7 ms·
This is the meaningful part: > The California governor, a Democrat, said earlier this year that the state would soon start making its own brand of insulin. Cal
by falcor84 3y ago
This is the meaningful part:
> The California governor, a Democrat, said earlier this year that the state would soon start making its own brand of insulin. California has a $50m contract with the non-profit pharmaceutical company Civica Rx to manufacture the insulin under the brand CalRx. The state would sell a 10-milliliter vial of insulin for $30.
> “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.”
- Simulacra 3y agoGovernment has a very poor track history of manufacturing products. I am not optimistic about this at all.
- isykt 3y agoIt's good, then, that the non-profit pharmaceutical company called Civica Rx will manufacture the insulin under the brand CalRx.
- henriquez 3y agoCalifornia nonprofits are typically a special breed of corruption.
- refulgentis 3y agoThrowaway quip tripling down on vague aspersions about something good. Sometimes things are good.
- afavour 3y agoI feel like we’re trying very hard to dislike a good thing here
- lazide 3y agoHave you lived in California?
- afavour 3y agoHave you Googled Civica Rx? > Headquarters: Lehi, UT
- lazide 3y agoWhat does that have to do with living in California? And you know they have no track record yet right? They didn’t even exist until 2018! The perennial issue is big promises, total shit delivery, way over budget and late - if ever. Regardless of where the subcontractor lives. They’ve already been talking about the insulin plan for several years. But hey, maybe 2024 is the new promise. Have you heard about our ‘high speed rail’ project, for instance? It isn’t even high speed anymore!
- afavour 3y agoYou didn't say living in California, you said "California non-profits". But sure, keep moving the goalposts if it makes you happy. Why are you even still living there?
- lazide 3y agoNo I didn’t. I asked if you had lived in California. Explicitly. Go ahead, read the comment again.
- afavour 3y agoOh, I see, I assumed you were the OP continuing a conversation. But no, you’re not the OP, you’re someone else that came into the thread to ask a question you yourself admit has nothing to do with the thread. Yeah, I’m done here, later.
- djur 3y agoGood thing it's a Utah nonprofit, then.
- teaearlgraycold 3y agoFucking got'em
- askiiart 3y agoCould you provide any information on that, rather than just vague remarks? Or more helpfully, information regarding CalRx specifically? If you provided a link showing that some of its leadership had a history of corruption, that would be one thing, but instead we got an unsourced quip about "California nonprofits."
- Retric 3y agoThe US government has a surprisingly good track record when it manufactures stuff internally. Outsourcing that to private contractors is more troubled, but nonprofits tend to work out reasonably well. Comparing to the cost paid per dose of COVID vaccines 30$ insulin is easily achievable.
- l33t7332273 3y agoWhat has the US government manufactured without outsourcing to contractors?
- jupp0r 3y agoSaturn V
- shiroiuma 3y agoGo read some history: that was built by various contractors, such as Rocketdyne that manufactured the engines.
- jupp0r 3y agoThe rocket was not. Of course you will have components built by industry. You can't expect government to mine the iron and mill the steel for every bolt.
- shiroiuma 3y agoThe engines were easily the most complex components of the whole system. They're not like buying some bolts.
- Retric 3y agoExcept it kind of was. Car companies don’t manufacture the most complex components in house either. Those things were custom, but NASA saved a great deal of money going with an existing supplier of giant rocket engines who had already been working in scaling up their designs.
- CharlesW 3y agoAs the parent comment quotes, government will not be manufacturing the insulin.
- diogenes4 3y agoHard to imagine you can do worse than private industry.
- AlexandrB 3y agoI had a hard time even thinking of stuff the government manufactures. Best I came up with is physical currency, passports and other ID, and license plates. All of those are of quite good quality and reasonably priced, so I'd have to disagree.
- jupp0r 3y agoTry nuclear bombs or tanks.
- jppittma 3y agoThen they'll be outcompeted by the free market. We'll soon see how efficient big business is compared to government.
- olalonde 3y agoCheap 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.
- aforty 3y agoAgreed, there is no excuse to veto this just because some future project could potentially alleviate it later. Bring relief now.
- Supermancho 3y agoThere 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.
- jupp0r 3y agoHe wants to run for president in 2028, not hold on to power.
- Supermancho 3y agoYour 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.
- nradov 3y agoThe 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.
- jgalt212 3y ago> the state would soon start making its own brand of insulin. The government's definition of "soon" is probably not the same as the electorate's definition of soon.