3 ms·

The state of California is simply another entity in the market. As long as they don't use illegal means to establish market position (i.e., coercion, etc.), the

The state of California is simply another entity in the market. As long as they don't use illegal means to establish market position (i.e., coercion, etc.), there are no laws against them competing with private markets. And in this particular case, the reason that California is jumping into the market is because the private merchants have artificially increased prices to pad their profits and pay their executives, at the expense of thousands of people who are now struggling to afford an essential (and a historically ridiculously cheap) medication.

braingenious 4y ago
If you’re referring to financial cost, it’s not at the expense of thousands, it’s at the expense of millions of diabetics in the US. (1) (2) Unless of course you mean the expense of thousands of dead or permanently disabled diabetics, that is the correct ballpark! (3)(4) (1) https://www.diabetes.org/about-us/statistics/about-diabetes https://www.diabetes.org/about-us/statistics/about-diabetes (2) https://www.forbes.com/sites/debgordon/2022/06/20/4-out-of-5-americans-with-diabetes-went-into-debt-to-pay-for-insulin-new-survey-shows/?sh=368d32316fb5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/debgordon/2022/06/20/4-out-of-5... (3) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insulin-prices-2019-diabetes-rationing-insulin-amid-rising-drug-prices-sanofi/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insulin-prices-2019-diabetes-ra... (4) https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-us-diabetes-deaths-top-100000-second-straight-year-federal-panel-urges-2022-01-31/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-us-diabetes-death...
- gamblor956 4y ago
  I was specifically referring to CA taxpayers, not the entire country, as the CA insulin would only be available to CA residents initially.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    Thanks for clarifying! My point sadly still stands when looking at just California. California has about ~2 million diabetics (1) and even when factoring in type 2, most of them (2) will require insulin at some point. The scale is still in the millions. (1) https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CDCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/2019%20Diabetes%20Burden%20Report%20(SCOTT_9JUNE2020).pdf?TSPD_101_R0=087ed344cfab2000773d0ff9b58e03b699258d74e0fe375c3e79e6c8d2424e57c436b0c0a1562a98080c247d7b14300013c891487f6e898f54613da76ff195606ea6da2811932a45c9dba2e0a89e4d2f8801bc8dce1112f47f427b4fca73d648 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CDCB/CDPH%20Do... (2) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25451189/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25451189/
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The state of California is simply another entity in the market. Well, no, it's the state government. It has powers that it absolutely can use that other market participants cannot. > As long as they don't use illegal means to establish market position (i.e., coercion, etc.), there are no laws against them competing with private markets. State governments, acting as sovereigns, are immune from federal antitrust (Parker immunity doctrine), and can, therefore, use what would otherwise be illegal means (including coercion) to exclude others from the market.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  No, by definition those means are not illegal... And the state could alternatively pass laws regulating private behavior. But sometimes having a state agency instead of a law is the less burdensome option.

braingenious 4y ago

If you’re referring to financial cost, it’s not at the expense of thousands, it’s at the expense of millions of diabetics in the US. (1) (2) Unless of course you mean the expense of thousands of dead or permanently disabled diabetics, that is the correct ballpark! (3)(4) (1) https://www.diabetes.org/about-us/statistics/about-diabetes https://www.diabetes.org/about-us/statistics/about-diabetes (2) https://www.forbes.com/sites/debgordon/2022/06/20/4-out-of-5-americans-with-diabetes-went-into-debt-to-pay-for-insulin-new-survey-shows/?sh=368d32316fb5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/debgordon/2022/06/20/4-out-of-5... (3) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insulin-prices-2019-diabetes-rationing-insulin-amid-rising-drug-prices-sanofi/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insulin-prices-2019-diabetes-ra... (4) https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-us-diabetes-deaths-top-100000-second-straight-year-federal-panel-urges-2022-01-31/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-us-diabetes-death...

gamblor956 4y ago
I was specifically referring to CA taxpayers, not the entire country, as the CA insulin would only be available to CA residents initially.
- braingenious 4y ago
  Thanks for clarifying! My point sadly still stands when looking at just California. California has about ~2 million diabetics (1) and even when factoring in type 2, most of them (2) will require insulin at some point. The scale is still in the millions. (1) https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CDCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/2019%20Diabetes%20Burden%20Report%20(SCOTT_9JUNE2020).pdf?TSPD_101_R0=087ed344cfab2000773d0ff9b58e03b699258d74e0fe375c3e79e6c8d2424e57c436b0c0a1562a98080c247d7b14300013c891487f6e898f54613da76ff195606ea6da2811932a45c9dba2e0a89e4d2f8801bc8dce1112f47f427b4fca73d648 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CDCB/CDPH%20Do... (2) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25451189/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25451189/

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The state of California is simply another entity in the market. Well, no, it's the state government. It has powers that it absolutely can use that other market participants cannot. > As long as they don't use illegal means to establish market position (i.e., coercion, etc.), there are no laws against them competing with private markets. State governments, acting as sovereigns, are immune from federal antitrust (Parker immunity doctrine), and can, therefore, use what would otherwise be illegal means (including coercion) to exclude others from the market.

gamblor956 4y ago
No, by definition those means are not illegal... And the state could alternatively pass laws regulating private behavior. But sometimes having a state agency instead of a law is the less burdensome option.