California governor vetoes bill that would have set a $35 cap for insulin
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
> The California governor, a Democrat, said earlier this year that the state would soon start making its own brand of insulin. California has a $50m contract with the non-profit pharmaceutical company Civica Rx to manufacture the insulin under the brand CalRx. The state would sell a 10-milliliter vial of insulin for $30.
> “With CalRx, we are getting at the underlying cost, which is the true sustainable solution to high-cost pharmaceuticals,” Newsom wrote in a message explaining why he vetoed the bill on Saturday. “With co-pay caps however, the long-term costs are still passed down to consumers through higher premiums from health plans.”
Sometimes things are good.
> Headquarters: Lehi, UT
The perennial issue is big promises, total shit delivery, way over budget and late - if ever. Regardless of where the subcontractor lives. They’ve already been talking about the insulin plan for several years.
But hey, maybe 2024 is the new promise.
Have you heard about our ‘high speed rail’ project, for instance? It isn’t even high speed anymore!
Yeah, I’m done here, later.
If you provided a link showing that some of its leadership had a history of corruption, that would be one thing, but instead we got an unsourced quip about "California nonprofits."
Comparing to the cost paid per dose of COVID vaccines 30$ insulin is easily achievable.
Those things were custom, but NASA saved a great deal of money going with an existing supplier of giant rocket engines who had already been working in scaling up their designs.
Of course, they don't produce their own microchips for all the electronic stuff in cars these days, and I suppose you could say those are more complex, but back in the 60s when the Saturn V was made, the engines were probably the most complex things in cars.
Most major car companies did and do manufacture engines in house, but it’s common to find some outsourced engines and various joint ventures used by automotive manufacturers.
Some 1960’s examples Lotus Seven S2, Marcos 1500 GT, Otosan Anadol, TVR Grantura, all used Ford engines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Kent_engine
Heavy-duty trucks and aircraft are very different situations.
Rockets following the aircraft approach of 3rd party engines is fairly common. Many Atlas rockets using the RD-180 engines comes to mind.
It would be easier to just import it from the border, either Mexico or Canada.
Goalposts, rocket mode, launch!
Seems like the right solution is to increase supply right here.
Diabetics die very quickly without insulin.
The government's definition of "soon" is probably not the same as the electorate's definition of soon.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...
I just can't figure this guy out, but he's such a political animal I can't believe any of these have anything to do with any sort of principles on his side.
Creeps me out every time I see Newsom smile because I believe he is truly a literal psychopath.
It's pretty obvious he wants to run for President, so moving a bit to the right as opposed to what he'd do for a purely California political position makes sense.
I remember as a kid being into feminine things and I couldn't imagine today the pressures on kids to start identifying as a different gender that would come from teachers and other "care givers" in our school system.
I'm also against the people who say that parents shouldn't be notified if a kid is talking to a counselor about identifying as a different gender. I suspect said counselor would push the child in the different direction in order to be a "hero" - it's such a shame that we're doing this to our children while other similar countries (in Europe where they aren't doing crazy stuff) are clearly looking on at us with pity.
Recently I've watched as Bill Maher has taken up the mantle of rejecting this idea as liberalism and I've been happy to see a prominent(-ish) face doing so without fear of "cancellation" or being called bigoted or risking getting fired.
turns out
Letting someone else tell who you are is - generally speaking - a Bad Thing.
And, turns out
If you’re telling someone who you are, and they say “No, you’re not that” - well, that’s generally an even worse thing.
Plus, denying autonomy - and I’ll go out in a serious limb here - IMHO is pretty antithetical to “home of the free”.
I cannot rightly comprehend the ignorance of history that would engender such an utterance.
I do not think that this statement is sufficiently genuine to require refutation. Reflection would be more appropriate: perhaps this should be sought in the replacement of the word “children” with any subjugated group, from “women” to “black people” to “Sicilians” to “Irish” to “<any First Nations people> to…
—-
People deserve the support of their families and communities in their self-actualization, and while of course that looks different for children, if you’re the kind of person that doesn’t look at kids as people then I wouldn’t be surprised to find you’re the kind of parent that finds themselves cut out of the lives of their kids as soon as they’re able.
Sure, I give my kid some autonomy. I let him choose what he wants for breakfast in the morning, for example. But the deck was stacked against him. If he had actual autonomy the pantry would be nothing but candy and cookies. But I've already decided, and removed that autonomic choices from him. I guess I'm a bad parent for not letting him have free reign at the grocery store, letting him fully choose what he'll have every meal.
> perhaps this should be sought in the replacement of the word “children” with any subjugated group, from “women” to “black people” to “Sicilians” to “Irish” to “<any First Nations people> to…
Ok let me try your logic.
Children should not be allowed to work. Women should not be allowed to work. Oof, not good. Well I guess child labor is back.
I could go on and on. Maybe this rule doesn't make nearly as much sense as you think it does.
> I cannot rightly comprehend the ignorance of history that would engender such an utterance.
Yeah, I can't comprehend you suggesting the above logic as the right way to determine if a child should have autonomy or not.
It sounds like the law would have given more rights to children who’s parents refuse to accept their child’s gender expression.
To me, ‘parental rights’ could often be more aptly named ‘child ownership.’
A parent's job is to raise their child well, to keep them safe, healthy and morally grounded so they can develop into good human adults. Their job isn't to sit on the sidelines and let the state make decisions in these arbitrary situations. Otherwise the only "child ownership" will be the State owning our children, in the long run.
“Democratic California lawmakers have approved a bill that would instruct courts to consider, among many other factors, whether a parent affirms a child’s gender identity when making custody and visitation decisions.”
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/fact-focus-cri...
Why am I against this? It is against parental rights. It takes away the rights of a parent to name their child and raise them as they see fit, and hands it to the state.
I won't even get into what happens with children experiencing gender dysphoria and how the mental health profession is (mis)handling the vast majority of these by affirming the child's dysphoria, and the pressure parents receive that if they do not affirm their child's desire to transition they are putting them at mortal risk.
I don't agree with any of this for children who cannot consent to any other things, legally, until they reach the age of majority. Once they do, it's up to them how to live their lives (with, or without, their parents' support). Nor is this to say I do not believe children have rights, but I see what these family courts do and in a lot of cases how biased they are, I do not think anything good would come of this law pure and simple.
Also, there's no practical difference between an actual shortage and a price rising so high that many people can't afford it, like it's already the case with insulin[1].
[1]: https://www.hrw.org/report/2022/04/12/if-im-out-insulin-im-g...
i.e. No matter your opinions, make your best case for why this is a good idea.
See also: strawman
And there are great reasons not to 'steelman.'
https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/against-steel...
One reason I can think of is that a law might be more politically "durable" than a contract with a third party to produce insulin. But on the whole I think I'd rather one less law.
Costs over that are passed on to the consumer via higher premiums.
The CalRx is $30 total.
I think insulin specifically and medicines/drugs in general might be another area that CA leads the country in modeling how to manage prices and overall cost.
This is—in theory at least—more effective, since it forces pharmaceutical companies to compete on price. And if they don't, Californians still have access to a source of cheap insulin.
Also, insurers would have incentives to mandate the $30 version since it means lower cost on their side and they don't even have to reflect that in insurance premiums (which they don't since they're competing with each other).
But 95% of the time, your doctor writes a scrip, your pharmacy fills the scrip, and if the sticker price is “reasonable” you pay and walk out.
Executives wanted a larger bonus while lacking the ability to otherwise meet unreasonable “infinite growth” demands of the market.
Giving Medicare prescription negotiating authority and requiring that that be the maximum retail price would be the answer.
What will be interesting is if another Democrat starts running/not-running. Then you'll know it's on.
It's too bad Democrats have such a terrible time finding candidates with some charisma and likability; Obama's election should have taught them a lesson here, but it seems they never learned it.
it's opinion. I don't need any BS "citations."
On the good side, you're free to state your own.
So it's a BS opinion, got it.
This was proposed by republicans to help save their pharma buddies from losing a ton of business in california to the state contracted insulin. If the cap went into effect there is no reason for people to switch to the state funded insulin.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/29/walmart-unveils-low-price-an...
While we should do more to improve insulin affordability, the pricing is a bit of a distraction from the core issue. While type-1 diabetics will always need some exogenous insulin, the majority of diabetics are type-2. And research has shown that the majority of those patients can put the disease into remission with lifestyle changes. That is where governments should be focusing.
Beyond that, there's an easy way to guide analysis of what appear to be excessive costs in any market: find out where government force has screwed it up. It will always be the cause.
Yeah they’ve invented newer more expensive types of insulin that better control blood sugar, and they are continuing to invent newer types that are even better. Which I think is great and allowing there to be a financial incentive to create new and better insulins.