. All of these did not make it into the final bill. Now, when it comes to the carried interest loophole, well, there's one individual to thank as common dreams explains. Thanks to Senator Kirsten Sinema, there was a huge last minute win for the private equity and hedge fund industries when Sinema forced the elimination of what would have been $14 billion tax increase targeting private executives. So a lot of really good things weren't included in this bill when they could have been. And that's really unfortunate. Now Bernie Sanders had tried to propose amendments to make this bill better and also remove some of the pork for fossil fuel donors of Manchin, who is the individual who constructed this compromise with Chuck Schumer. However, most Democrats voted against this saying even if they agree with what Bernie Sanders wants here, well, supporting these amendments would jeopardize the entire arrangement. And sure, maybe they actually agree with Bernie Sanders, but I think that they're very, very happy about the fact that they can hide behind at Joe Manchin here. Yeah. So there's a lot in this legislation. It's huge. Now I'll link you down to a couple of analyses that go over it in depth and explain all that's in it. And we're not going to get to everything here, but just for the most part, here's a really quick summary before we get into some specifics here. This is courtesy of Jeff Stein, who says it's the biggest ever climate bill, which I mean, we haven't really made any investments. So it's easy to be the biggest ever when we've done nothing. But either way, he says massive industry clean energy money, 80 billion for electric vehicles, heat pumps, home solar installation, biggest ever funding increase for the IRS, 15% tax on corporations with 1 billion in profits, Medicare prescription drug negotiation, obviously health and tax stuff matter too. But on climate energy side, it includes up to 7,500 for individuals to buy an electric vehicle and tax credits up to $2,000 in credit for heat pumps, 30% off roof top solar, $840 for electric cooktop, up to $9,000 for electric panel and home installation, other big provisions Dems are touting cap on insulin for Medicare beneficiaries, although not private 1% tax on corporate buybacks of their own stocks, averting ACA cliff by extending healthcare subsidies for three years, funding for black lung disability trust fund for coal miners. So there's a lot of good things in here, but really the devil is in the details here. When it comes to the 1% tax on stock buybacks, is that good? Yes, but stock buybacks should be illegal period full stop. So the fact that you're taxing them 1% on their stock buybacks. Okay, I guess that's a step in the right direction, but ultimately it's not where we need to be. And when it comes to allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drugs, well, again, this sounds good, but in actuality, this is very incremental. As the Hill explains, it would allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices for 10 high cost drugs beginning in 2026, wrapping up to 20 drugs by 2029. There was a steep penalty if a drug company doesn't come to the table attacks of up to 95% of the sales of the drug. There's also a ceiling that the negotiated price cannot rise above in a deal with moderates, including Senator Kyrsten Sinema. Only older drugs are subject to negotiation after a period of nine years for most drugs after 13 years for more complex biologic drugs. That means the negotiations are more limited than many Democrats wanted. So even if there are a lot of positive things in this legislation, well, mansion and cinema absolutely molded it to their liking. And when I say to their liking, what I really mean is to their donors liking because mansion absolutely delivered for his fossil fuel donors and Kyrsten Sinema delivered for her donors on Wall Street. And because their votes are needed in order to pass this, well, Democrats decided to let them essentially shape the entirety of this legislation. In fact, it was so close that the vice president had to break a tie in the Senate. So it passed narrowly. But nonetheless, what is in this bill overall? And as a leftist, how should we feel about this? Well, me just speaking personally, I feel pretty conflicted about this because even if this is a good first step with regard to climate change overall, it doesn't go far enough. And locking us into even more fossil fuel extraction seems suicidal when the IPCC has told us we have now a decade or so to act when it comes to climate change. So we're acting, right? That's that's a good thing. But are we doing enough? Now, as I stated earlier, the devil is in the details. So if we're investing in a climate change, that's a loaded term because just investing in climate change mitigation in and of itself can be bad. Because if we're investing in carbon capture, well, that's technology that is underdeveloped and not very efficient. So if they're doing that, not great, right? So what's specifically in this? Well, a lot of tax incentives for corporations to be more clean. So let's get to the specifics courtesy of the Washington Post. This legislation includes 260 billion in tax credits to incentivize using wind, solar and hydro with the goal of making clean energy more affordable than fossil fuels. There's 80 billion in rebates for consumers who purchase electric vehicles, as Jeff Stein explained earlier. On top of that, probably the most important provision in my mind is this. A new methane emissions reduction program would reward oil and gas companies that slash their emissions of methane that penalize those who don't. The program crafted by Senate Environment and Public Works Chair, Thomas R. Carper, originally would have provided 775 million up front to oil and gas companies to cut their methane emissions. The current agreement doubles that money to 1.5 billion. According to a Senate Democratic aide, methane traps far more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas. And it also includes a $27 billion green bank to invest in more sustainable development and infrastructure. Now, tackling methane is very important. I don't like that they're going with the carrot approach with regard to corporations. They're trying to incentivize them to reduce their methane emissions when I think that you should go with the stick approach and find them. Perhaps find them into oblivion, regulate them out of existence if they continue to pollute the planet. If they, you know, emit these methane emissions that are trapping heat that is leading to, you know, this greenhouse effect. So it's not the way that I would have designed this. It's a very corporate friendly piece of legislation. But still tackling methane, even if it's in this neoliberal framework that makes me nauseous, is still a step in the right direction because doing nothing is the alternative. And that is something that we can't allow to happen. So there's good things in this legislation, but it comes at a very high cost. For example, to secure mansion's vote, Democratic leadership pledged to mandate new oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska where industry groups are pushing for a major expansion in oil production. So there are a number of poison pills within this legislation that make it a hard pill to swallow. And if you look at the statements from environmental groups, they're very mixed, right? The sunrise movement said it's sad that it took this long and this really isn't sufficient. It's a very meager investment in climate change, but it's better than nothing and really our last chance at doing anything. And hopefully these investments in renewable technology will spawn exponential growth. Will that actually be the case? We don't necessarily know. But again, it's kind of like the Democratic Party is offering us crumbs and we can take the crumbs and be angry with it or we could take nothing. And that's where we're at. And it's deeply, deeply frustrating that this is the first major step towards climate mitigation when it comes to legislation. However, it's something. So you don't have to feel super happy about this. There are other provisions, you know, with regard to ACA subsidies and corporate taxes that I absolutely admire. So overall, I'd say this bill is net good, but I'm not really heavily leaning in either direction. You know, this is kind of a wait and see thing, wait to see the impact that this will have on the industry and on consumer habits. We don't necessarily know all together, but still that's what's in the bill. But the overall theme about this is there's some good, there's some bad, and then there's also some really ugly things. Not necessarily in the bill, even though there are ugly things in the bill, but ugly things that were left out of the bill thanks to Republican senators who decided to, I guess, give the middle finger to their supporters who rely on insulin. That is another instance of them showing how extreme they are and they continue to do this. So, yeah, that's where we're at. Something is getting done and that's still shocking in and of itself. So now it heads to the house and then to Biden's desk and it'll be signed as the law presumably relatively soon. We'll have to wait and see, but that's the inflation reduction act. I've talked about the poison pills. I've talked about the good. And now we just have to, I guess, you know, hope for the best when it comes to whether or not this will make a difference across our fingers, right?