Hacker News Reader

Comment by olalonde | Hacker News Reader

Cheap insulin already exists right over the border and it's government that is in the way. I wonder why they don't start there instead of elaborate government manufactured insulin plans or price controls.

View on HN

Agreed, there is no excuse to veto this just because some future project could potentially alleviate it later. Bring relief now.

There is an excuse. Political capital. It's not an excuse that is compelling, but this is Newsom. He's a Democrat that is trying to hold on to power for as long as he can, however he can.

He wants to run for president in 2028, not hold on to power.

Your comment makes no sense to me. It just doesn't track. Either he can parlay with pharma and point to how he kicked the bill, or he has to make excuses for not kicking the bill (regardless if he runs 2028 or not). It's political capital. It's power.

The point is that in the run up to the 2028 presidential campaign, Newsom isn't going to take any major actions which might alienate large swing voting blocs or major campaign donors (such as pharmaceutical companies). Unfortunately, low-income insulin dependant diabetics aren't a major political factor so regardless of what Newsom says in public, their needs aren't a priority for him.

Perhaps not solving the problem simply by allowing mexican medication, like New York doesn't simply solve pharmaceutical prices by importing Canadian drugs and keeping drug prices high in the present with promises of future fixes is a form of parlaying with Pharmaceutical companies

Good thing that’s not why it was vetoed.

You're missing the point. The insulin is the point. And the insulin is still expensive.

It would be easier to just import it from the border, either Mexico or Canada.

Ha. So lie and then when called on the lie, presume the person who called out the lie is “missing the point”.

Goalposts, rocket mode, launch!

Is the insulin cheaper now? No.

Sorry am I missing something here. If the cheap insulin across the border got the full brunt of American demand, it would obviously not remain abundant for that country. Even if this country (canada?) had price controls in place that would be no use to factories with a set supply.

Seems like the right solution is to increase supply right here.

You understand that production can be scaled up right?

Arbitrarily? To how much? When building the factories do we know if Canada had accounted for servicing the American market (just the California market would be a 100% increase)

What's your point?

Americans got to Mexico for cheap insulin. Sometimes they get murdered for their troubles so that's a downside.

Crazy that people risk their life to save a couple bucks

Crazy that people who can't survive without insulin, food, and rent money see the risk of dying from violence as less than the risk of dying from poverty.

Crazy that people without a few bucks have to risk their lives to save their lives.

Diabetics die very quickly without insulin.

Either die for sure from lack of insulin, or have a chance of not dying by crossing the border. The math checks out

What would most likely happen is that insulin factories would scale up production and price would go down in the long term (economies of scale and increased competition). That's what free trade pretty much always does to prices.

Which is exactly what the California government funded? Just in Utah via a non-profit. Seems like a win-win.

What is the mechanism? They're California state authorities not Federal authorities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com