Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Ynituni t1_jcso4mu wrote

MAgA definitely won’t like this.

51

Expensive_Food t1_jctfif3 wrote

You do know that tRumP signed an executive order to reduce insulin prices

And biden then froze that right....

−41

whackwarrens t1_jctg9zn wrote

An executive order that has no enforcement power whatsoever.

17

Expensive_Food t1_jcthzkw wrote

−18

steam58 t1_jctitcz wrote

Notice how your link isn't about an executive order, it's an actual law that actually did it something tangible...

31

whackwarrens t1_jctiug4 wrote

Those executive orders only ordered the HHS to make recommendations to Congress...

See the part with the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Congress? Laws are necessary for powers and that's where the budget and enforcement powers are.

The POTUS doesn't have the power to just dictate drug prices whenever they want on their own. It's not rocket science how the US government works.

11

Zanothis t1_jcttxu5 wrote

From the link you provided: >On August 16, 2022, I signed Public Law 117-169, commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which will lower the cost of prescription drugs and save millions of Americans hundreds or thousands of dollars per year. The IRA will protect Medicare beneficiaries from catastrophic drug costs by phasing in a cap for out-of-pocket costs at the pharmacy and establishing a $35 monthly cap per prescription for insulin covered by a Medicare prescription drug plan and insulin delivered through traditional pumps.

4

SilverNicktail t1_jcuyuo9 wrote

You do know that Biden put it on hold while it was reviewed, and instead the Democrats put their own version through that covered more people, right? Trump's version only covered his voting base.

It was frozen so they could assess costs and impact, and then they redid it better.

For some reason, Trump supporters always overlook that part.

14

x_BuLLDawG_x t1_jctfqnm wrote

leftest wont believe it. they cant do their own research, have to listen to the media/man before they do their own research or at least pay attention to whats really going on around them.

−42

Expensive_Food t1_jctfwj9 wrote

True even if it would take all of 10 seconds to prove

−21

zombiifissh t1_jctmvqq wrote

They've got sources proving you wrong tho.... I didn't see you pay any sources...

19

Expensive_Food t1_jctos9f wrote

Which point? What?

−4

zombiifissh t1_jctp2uh wrote

"You do know that tRumP signed an executive order to reduce insulin prices

And biden then froze that right...."

That's your claim, right? I didn't see you post any sources for it, but others have posted sources to counter your statement here. It would take ten seconds to prove apparently, so why didn't you prove it

The burden of proof is on the claimant, friend

13

LtRecore t1_jcstwrp wrote

I live in California and use suboxone i. e. nalaxone for chronic back pain from a motocross crash resulting in paraplegia. I fight every month for my prescription, it’s a fucking nightmare just to survive. Maybe this will help?

43

supergoji18 t1_jctbkvh wrote

Suboxone is a combination of Buprenorphine and Naloxone. From the article it looks like they're only working on manufacturing the Naloxone nasal spray used for emergency treatment of opioid overdoses.

22

Jdsv6501992 t1_jctgqti wrote

Look into quick md, it's been the best experience possible with suboxone, no hassle short phone calls and full one month prescriptions from the start none other than the first prescription being only 2 weeks.

1

tmink0220 t1_jcst4hv wrote

Good for California....

41

ImPolicy t1_jctovid wrote

California also doesn't let bots pretend to be human online.

15

Ethereal42 t1_jctloy8 wrote

Crazy how you can behave in such a socialist manner in a capitalist system when it suits you but still refuse to see the obvious benefits of doing this system wide.

33

Pharmd109 t1_jctqlrp wrote

This is how you do it, become the manufacturer.

When Lilly just recently reduced the price of their insulin, they just jacked up the prices of their entire portfolio to make up the difference. The drug companies are not benevolent. They are publicly held companies with shareholders. They will deliver the same quarter over quarter earnings.

26

mcnello t1_jcvnhaa wrote

It's almost as if price controls don't work. Someone in California should take an economics 101 class.

−12

blueorchidcult t1_jcvv7rq wrote

Insulin is cheap to make and is not on patent. So I’m not sure what your point is?

13

mcnello t1_jcvwjus wrote

I'm not sure what your point is either

−11

blueorchidcult t1_jcvx0ur wrote

Why is producing insulin itself in-house (which saves its state Medicaid program a ton of money) and distributing it freely not a good economic move for California?

11

DamonFields t1_jcus39g wrote

California needs to begin charting its own course. Why should we be bend our knee to the right wing lunacy of republican royalty?

8

SesusOfJuburbia t1_jcto3r7 wrote

$1 where I live

6

carloshgo t1_jcwo1yw wrote

I men yes, good for you, but in the United States insulin is not even affordable for lots of ppl, so it’s a huge win.

1

wranglingmonkies t1_jctu3d3 wrote

I know it's not quite the same but I just paid $135 for Prozone (cat insulin) I hope this helps with that cost too. I love my little buddy.

6

lordlossxp t1_jctsbmx wrote

Its because mark cuban is working on doing a cost plus drugs version lf it. These shitty companies realize they need to change the price or sell to nothing but emergency services once he gets it going. Fucking thieves

3

_Face t1_jctq3xh wrote

> A 10-milliliter vial of insulin will be available for no more than $30, pending approval by the US Food and Drug Administration, says the release.

So every time I read these articles I always wonder the same thing. Is this cost to the end user, or to the insurance companies? Like is the insurance company still paying $100 and my copay is only $30?

2

alexmbrennan t1_jctqlwb wrote

Does it matter? If the insurance companies' costs fall then they will offer lower their rates (or be undercut by their competitors)

1

Zanothis t1_jcu2aeq wrote

In theory. But the invisible hand of the free market seems to be imaginary rather than invisible.

In reality, the insurance companies will all just pocket the difference. They'll then use their increased profits to pay out higher dividends or to finance a stock buyback. If it's a privately owned company, the profits will be distributed to an even smaller number of people.

But despite disagreement over the consequences, we do at least agree that it doesn't matter whether California is going to be lowering the cost for insurers.

And I'm always happy to be proven wrong about things that I'm pessimistic about. If you have strong evidence that there's a large health insurance provider that will cut premiums across the entire country from cost savings I genuinely want to see it.

4

oboshoe t1_jctyxai wrote

of course it matters.

That $70 gap would have to be paid by someone. And since governments and corporations are funded by the same people. That someone is you.

0

Lorentari t1_jcu8d4f wrote

This is good, but it will still be 2x the price of the next most expensive country in the world

2

SilverNicktail t1_jcuyze1 wrote

Hey, progress is progress and this is a big leap forward.

2

angusMcBorg t1_jcw1giq wrote

My guess is the price cap will drop well under 30 once they really get rolling (or when pharm companies go even lower than 30, and this manuf facility in CA has to change to something else)

1

King-Owl-House t1_jcwcrmj wrote

You know how much insurance companies taking from every spent on health care dollar: 20 cents, government doing the same for 3 cents with Medicare.

2

AutoModerator t1_jcs9u0m wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1