>

This is what governments are For
Driving down the cost of living should be a bedrock democrat priority. Necessities need to be cheaper. >

You can bet that at least Manchin will be one of the ones throwing a temper tantrum. >

"Daddy make them stop!" >

Sep 21, 2021 Manchin's daughter, Heather Bresch, was the president and chief executive officer of Mylan Inc ., a pharmaceutical company that specialized in generic drugs. The company raised the price of a two-pack of EpiPen from around $124 dollars in 2009 to $609 in 2016. >

And Manchin help push through making them mandatory in schools, at full price. >

Imagine if all of our politicians did their jobs and acted in the best interest of their constituents instead of betraying their offices by fucking over Americans, purely to continue stacking up their already considerable wealth.
The US has so much wealth, power, and resources; just imagine how much more prosperous all of our lives could be (99% of them anyways) be if our elected officials actually did their jobs and ran the all-time richest ever country for the people.
It’s a damn shame that the lack of a limit for greed is one of the main flaws of human psychology... we could’ve been such a more advanced, healthy civilization by now. >

sigh...we need a 4th branch to watch the congress, 5th branch to watch the supreme court, 6th branch to watch the president, because the three branches checks and balances are not working. >

IMHO, the biggest thing America is lacking is a free and well organized workforce (e.g. real unions, workers' owned news media, workers' NGOs and other associations, etc.). 
Because, in government and in the economy, they are the counterbalance to the elites, to corporations and to the ultra-wealthy. Without them, there's no checks-and-balances nor resistance on capitalism's path to "enslave" and corrupt everything and everybody.
In politics, they are to left wing parties, what capitalists are to right wing parties. Without them, left wing parties are severely weakened and tend to drift to the right. 
America's unions and workforce have been castrated, put in straitjackets, and stripped of their fundamental rights and freedoms (that several European countries take for granted, such as Denmark and other Nordic countries, Germany, France, and Switzerland).
And US population has been brainwashed into thinking of them as Satan's children. Thus, only 10% of the workforce is unionized (e.g. Denmark 67%, Sweden 65%, Iceland 91%) >

Until "Right to Work" and "Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission" are dealt with don't expect much.
Too many American families have been beat down to where two incomes are needed to stay afloat. Lose one income and the family is in dire financial straights.
With job protections being minimal and (for the most part) weak unions don't expect much until a significant percent decide they have nothing to lose. >

I agree for the most part.
However, for "Right to Work", it wouldn't be a problem, if unions were actually free, and had, at least, the same rights and freedoms as in Europe.
Because, there, unions are independent from all corporations and all branches. They are associations that you join outside of your company. They are active at industry and national levels. They negotiate directly with the government, political parties, and industry representatives to implement industry/nation wide regulations, that are binding to all companies (and certainly not at company, and even less at branch levels).
That's why, in Europe, companies, branches, and bosses don't care (and don't even know) if you're a member of a union or not. Because regulations affect equally all companies in an industry and/or in the country.
So, there are no incentives for union busting/suppression, nor any for "Right to Work" regulations on the other side of the pond. >

I fucking love public options, god fucking damn that shit is so hot.  
Let the private market exist, if we can't force their prices down with regulation then we can do it with competition.  
What citizen in California is going to look at $500 insulin produced on the private market and choose it over identical insulin produced publicly and sold for $50?  (I don't know if California will be able to produce at the same scale as the private market, so their costs to produce may be higher, limited manufacturing infrastructure and whatnot.)  
The private market looks at the results and says "Holy shit we just lost 85% of our sales in California!" and what does capitalism say comes next?  
Well in a perfect world big pharma invents Insulin 2: The Diabeatening, they sell their better product at a justifiable premium and they make back their profits.  
In a slightly less perfect world they'll respond by dropping their prices, some bean licker in accounting will do the math and determine that if they drop their prices down from $500 to $49.99 they can regain majority market share while continuing to make 300% margins on their product.  
Public options are dope, they provide an inexpensive alternative, they compete against the private market, they benefit existing customers and those in need alike, and they're a good way to leverage industry change; California can't exactly offer a better product, the best they can do is offer a better priced product, but when you think about a public healthcare option we could use that to provide better baseline benefits, then the private market has to keep up.  
I like what California is doing, they're using the capitalist market dynamics to ~~destroy~~ rein in the capitalism.  Lol, don't kill half of all insurance in the universe, just create more healthcare, duh. >

very well said, i completely agree with you. Now CA needs to use this model for the housing crisis. if we leave it to the tender mercies of real estate developers all we're going to get are million dollar lux condos. having the state and local governments own and operate housing is the only way to bring in competition and lower the over all costs. if the state can use eminent domain so expand airports they can use it to set aside land for housing as well. >

Housing projects already exist. They suck because maintenance isn't kept up on them. That's part of the problem.
There aren't enough construction workers. Contractors are shady losers who got too old to do construction. Building codes have become stricter but what schools are producing construction workers? >

in most places public housing is a private concern and the lack of upkeep is greed. this is why public housing actually needs to be owned and operated by the city. in most places Section 8 is how "public" housing is handled. and i agree with you completely, the people operating those buildings are almost to a person huge pieces of shit. there is a trade school in downtown LA cranking out electricians, plumbers and construction workers. it's free and students get a decent stipend.   
what would you suggest if this isn't it? cause we've been relying on private business for decades and here we are. if private enterprise was the answer we wouldn't be having this conversation. >

fingers crossed. if the city actually stays on top of them it might work, but given the problems a lot of my friends in the city are having just getting the heat turned on i'll wait and see how it goes before getting too excited. i still don't see why the city can't managed them as well. if a for profit company can afford to make a profit and still do repairs and staff the building it seems like the city could do it too, and cheaper.  it's almost like we've decided to let real estate developers make all the rules, and it's almost like we've decided we can't do anything with out them. trust me, these are not the best and brightest, but def the greediest and laziest. >

You posted 7 minutes after me. You didn't read the article.

In the case of Baychester, for example, NYCHA was spending $14,000 a year per apartment, pouring cash into deteriorating properties. The new managers are spending $9,000 per apartment. Their costs are lower because moldy, leaky buildings have been upgraded to meet current energy standards and they require less maintenance.

There's lazy and greedy city workers too. Especially the ones who didn't fix the mold. >

you're right, i haven't read it, yet. and of course there is enough blame to go around. >

If only there was some type of public .....healthcare....or something ??? >

You mean SOCIALISM???! >

Isn’t it a uniquely American paradox when unchecked capitalism causes the government to get into medicine production to solve basic human needs. >

Insulin shouldn’t be expensive. It’s free on the NHS here in the UK because it’s so important to diabetics >

Further to this, the UK government pays nowhere near what an uninsured American diabetic has to pay for the exact same medication. Take Apidra (insulin glulisine) for example. A box of 5 solostar pens costs 28.30GBP (34.14USD) to the UK government (source: bnf.nice.org.uk) while an american diabetic would pay upwards of 500USD and that's including a discount! (source goodrx.com). Make it make sense! >

Go, California. 
Leading the way -- again. >


Go, California.
Leading the way -- always

FTFY >

its a team effort. we can't do it alone >

The people who extort diabetics for their life savings literally belong in a gulag doing hard labor for the rest of their lives >

We are viewed as, “Lifelong patients for better management of diabetes,” in a vast majority of situations as opposed to, you know, very sick people who could use a cure.  Diabetes is funky because it’s mostly invisible unless it’s terribly controlled.  So unlike cancer and Alzheimer’s, people can shrug and point saying, “Well they didn’t take care of themselves,” when something bad happens.
It’s brutal and unfortunately where I think we are destined to be forever.  I long gave up on seeing a cure in my lifetime.  So did my great grandmother.  And my grandmother.  We are far too profitable for private companies to actually cure, with a ton of plausible deniability for people to blame us anytime something bad happens.  It’s sickening. >

And that could just be the start, next up: epipen! >

Colorado is in process of capping the cost at $60 for 2 pack. 😤 $35 out of pocket for insulin among ppl w Medicare.   
We are ahead of Cali 🥰 >

The States need to do like Europe and leverage the prices before they hit market.
And in Norway (at least) anything diabetes related is free of charge. Because healthy diabetics are much cheaper. >

As a life-long Californian, I’m proud to be part of a State which will forever be a thorn in the side of the dipshit GOP. >

Sad thing is as much as it’s a thorn in the side it also gave arguably the two worst GOP presidents in history. To this day we are trying to fix the problems that Nixon and Reagen created. >

The decisions Reagan made has Truly fucked the US.  Unbelievable how one president could really stick it to so many generations after he’s dead. >

Huh. California is the world's fifth largest economy, so they should be able to pull that off. And I'll bet they could sell to Washington and Oregon as well. >

Fourth largest, we recently surpassed Germany. >

There you go! Bayer on Pacific. >

Good shit, I hope a coalition of states can get together on making this something big. This could help so many people. The pharmaceutical industry can go fuck itself. >

State health care that ends up being cheaper might make people realize that single payer isn't such a bad idea after all. If you can get your meds as cheap as possible that's only a good thing. >

Ahh, the for-profit healthcare system that no other first world country is trying to copy! >

Governments should be producing ALL essential drugs with expired patents. >

Yup, if anyone doubts that CA can pull this off they’ve already created & run a semi-similar program quite successfully. 
The state of California essentially funded and created the cure for infantile botulism (and obtainable regardless of where you live.) It wasn’t financially lucrative for private companies to make this medicine. It was an orphan disease but babies were dying. California stepped in and now manufacturers the drug (called BabyBig) that’s saved over 2000+ infants to date.
I moved to CA about 2 years ago. In addition to having a very positive experience here, I’ve learned a lot about the state and have always found this a particularly interesting story. And additional props to the amazing CA doctor who started the program. >

yeah i have no idea how people paint california as some kind of weird dystopian high tax hellscape, taxes are single digit in my income bracket and the only downside is the state is toothless when it comes to dealing with the power companies because of regulatory capture, but at least the power doesn't go out >

It’s just due to conservatives not wanting to admit that liberal values and policies work. >

And you liberals ignore the homeless and crime problems in your cities. >

Homelessness is not just a liberal issue, it’s an America issue. Crime rates tend to be higher in Republican led states. >

Just watch. The drug companies and dialysis centers will put a public initiative to go against this on the ballot and the dumb voters will vote for it using whatever marketing campaign the corporations try to push that focus groups well. >

Peak capitalism when purchasers end up making stuff themselves because it is cheaper. >

It's almost like allowing the free market to handle things that people to live is impractical and immoral, allowing corporate interests to profit off the suffering of those in need or something. >

Naah.  It's the "WoKE MinD viRUs" that is the problem.
Source: World's smartest man, inventor of the car, rockets, tunnels and telecommunications. >

imagine if there was a public healthcare system that could use national purchasing power to negotiate with drug manufacturers to obtain the best price for everyone >

America isn’t a country it’s a business >

We need more of this.  I hope California creates its own single payer health care system for everyone.  It's time to bankrupt the evil health insurance companies that profit from death and suffering. >

It's almost like it's a good idea to nationalize some infrastructure, and tie it's production to what's needed instead of propping up rigged markets. >

Thanks Republicans for thwarting the $35 price cap outside Medicare, gotta protect that big pharma profit margin /s >

But it's the democrats that ruin your life and keep you from having anything nice,  Tucker said so on Faux News >


There are few better emblems of the failures of the US system of medical care than its inability to consistently provide insulin to Americans who need it.
The inventors recognized the significance of their discovery and sold the patent for insulin to the University of Toronto for $1, with the hope of making it as easily available as possible. 

This situation is the pharmacy companies laughing, sneering at the rest of us. Even the FDA has been corrupted. >

It’s known as regulatory capture >

Literally ALL medicine should be public. Private medicine is immoral, monopolistic, and only encourages sky rocketing prices for CEO salaries. Consumer be damned. It was never about curing sick people. This country is so dumb. >

I think there are several groups trying to reverse engineer insulin and make the process available for anyone to make their own. Open insulin today!! >

Insulin is cheap and easy to make. Most of the "cost" is the proprietary delivery system of the syringe pens. Those are also cheap and easy to make, but competition creating a pen at a reasonably priced rate has huge upfront costs to getting FDA approval, so we're stuck with the few companies who already paid those costs and made their money back a million fold. And because big pharma runs the medical system, the US govt refuses to cap their profits the same way every other country does to the detriment of the american people. Diabetics lose life and limb for grotesque profit margins. >

Wife is a nurse they have to tell diabetics to utilize methadone clinics >

They let you trade in needles for clean ones >

Yep, Diabetics are being overcharged and forced to ration insulin, needles, testing strips, etc. Often cheaper to buy the supplies you need online, but then that's a medical expense that isn't going through your insurance so isn't being counted towards your deductible, so you end up paying that money to your insurance anyway. Not to mention the gamble that is funding your FSA. >

now do all the other drugs
and the healthcare system >

Gas and internet and all my other utilities are super expensive too! Let's develop a public option to force the private sector to lower costs and actually offer consumers quality service at a competitive cost! >

Every other country also has a solution, but good job California. >

You know the system is broken when it’s easier to make your own from the ground up than to force an existing company to charge an ethical price. >

Almost like we should have a public alternative for lots of things we need that are monopolized. Utility services, internet access, healthcare…. 🤔 >

Curious how corporate media will convince its herd this is a terrible idea. >

Is insulin not capped at 35$ I thought that was in inflation reduction act. >

Nope, Republicans voted against it. >

Damn that’s really upsetting. Thanks for the heads up >

No problem. It really sucks. I don’t even know anything that is insulin dependent, but there is no excuse for something medically necessary and cheap to produce to be sold for such a ridiculous markup.
I just try to keep people informed on things like that when I can. Wherever people are politically, it’s messed up. >

All insulin products are not identical actually.  Basically, there are ways to make it last longer in the body or act in certain ways so that you aren't injecting yourself every hour.  That all takes R&D.  That's why there are like a dozen different insulins in the market.  
Still doesn't justify being that expensive as they are though. >


All insulin products are not identical actually. 

Thank you for this and your entire comment. At my former job, our insurance switched fast-acting insulin every year depending on the deal they could get. It always took several weeks to adjust between the two.
When they switch both long- and fast-acting insulin, I balked. I had no idea how long it was going to take for my body to adjust. Fortunately, I only had to deal with it for six months until I switched companies. So far, my new insurance company hasn't fucked around like that it. >

the simple fact that you could only get a specific version and not whatever worked best for you per your doctor's orders is bullshit on its face let alone changing them regularly >

I agree. In one of those instances of change, my doctor even jumped through the hoops for me with the bullshit paperwork explaining why I needed X and not Y. Insurance said tough shit. >

Oh how republican brain gears will turn to not have this look like sociolisim when their states does this. >

Republicans will make sure their states don’t do this. They wouldn’t even expand Medicaid. >

Maybe we can get a ban on pill ads like they did with cig ads. I don’t think they should be able to sell opioids or habit inducing pills through ads. >

Europe figured this out long ago. All medical anything should be provided for by the government. Quit pissing away our public tax dollars to fund and repair private companies and country clubs. A military is provided for your protection and theirs healthcare and education should fall into same category.  I dont wanna hear shit about socialism, corporate bailouts isnt capitalism, PPP loans isnt capitalism if you want true Capitalism all those businesses should be allowed to sink because they weren't strong enough to swim on their own...the public had to throw them a life jacket. If we can spend billions on one fucking airplane and 6000 dollars for the hammer to build the airplane, and  billions in PPP loans, FORGIVEN, for the company that made the 6000 dollar hammer... then we can afford to provide healthcare and education to our citizens. >

How pleasantly ironic that "free market" capitalism is forcing a socialist response to greed. >

FDA approval should come with license for government manufacturing when there are no competing substitute drugs. >

This is an old story which keeps popping up on Reddit . I’m happy that California is planning to do this but note that the insulin they plan to make isn’t that expensive to start with. In fact lots of insulin isn’t expensive, it’s the insurance that is. Regular Insulin is actually pretty cheap in the US too. You can get it for $35/vial without insurance. But back to the underlying problem: The pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to reduce the price for the fancier insulin when insurance pays for it and 93% of Americans have insurance. Push for insurance reform, with maximum out of pocket costs capped for life preserving drugs and free insulin to uninsured. Like if I don’t take my blood pressure medication nothing happens. If a diabetic doesn’t take their insulin they die . Should be zero copay for that kind of thing. 
All that said, this is a tiny tiny problem which really only affects the 50,000 uninsured type 1 diabetics in the US. If you have no medical insurance and you have T1DM you are fucked in many ways. >

America discovering public healthcare and the wonders of democratic socialism, at last. >

The army is way ahead of you. In fact about half of all health related drugs are developed by the US government, then by law are given free to big Parma to charge you for them. >

Go on America, you've almost got it, you're so close. >

insulin should be free.... 😑😑
As a diabetic, life saving medicine that millions use shouldn't cost us an arm and a leg... >

Make all the medicines and ban the greedy pharmaceutical companies. >

Be careful what you wish. The government already runs a major medical system.  It's called the VA hospitals. >

Or do like in most developped country with a healthcare system and fix prices on meds. >

Well, when the drug cartels are competing with Big Pharma because the profits are so good.. yeah, it's probably time for public medicine. >

I hope they sell it all over the nation and it undercuts the high price now. >

In a country where, privatized healthcare, big business and cutthroat capitalism are held in high regard having individual states and or some sort of alliance of said states willing to take on the task of making or organizing anything close to affordable is the only way to get things done.  Barring elected officials shooting down the attempt it can have many positive benefits. >

California once again making efforts to become it's own country >

But but but... that's Socialism and that's bad!!!! 
"Unless I need it then it's good and not socialism, but even if I need it and use the scheme I'll still vote for the party that opposes it and vows to get rid of the programme, you know, to own the libs" >

I can almost hear MTG yelling “SOCIALISM!!!” From here. >

Cue pharma companies suing California to stop it producing insulin, and Republican politicians suddenly up in arms over government competition with private companies.
It'll be the same model they take to what they do when municipalities try to offer a public internet option. Get draft legislation into the hands of politicians who will introduce it for a vote. >

Are you implying COMMUNISM, California? /s >

The only reason there's a cost crisis on anything medical in this country is because of unchecked corporate greed. It should be a capital crime to price gouge life saving drugs, but we live under a government of the oligarchy, by the oligarchy, for the oligarchy and they aren't going to do anything that's in the best interests of the citizens. >

Wait till you read about covid vac record profits and 1000% markup for it in 2023 >

What’s worse is that we knew they were going to do that, they assured us they wouldn’t, and then they did it, but no one was surprised. Completely predictable behavior. >

Great idea! Now let's take it just a couple steps further and do Medicare for all. >

How in the world does that not automatically bring up the idea to go all the way with universal public healthcare? 
It's just bandaid after bandaid with US healthcare, instead of simply starting over with a system focussed on people's health first, profits second. >

A noble effort, but which type of insulin can/will they make? 
Many do not realize that there is a wide array of insulins. They have different speeds of onset and lengths they remain active. Some are short acting and meant to be taken right before.after eating. Others are long acting and meant to provide a baseline dose through the day. Many people with type 1 use two insulins. Or they use a pump that provides a slow drip and blouses throughout the day. 
My point is, if they can only produce basic insulin (the type we discovered first) it may not be as useful to many diabetics as moser regimens can be complex. >

Do people who work for pharmaceutical companies just truly have no souls? I mean, their business model literally preys on the weak, on the ill and disabled. How evil do you have to be do sit around working out the math to steal from sick people? To make presentations and formulate strategies to squeeze even more money out of people who are dying, you truly have to be a massive piece of shit. >

Morality has never tied to profits with these companies >

Aaaagggh noooo, the horrors of socialism in action! >

You just know, in your heart-of-hearts, Republicans are gonna try and block this from succeeding. >

All essential medicines should be publicly produced >

So, what will House Republicans try to do to thwart this? >

Weird thing they got wrong, the article says it costs Eli lily $10/dose to manufacture, but they need to say per vial, which is MANY doses >

is this how we move to public healthacare? im down, but it seems like the slowest way. >

Just imagine.. a fascist America in 50 years (akin to Germany in the 30/40’s or Russia right now). The world would be in some serious troubles if the US started to want to gobble up smaller places for themselves. >

Conservative stares like Florida are busy banning books and persecuting teachers. Texas is busy making legal Asian immigrants the enemy. Meanwhile, liberal states like California are busy trying to solve real problems. The contrast is clear. >

And those old evil fucks will do everything in their power to stop it >

Given the life saving quality of this drug, there should be zero cost to access it. The fact that is costs anything shows the failure of a profit over people health care system. >

This is fucking dumb as hell. The federal government should do this. Not the states >

Allowing for-profit corporations to control life-saving medications inevitably leads to the following conversation:
Corporation: "Are you willing to pay $100 / year to not die?"
Human being: "Yes."
Corporation: "Great! How about $1000 to not die?"
Human being: "Ok."
Corporation: "How about all your money to not die? Tis a bargain!"
Human being: "As if I have a choice. You win." >

Love Cali >

I am sorry but the fact it took so long for the states to start looking to this is fucking disgusting. >

Idiots scream socialism everytime someone tries to take lead. Then you get what is the texas power grid >

Anything to avoid proper public healthcare. >

Well this is a step in that direction at least >

at this point just post the recipe online lol >

Capitalists:  "But muh intellectual property..." >

No one is running away with other people's IP here.   
Incidentally; The insulin itself isn't very expensive or hard to make. It's the more modern delivery methods that are the expensive parts. >

The government? Making cheap medications for the people?! That's dangerously socialist! /s >

Hey now, we recently publicly denounced that kind of thing, that's a minus to your social credit score. >

The question is how much can the state keep up with the latest formulation? And would Californians be ok w a 20 year old formulation if it meant the price were affordable? For ex if you had to take it 4x a day instead of 1x a day. >

Modern insulin was developed in 1999. This is not a problem. >

I'm sure the hospitals will still try to charge the full rate despite it's cheapness. They want $10 for a Tylenol. >

Stop subcontracting out every facet of American life, I support >

California should just cre as their own healthcare system and out the insurance agencies. >

I get that companies need to make a profit to stay in business and that drug development is an expensive and risky investment. However, when you are producing a very basic and wide known formulation of a drug, it shouldn't be your go-to money maker. Not one that has been developed awhile back and the investment cost recuperated long ago.
The drug companies brought this upon themselves. If they weren't so greedy with something that is so life-saving and universally needed, they could have just made a decent profit and not have government intervention. But instead, they drove the price up so high that it required a state from a nation built on capitalism to step in.
That's saying something. >


Howecer, when you are producing a very basic and wide known formulation of a drug, it shouldn't be your go-to money maker. Not one that has been developed awhile back and the envestment cost recuperated long ago.

That version of insulin is already dirt cheap. >

Yes, but the below excerpt makes my point:
The main mechanism the US has for bringing down prescription drug prices is allowing generic drugs to compete with brand-name versions. When a company develops a new drug, it gets a period of exclusivity, 10 years or more, in which it is the only one able to make or sell that drug. But after that exclusivity period has passed, other companies can make a carbon copy and sell it at a lower price. Studies find that once several generic competitors come on the market, prices drop significantly.
But pharma companies are savvy about finding ways to extend their monopolies, with insulin and other drugs, by making minor tweaks to the chemical compound and asking for a patent extension. In the case of insulin, the companies can also modify the delivery device to protect their market share. Each product is meant to be used with specific, company-designed injectors. Though the patents on the artificial insulin developed in the 1990s have started expiring, these companies continue to hold and extend monopolies on either their devices or other chemical compounds, making it harder for generic competitors to enter the market. >

None of that applies to the basic and widely known formulation of insulin, which has been made since the 1920s. >

But . But. . . That's socialism! >

The cheap insulin the rest of the world uses is illegal to import because of the FDA. >

“way too expensive”
they could import it, and pay related fees, and get it in market way cheaper than the average US price >

So red states can charge higher prices for state made insulin? 
This isn’t the fucking answer- universal healthcare is always the answer. 
This is great for people in California but literally does nothing for the rest of the poor diabetics forced to pay outrageous prices for life saving medication everywhere else in the country. >

Or you know we could provide legislation to prevent this kind of gouging. >

Walmart already sells Novolin N (medium acting) and R (fast acting) insulin for $25/vial without a prescription (no insurance needed). The issue is that it is old school insulin with pretty large peaks and valleys requiring pretty constant care to avoid hyper/hypos. Unless they are going to provide a newer version, what exactly is California hoping to help? This reeks of grandstanding to me by politicians that don't know what the fuck they are talking about. >

Hasn’t Mark Cuban been doing this? >

Insulin is a biologic product, so he doesn't carry it, or any others yet. He is working on it. But shout out to Biden for capping it at $35 for Seniors and to Mark Cuban, because he has saved my mother in law hundreds of dollars a year, and they were needed dollars. >


shout out to Biden

r/darkBRANDON strikes again!!!😱 >

Why didn’t they do this 20 years ago? >

It costs $10 to make before you amortize the time and cost of the facilities needed to make it. Which California is going to figure out in the next few years. >

Can we not just make a law that states that a person who is out of a job gets it free, and anyone working, a medication cannot be more than a hundredth their wage? >

I really want to start a company for stuff like this across multiple industries. >

I wonder how long it will take for private suppliers to change their tune once they realize they are being cut out. >

Government healthcare should be expanded, universal healthcare the ultimate goal. It's an issue that many people in society are distrustful and feel alienated by the government without understanding the intended purpose of it, which is to keep society in control and provide for the people living on it. >

r/aboringdystopia >

bout ready to do the same for my adderall scripts / never ending shortage >

If anyone is interested. Why is insulin overpriced >

Jesus fucking christ. Stop letting people die, government. What the fuck do we pay taxes for if you're just using all of the money for made up social issues and fake outrage? Just give people life saving medications and shut the fuck up. Why are we governed by such pussies? Nut up or shut up at this point. I'm tired of each side virtue signaling and doing fuck all when they are in power. I swear to God! Make me God emperor for a day and I'd make each person's life better whether they like it or not. You God damned panzies are too afraid of a Jetsons future for no reason at all. >

Yeah.
I’m pretty frustrated too. 
General welfare clause is right there in the constitution, we agreed to be governed in exchange for certain things. >

6 years later a republican government will sell this to a private entity for peanuts and you will be back to square one >

While I'm a general fan and supporter of capitalism, applying it's values to something like health care is blatantly greedy and inhumane. >

Wonder why this doesn’t happen in other states of the US and in a lot of other medical contexts. 
If people come together like in a credit union or cooperative, health can become affordable in the long run. >

My stupid state (stupid Governor) won’t even accept the Medicaid expansion. They don’t want us to have access to any type of healthcare here. >

Ah, yes! The good greed, we all heard so much about. >

Conservative Supreme Courts have always determined that capitalism is written into the constitution, so this is going to get challenged as the state interfering with a business' ability to make money. 
It's why we don't have a national oil company or national train service. They'll say that the government can't push private business out of the market. 
Hopefully California can stave off a lawsuit for as long as possible. >

Yes!  California, go for it. >

Wouldn’t buying it from any place where it is cheaper, i. e. any place other than the US, be even more efficient? >

Will pharma companies sue the government into submission? Let's find out >

If the market can’t handle competition maybe it’s not a healthy market? >

I hate how they just say “insulin”. There are several different types. If they’re producing your typical quick acting lispro, that’s only $25 a bottle at Walmart. The problem with that is it can be difficult to get the dose right for brittle diabetics and might not control the blood sugar adequately. What is expensive is the long acting I insulins that control throughout the day. Those can be $500 a bottle. I hope that is what California is intending to produce. >

Exactly what red states want. Smaller government so they can fuck over their constituents. >

I put more hope in the group that is  trying to produce generics of high price drugs than I do in the state of California being able to produce its own medicine. >

I'm going to say it: California is the fifth largest economy in the world. >

The fact that congress could deny the federal government the right to pursue this kind of policy on a country level is batshit crazy. >

Surprise suprise, how no decent public healthcare leads to stuff like this which in the long run, policy after policy, makes public spending on healthcare higher than in countries where public healthcare is run normally