After weeks of negotiating, Democrats have written paid family and medical leave back into the reconciliation bill, along with a plan to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices — but the bill now includes caveats weakening the proposals from their original forms.
On Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and House Democrats announced that paid leave has been included in the House version of the plan “at the urging of many Members of the Caucus.” The proposal only includes four weeks of leave for serious medical issues or childbirth, down from the original 12 weeks, a cut that was likely made to appease conservative Democrats who oppose the idea.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), who was responsible for the proposal’s removal from the original framework for the bill, is not satisfied with the change. Regardless of the fact that the provisions are much weaker than originally proposed, Manchin said he views their inclusion as a threat to him. “That’s a challenge, very much a challenge,” he told reporters. Though he claims that he wants to support paid leave, he has blamed restrictions of the reconciliation process for his opposition — despite the fact that the parliamentarian has not ruled out the proposal.
In reality, Manchin likely simply opposes the idea, as he has opposed countless other proposals in the bill aimed at bolstering the social safety net for middle and working class people in this country. This week, he bemoaned the price of the bill, which he’s already succeeded in hacking in half, despite his support for allocating billions toward fossil fuel subsidies, and his silence on the expensive SALT tax deduction cap repeal.
If the House passes a version of the bill with paid leave included, the proposal may end up being written out to appease Manchin when it is sent to the Senate. It’s likely that the lawmaker will refuse to support any paid leave proposal, no matter how meager; last week, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) suggested a version of the proposal that would just allow parents of newborns to receive the paid leave benefit, but Manchin rejected that too. He has bizarrely suggested that lawmakers attach a work requirement to the benefit — even though by definition, workers must already have a job in order to take leave from it.
The prescription drug price plan, on the other hand, may face better prospects. On Tuesday, Democrats announced that they had reached a deal on the plan to lower drug prices. The proposal is far weaker than the version that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) suggested earlier this year, which is likely how Democrats got Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) to support the idea.
While the previous proposal placed few restrictions on which drugs Medicare could negotiate prices on, the new plan would only allow Medicare to negotiate prices for 10 drugs by 2025, and 20 per year by 2028. Prices of drugs that are under exclusivity periods of 9 to 12 years would not be eligible for negotiation — an especially restrictive clause since pharmaceutical companies often make small tweaks to drug formulas in order to keep certain drugs exclusive in perpetuity.
Perhaps because of how limited it is, Sinema, who enjoys close relationships with the massive pharmaceutical lobby, supports the new proposal, calling it “historic” and saying that it will help Americans access medications. Of course, the former version of the plan would have helped more Americans access drugs that they need to survive, so her staunch opposition to that plan negates her statement on the new one.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.