225
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
225 points (92.8% liked)
politics
18129 readers
3632 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I looked this shit up.
From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/08/gavin-newsom-california-insulin-bill-35-dollar-cap which is a better article than the AP one,
So there's a state backed insulin manufacturer he thinks will drive down prices. He thinks if you were to force insurance companies to bring down the price of insulin then they'd push the price back into consumers through higher costs elsewhere.
The article pointed out that his excuse is weak:
Why is that an excuse to begin with? Less of an excuse and more or a reason.
The reason is simple. The price of the insulin from the insurance companies is capped at 35 for a 30 day supply.
So they will just increase the price of their insurance and nothing has changed.
The article could just as well speculate that this relief will be shortlived and only last for 1 month until they raise the cost in other ways
No, the diabetics get it cheaper and the rest of us pay a few extra cents. Exactly how insurance works.
The solution, isn't to shift the problem to insurance companies that will shift right back to consumers. Surely you don't need to be reminded how these insurance companies treat those with "Existing conditions"?
This isn't a good solution. The good solution, is for insulin to not be that expensive in the first place that you need an insurance company to finance it for you. Which California is working towards with their state-sponsored production.
How do you not see the hypocrisy of forcing a cap on the insurance companies, rather than the producers?
If you want to go the insurance route, diabetics shouldn't have pay a god damn cent for insulin if they have insurance. Then, you can talk about everyone paying "a few extra cents"
I agree diabetics shouldn't have to pay for their insulin. Let's do that and pay a few extra cents.
The insurance route isn't going to lead you there. And not for a few extra cents either. The cost will primarily be past down on those with diabetes increasing their premiums more than others.
The insurance companies are the entire reason why medical bills are so expensive in the first place. They are not the solution. They are the problem.
If the prices are gonna drop below $35 for everyone under Newsom's plan, what's the problem with a cap? Insurers are going to gouge everyone as much as possible as often as possible under all circumstances. Insulin people can afford won't change that.
This sounds like the "If we raise the minimum wage, prices will skyrocket" argument. Prices skyrocket whether we raise wages or not.
The cap here was on copay, not cap on cost of the drug. They'd still be directly overcharging people for it.
"...prices are gonna drop..." that section is the problem - "are gonna drop" is not "have now dropped". People literally die in the meantime, however hoping that will be (and that's if the state-backed medication is ever actually produced at scale).
Don't think you'd be in the "what's the problem?" camp if it were you or your grandma that needed that insulin.
Did you read the whole comment you replied to?
Since this made me curious I looked up whether they'll offer lispro. Looks like they will, they're starting with three insulins: glargine, lispro, and aspart.
Source: https://www.otcbiotech.com/california-takes-steps-for-safer-more-affordable-insulin-with-civica-rx-partnership/
Are those good or just okay? I have a family member with T1 and it wreaks havoc on their finances. Feels bad.
They’re good, they’re the common ones used. There’s better than humalog and novolog for fast acting now but the better stuff has only been out for a few years. So it’s not extremely old and risky to use like the cheap insulin you can get at Walmart.
Thank you for the good summation.