30
California governor vetoes bill that would have set a $35 cap for insulin
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
30 points (100.0% liked)
News
19 readers
12 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
Copay caps are bullshit anyway. They don't help people with no insurance, and it means the pharma companies still get a ridiculous price, just the insurance pays it - and of course, that's passed on to consumers via higher premiums. The idea of CA making insulin is good, and other than that, it needs a real price cap, not a copay cap.
The context that it's a copay cap only is really important, and I see why it was vetoed - for not going far enough while a viable interim solution is already in place that gives the state breathing room to wait for a more complete solution.
I've been seeing a lot of misleading as hell headlines about this guy's vetoes lately. There was another one yesterday about him vetoing a bill that would have banned caste discrimination, but that one was because CA's anti-discrimination laws already covered discrimination based on ancestry.
Also the one about psilocybin, which was because he said they needed to provide more detail about regulation. Not because he opposed the general concept. Yeah, probably there's a campaign to make him look bad.
I'll toss in two more theories:
One, he lost track of the optics of vetoing 3 bills with high visibility and ideological importance to the American left: drug prices, drug decriminalization, and racial discrimination.
Two, the American left has low tolerance for ideological impurity - people are upset that he's not a progressive like Bernie Sanders nor a firebrand like AOC. However, the lack of those two qualities appeals to the middle, it might peel away some disillusioned Republicans. As another commenter said, "pick your battles." Newsom seems to be doing just that.
I'm not saying either of these is more likely than a coordinated effort to discredit him, just that they are other possibilities.
The thing is he did provide valid details and reasons for these vetoes. The headlines didn't have to be phrased in a way that made it look like he disagreed with the main idea. Most people don't bother reading articles and are generally inept at absorbing details, so it's unfortunate he gave someone that ammo.