But you definitely can find BS things similar to the one from the social security topic.

"President @realDonaldTrump has done more to lower medicine prices than any President in history!" (unsurprisingly it's hyperbolic and almost completely lacking any truth or evidence; the evidence points to an opposite result)

I'm not going to dig thru the pile to prove you wrong. But you're wrong.

Edit: Ok, I just have to add this gem. "This Administration is "tackling longstanding problems that no other Administration had the guts to do," @SeemaCMS says."

That period was just chock full of useless tweets or outright false tweets.

The one thing I'm aware of on this topic is the cost of insulin, which he did lower in 2020: https://nypost.com/2020/05/26/trump-cuts-cost-of-insulin-for...

When most people think of “lowering the price of insulin”, they would not think “increasing subsidies to a select group of the country, that happens to vote heavily, and heavily for the administration’s party”.

Also, the insulin price cap was for older, cheaper forms of insulin. The modern ones are still more expensive. Hence, anytime a politician touts doing something about insulin prices without specifying “all insulin”, I assume they are BSing.

It is always possible to spin anything negatively, but it might be worth considering why you're putting in this much effort.

Most importantly, it avoids politicians having to address the root problem, which is the lack of taxpayer funded R&D into medicine that would be in the public domain, hence not subject to the high prices of patented medicine. And of course, this helps the businesses that patent medicines.

It is also ridiculous to me how much more my country prioritizes the elderly over children, who are literally the future.

Doing things for some groups is not the same as pitting groups against each other.

> works against efforts to redistribute wealth for all

You can only steal and reallocate money, not wealth. This will destroy wealth for all.

> the lack of taxpayer funded R&D into medicine that would be in the public domain, hence not subject to the high prices of patented medicine.

Plenty of R&D is at least partially taxpayer funded, but you're underestimating the total amount of R&D (including the cost of completely failed ideas) that goes into drug discovery. Deciding taxpayers should fund the sum total of pharma R&D, and presumably also the production costs, as those would've been funded by the patent-protected profits, seems strange on the face of it.

> how much more my country prioritizes the elderly over children

The elderly aren't always prioritised. But with health, they, along with newborns and pregnant mums, are some of the naturally most at-risk people in your population.

> literally

Sigh.