Vote to cap insulin co-pays for private insurers lost by only 3 votes. Here is what we need to do:

[Justice]

That's because 7 GOP Senators joined 50 Democratic Senators to vote for the measure. But many GOP Senators voted against capping insulin co-pays by private insurers

In particular, these 5 GOP Senators up for reelection voted AGAINST measure to cap insulin for private insurers.

Marco Rubio - running against Val Deming - D ------Florida
Chuck Grassley - running against (Admiral) Mike Franken - D -- Iowa
Mike Lee - running against Evan McMullin - I -----Utah
Ron Johnson - running against Mandela Barnes -D - Wisconsin
Rand Paul - running against Charles Booker - D - Kentucky

They voted against caps, even though they knew overall bill would pass and even though they know caps on insulin are popular and very much needed. I don't need insulin but know people who do and how vital it is to survive.

I encourage you to tweet, post on other social media and in any way remind voters in these states that these Senators voted against insulin caps. There are other open races, where the Democratic candidate will vote for caps - support them also, make insulin caps an issue in those races - Fetterman (PA), Tim Ryan (OH) and Cheri Beasley (NC).

[samplegirl]

1. Assholes!

All of them!

[RockRaven]

2. We're gonna need 60 Dems or a nuked filibuster. Those 7 Repukes would not have voted for it if

they had been in a position to be the deciding vote -- the blowback of giving the Dems a huge political win would be too great. It was safe to go against their party because they knew it wasn't going to pass.

[getagrip_already]

3. We actually only needed 51 votes to pass this.....

Once the parliamentarian declares an item in a bill invalid, the senate has 2 ways to challenge and overturn the decision and pass the item.

The rules allow the senate to either agree with the parl or disagree.

If the senate leadership agrees with the parl, and brings it to a vote to over rule them and pass the item, then it takes 60 votes. This is what schumer did.

If the senate leadership disagrees with the decision, they can call a vote but only need a simple majority to pass it.

I suspect schumer chose the former because he wasn't going to get to 50 votes. The media would frame it as manchin and sinoma simply refusing to change the rules for a vote. Dems in disarray would be the story.

But this way, blame falls on the gop, not the 2 miscreants. Yes, a few can take cover by voting for it, but not all.

[Justice]

5. I don't believe that is correct.

Once the parliamentarian declares an item in a bill invalid for inclusion in the reconciliation bill, the senate can challenge the decision and leave the item in the bill (which Dems did do).

The GOP objected to the inclusion and called a vote, Dems needed 60 votes to pass it.

[getagrip_already]

8. David Waldman discussed it this morning on kagrox...

I'm not an expert. Just going by what he said. He discussed it on twiiter here:

Link to tweet

If a provision comes to the floor that the parliamentarian advises ought to be excluded under the Byrd rule, a point of order will be raised against it. If the presiding officer rules consistent with the parliamentarian, it would take 60 votes to waive the point of order.

If the presiding officer rules contrary to the parliamentarian’s advice, someone will appeal the ruling of the chair, and one theory says a simple majority could vote to table the appeal or vote to sustain the chair. But there’s no indication that the votes are there to do that.

Manchin has made it one of his lines in the sand to not over-ride the parliamentarian with only 51 votes. So my guess schumer tried it with the 60 vote rule to not make manchin kill it.

[Justice]

9. To be fair, he said "one theory says a simple majority could vote..."

A theory.

I'm not sure it would be good to overrule the parlimentarian as it is a slippery slope - GOP would do this if back in power.

[getagrip_already]

10. they (the gop) have done it multiple times......

It's one of those rules dems enforce and the gop ignores. All to our detriment.

Blue slips are another example where we shoot ourselves in the tender bits. The gop suspended them, then we took control and reinstated them, then they took control and suspended them, and then we took control and again put them back. It does nothing but hurt us and help them.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. Kentucky should reject Random Piles.

[Demsrule86]

6. One thing that I have not seen mentioned is for Medicare it was capped at $35.00 and no

more than 2000 out of pocket total.

[Justice]

7. Yes, that stayed in the bill.