Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
CA had 50% of households paying $0 state income tax, as of 2006. More current info welcome. 13MM households as of 2020. So only 6.5MM households can help shoulder the cost of CA deciding they need to make their own insulin.
The $50MM is just to develop the drug, if they're successful.
California also gets revenue from leases, fees, sales tax, etc.
I do not care about the $50 million, I support shouldering the theoretical cost of $1.9 billion.
Making it more difficult/expensive for diabetics to get insulin is certainly not PRO-LIFE. The DC Republicans are a very nasty and mean bunch of hypocrites. They tried to screw veterans last week and this week they go after Americans with health issues. How much lower can they go?
Because Republicans would have blocked the larger bill if this particular item had not been removed.
Sounds like if R's had not opposed it, it would have been included and passed. But you blame it on the Ds?
Medicare patients still get the cap.
Republicans even proffered an amendment to pay for Medicaid recipients insulin. It even had a price tag - $3.1B over 3 years.
The Dems were not allowed by the rules to make a law affecting 170MM private-insured folks by a simple majority vote.
By the way, how much would that cap for everybody have cost? Not one MSM article I've read has put a pricetag on it.
Or do Dems operate under the assumption they can just go to the Pharma companies and say "you MUST sell that insulin for $35 or less!" or the Health Insurers and say "you MUST cap the co-pay for that one drug to $35 or less!"
This will no doubt be a raging success like all the other times the govt. has gotten directly involved in private industry.
#massive sarcasm
It works in Canada. And Ireland. And the United Kingdom. And France. And Belgium. And the Netherlands. And Denmark. And Norway. And Sweden. And Iceland. And Germany. And.....
In those countries, people don't pay $35 for insulin. They pay $0 for insulin. Because it is immoral to charge any money for a drug that people need, regularly and constantly, to survive.
California also gets revenue from leases, fees, sales tax, etc.
I do not care about the $50 million, I support shouldering the theoretical cost of $1.9 billion.
the insulin still has to be produced. That's materials, labor, packaging and distribution. All that costs money, that becomes the bill for the insulin.
And it *sounds like* now we're not even talking about all users of insulin, but instead only those who are uninsured/don't have prescription coverage. Is that correct?
Republicans even proffered an amendment to pay for Medicaid recipients insulin. It even had a price tag - $3.1B over 3 years.
The Dems were not allowed by the rules to make a law affecting 170MM private-insured folks by a simple majority vote.
You just said that we should not do the numbers based upon total population, but we should only work with the 2% of the population that used insulin. In case you forgot...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal
7 million total use insulin. That's 2% - not huge #'s. by capita, that would be 800,000 total insulin users in CA. It'd be great if they could go to every household and say "How many people you got? 4? Great - I need $200."
Using your own logic, we are not talking about 170 million people, but only about 3.4 million.
Quote:
By the way, how much would that cap for everybody have cost? Not one MSM article I've read has put a pricetag on it.
Or do Dems operate under the assumption they can just go to the Pharma companies and say "you MUST sell that insulin for $35 or less!" or the Health Insurers and say "you MUST cap the co-pay for that one drug to $35 or less!"
Good question. I do not know the answer. Like you and probably most of congress, I have read media accounts but not the actual bill.
Either way, completely irrelevant. We are talking about insulin, not burn pits.
I didn't bring the Burn Pit bill up. One of the many others who want to claim the Republicans are "evil" - as you have - over how a bill played out.
Y'all want to blame Republicans for the insulin bill. The Dems knew they were relying on the parliamentarian to rule in their favor, even though they should have known they wouldn't (since they keep losing trying this tactic). The Dems could have at anytime since Jan 21, 2021 brought a standalone insulin bill. The Dems could have called this the Climate Change and Corporate Tax bill, but they didn't.
Y'all are really just fantastic consumers of what the Dems and MSM feed you. Like I said - find me one MSM article that lays out the true cost of the provision, or find me one trustworthy Dem telling us how much it was budgeted out at.
It works in Canada. And Ireland. And the United Kingdom. And France. And Belgium. And the Netherlands. And Denmark. And Norway. And Sweden. And Iceland. And Germany. And.....
In those countries, people don't pay $35 for insulin. They pay $0 for insulin. Because it is immoral to charge any money for a drug that people need, regularly and constantly, to survive.
the insulin still has to be produced. That's materials, labor, packaging and distribution. All that costs money, that becomes the bill for the insulin.
And it *sounds like* now we're not even talking about all users of insulin, but instead only those who are uninsured/don't have prescription coverage. Is that correct?
You are mixing up capital expenses and operating expenses.
I am assuming the construction of a facility would be paid for through state bonds, which are generally financed through bonds and paid off using a small percentage of a state's budget over decades.
The operating expenses, including manufacturing labor, would theoretically be paid out of revenue from selling insulin. That revenue might also pay the capital bond interest, I don't know.
No, I never changed the numbers. You said 2% of people used insulin products, and a quick web search confirmed your statement. You then calculated 2% of the CA population, not mentioning any insurance status.
You, in this post, are the person who is now trying to confuse the issue by bringing up categories of people based on how they get their healthcare coverage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
