• Chunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    152
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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,

    “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.”

    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.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The article pointed out that his excuse is weak:

      tens of thousands of diabetic Californians trapped in the terrible choice between buying insulin and buying food.”

      “This is a missed opportunity that will force them to wait months or years for relief from the skyrocketing costs of medical care when they could have had it immediately,” Wiener said in a news release.

      • Atomic
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          and nothing has changed

          No, the diabetics get it cheaper and the rest of us pay a few extra cents. Exactly how insurance works.

          • Atomic
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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”

              • Atomic
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ripcord@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The cap here was on copay, not cap on cost of the drug. They’d still be directly overcharging people for it.

      • Snapz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        “…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.

      • Chunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are those good or just okay? I have a family member with T1 and it wreaks havoc on their finances. Feels bad.

        • SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          these biologics are expected to be interchangeable with Lantus, Humalog, and Novolog respectively

          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.