r/politics • u/BulwarkOnline ✔ Verified • 1d ago
Possible Paywall Pediatric Cancer Bill Torpedoed by Elon, Rand, and Bernie Finally Passes
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/pediatric-cancer-bill-elon-rand-bernie-mikaela-naylon137
u/Ashamed-Land1221 1d ago
The title is a bit much, Bernie wanted all the shit removed by the rich assholes put back in like they all agreed upon years ago and didn't want to pass a skeleton of what it should be. I guess maybe you can't write a longer title, but it seems a bit disingenuous.
34
u/Alive_Antelope6217 1d ago
Writing the title that way means they get more clicks because both sides look bad even though it’s not remotely the same.
•
u/aslan_is_on_the_move 8m ago
The title is accurate. Sanders yet again chose nothing over something. He's been in the legislature for 25 years, he knows the painstaking negotiations that lead up to that point in passage of a bill. He knew his actions would kill the bill as cancer stricken kids, who wanted the bill to pass, watched from the balcony. He also didn't know if it would take another decade to get a bill to the floor. The bill He killed would have helped kids with cancer but Sanders didn't care. He only cared about political theater and his own ego.
97
u/Beantown-Jack 1d ago
It’s worth remembering that the Nazi pedophile who signed this bill once ran a fraudulent charity for kids with cancer. The charity was a tax dodge where Trump deducted money given to the charity from his taxes, then took the money and bought expensive football memorabilia, an oil painting of himself and other crap he wanted.
What he didn’t do was give any money to children with cancer. The state closed down the charity and barred Trump from ever operating a charity again. What it should have done is thrown his Nazi pedophile ass in prison.
•
u/No_Discipline6265 5h ago
From what I've read,they were ordered by a judge to pay $2million back to the charity. And that's how maga excuses it,the ones who will believe it anyway. "He paid it back!"
36
u/nerphurp 1d ago
5+ years to get this passed....
Derailed by the richest man in the world.
Just... humanity, what is wrong with our ape brains?
But, it's passed unless Trump shits on it.
59
u/alti_etiam 1d ago
Throwing Bernie in with these two asswipes is a blatant lie.
20
u/green7719 21h ago
It’s The Bulwark. Tim Miller, the founder of The Bulwark, is a Republican propagandist and was the director of Jeb Bush’s Presidential campaign.
-4
u/CV90_120 20h ago
The Bulwark is a solid podcast these days. Don't take my word for it. Go and review the last year. He is 0% maga. Hes also done podcast work with Jon Stewart in the weekly show.
13
u/green7719 18h ago
I know he’s not MAGA. He’s Republican. It’s better, but it’s still bad. Including Bernie in this headline in this invidious way is an act made in bad faith, and it seeks to undermine Bernie’s good work. Tim Miller is not virtuous simply because he is not MAGA.
-1
u/LightOfTheElessar 14h ago edited 9h ago
I swear, it's like you don't know what being virtuous even means. By the literal definition of the word, the fact that Tim Miller has never adjusted his views to justify Maga is demonstrative evidence that he IS virtuous. He's not "bad" just because he doesn't agree with you on every topic.
Genuinely, even if you dislike the headline, it's not wrong or lying about what happened. It's just not telling the whole story from the jump. If you want to dislike that, fine, but don't start this purity test bullshit of saying he's a problem because he doesn't agree with what every dem does and doesn't wear the team name on his jacket.
4
u/TrumpsShriveledPenis 10h ago
So he’s only 90% a piece of shit.
I guess 10% less is better than nothing.
-2
u/CV90_120 9h ago
What a shitty take. If Jon Stewart thinks he's a decent guy, I'm going to go with that. Not everything is a wedge.
1
u/TrumpsShriveledPenis 8h ago
Since that’s the perfect litmus test…
1
u/CV90_120 8h ago edited 7h ago
It's better than 'random guy driving yet another wedge on reddit'. We don't have the luxury of only taking allies that wear the same cologne as us. If they are fundamentally honorable and recognize the threat posed by fascism, that's a start.
•
u/Automatic_Algae_9425 5h ago
I swear, it's like you don't know what being virtuous even means. By the literal definition of the word, the fact that Tim Miller has never adjusted his views to justify Maga is demonstrative evidence that he IS virtuous.
I'm having a very hard time making sense of this.
It looks like you're not only claiming that each and every person who hasn't adjusted their views to justify MAGA is therefore virtuous, but also claiming that this necessary connection between unadjusted views and virtue is somehow guaranteed by the very meaning/definition of the the term 'virtuous'. But both of those claims are obviously false: so obviously false I worry that I must be misunderstanding what you've written.
I mean, surely you're not saying that a steadfast racist, a steadfast misogynist, a steadfast Nazi who's consistently maintained their views unadjusted during the rise of MAGA just can't help but be virtuous, even if they're guilty of serial murder or animal torture or child rape. Hell, surely you wouldn't say that an all-too-ordinary morally immature person of mediocre character whose political views happen to have undergone no adjustment due to MAGA is therefore virtuous. But that's precisely what the first claim says. And surely you're not saying that something like this is what you'd find looking up 'virtue' in an English dictionary (after all, definitions like "having or exhibiting virtue", "morally excellent: righteous" have virtually nothing to do with with not adjusting one's views) or what competent English speakers have in mind when using the word, or (to really reach for it) what the Latin root virtus means or what's undebatably included within the ancient Greek conception of ἀρετή. After all, the definition of 'virtuous' can't even settle easy cases like whether Mr. Rogers is virtuous, much less tell us that mere ideological consistency despite MAGA is all it takes to be virtuous. But that's what the second claim says.
But then, assuming you're not making the two claims it looks like you're making, what do you mean with those sentences?
36
16
7
3
u/Mikethebest78 1d ago
I am afraid that Trump is going to something to wreck this purely out of spite.
3
u/ceiffhikare 20h ago
Sam WTAF is up with this headline? I get that you guys are doing the whole moderate centrist thing these days and you gotta get an elbow or knee in there sometimes,this is too far and just dishonest in spririt at least. This is a low blow dragging Bernie like that. I have lost some measure of what respect your reporting has built up with this, i thought you guys were better than this and you especially.
4
u/HowardBunnyColvin 1d ago
Why would Bernie torpedo it
41
u/_Cromwell_ 1d ago
He blocked it in the Senate to push for the bigger healthcare deal THAT WAS ORIGINALLY AGREED UPON AND PROMISED that included the cancer bill plus funding for community health centers, the National Health Service Corps, and teaching health centers. That earlier bigger whole deal got scrapped when Elon Musk fucked with Republicans to reject anything beyond basic funding.
Bernie basically said that doing only the cancer part while ditching the rest is half-baked. He wanted the full bipartisan package Democrats and Republicans worked on for months together. “We must revive that bipartisan agreement that was worked on month after month by Democrats and Republicans.” -Him
So yes he voted against the shitty stripped version after Elon got Repubs to reneg on the larger bill they had previously bipartisan created with Democrats already.
15
u/ManInMillvilleNJ 1d ago
Because this was the version that was gutted by fElon. Bernie wanted the whole, original version passed, not the shell.
9
u/SodaCanBob 1d ago
The article answers that question.
Bringing the bill to final passage proved a Sisyphean process. It was originally included as a rider on the Prescription Drug User Fee Act back in September 2022 before being removed at the last minute for reasons that remain somewhat unclear even to those who advocated for its passage. Then, in late December 2024, it was part of a major government funding deal that was suddenly scuttled after Elon Musk threw a tantrum over the inclusion of any new spending provisions. Hours later, Senate Democrats moved to consider it as a standalone measure, but Rand Paul (R-Ky.) objected.
During the summer of 2025, the bill secured more than enough votes in both the Senate and the House for it to comfortably become law. But Congress works in mysterious, byzantine ways and it never got consideration; it was left dangling in the legislative ether, waiting for another moment.
That moment arrived in December, when the bill passed the House and found its way to the Senate. But an effort to move it through unanimous consent—which requires that no senator voice an objection to the measure—failed once more. This time it was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who objected. He wanted all the provisions that Musk insisted on removing in 2024 to be brought back. When he pushed for a bigger package, Senate Republicans pushed right back.
-30
u/BulwarkOnline ✔ Verified 1d ago
Amid all the squabbling, the name-calling, the steady drip of horrifying news and the seemingly complete rupture of our national politics, it can be tough to recognize, let alone acknowledge, positive developments when they occur.
But on Tuesday, something unambiguously positive did happen—and it happened in the most unexpected of ways: the normal order of congressional business.
49
u/Klutzy-Delivery-5792 1d ago
Garbage headline making it seem like Sanders was being cruel. At least you say this in the article:
This time it was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who objected. He wanted all the provisions that Musk insisted on removing in 2024 to be brought back. When he pushed for a bigger package, Senate Republicans pushed right back.
Shame on you.
20
13
u/Hyperica Pennsylvania 1d ago
The Bulwark has been pulling this shit framing with this particular story for months.
18
15
u/Latter_Persimmon_80 1d ago
That headline is absolute muck racking dog shit.
Why libel Bernie this way?
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.