Insulin

[washparkhorn 9935]

 

[SydneyCarton 47884]

5 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Why are y’all so easy to be baited and trolled?

Because it beats other methods of venting. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by SydneyCarton

[Poe It Up 126]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I've got to ask...can you read? I mean, obviously you can type words, but is your reading comprehension at a second or maybe THIRD grade reading level? I never said this bill would reduce inflation. In fact, I never said anything. I reported what Summers allegedly said to Manchin. Do you need someone to explain to you the difference? What WAS said was that it would lower the national debt. Here is my original post below, just to make it easier on you, with the pertinent areas bolded:

 

 

 

Summers lied to Manchin, yes. It doesn’t reduce inflation, at all. Hence my very first post that they tricked him. I know you’ll catch on soon, at least I hope. 

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I've got to ask...can you read? I mean, obviously you can type words, but is your reading comprehension at a second or maybe THIRD grade reading level? I never said this bill would reduce inflation. In fact, I never said anything. I reported what Summers allegedly said to Manchin. Do you need someone to explain to you the difference? What WAS said was that it would lower the national debt. Here is my original post below, just to make it easier on you, with the pertinent areas bolded:

 

 

 

Summers lied to Manchin, yes. It doesn’t reduce inflation, at all. Hence my very first post that they tricked him. I know you’ll catch on soon, at least I hope. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

Fucking Repubs. Vote them out. 

 

[SydneyCarton 47884]

2 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Summers lied to Manchin, yes. It doesn’t reduce inflation, at all. Hence my very first post that they tricked him. I know you’ll catch on soon, at least I hope. 

Summers lied to Manchin, yes. It doesn’t reduce inflation, at all. Hence my very first post that they tricked him. I know you’ll catch on soon, at least I hope. 

I heard you the first time.

Summers Lied to Manchin: Prove it. Prove that a man with a history of public service and who has previously and recently been venerated by Republicans for being wildly critical of Biden knowingly LIED to Joe Manchin when he knew his thoughts were wrong. Prove it. 

Next, kindly regale us with your economic bonafides that prove you know what the fuck you're talking about. I'll assume it's at least a masters in economics, if not a PhD, as well as practical read world experience and employment in that space. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, Donny. 

[Brisketexan 104628]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Fucking Repubs. Vote them out. 

 

They lie.  It's what they do.  It's more natural to them than breathing.  I've never seen a political movement so fundamentally built on lies and lying, save and except some movements I've read about in history books (spoiler: and all of those movements were, like, really, really, really bad.  Like, wildly oppressive/genocidal bad).

[Dahobbs 17447]

4 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

Summers lied to Manchin, yes. It doesn’t reduce inflation, at all. Hence my very first post that they tricked him. I know you’ll catch on soon, at least I hope. 

Summers lied to Manchin, yes. It doesn’t reduce inflation, at all. Hence my very first post that they tricked him. I know you’ll catch on soon, at least I hope. 

For shits and giggles, try providing a substantive response on why it doesn't help combat inflation. 

[Poe It Up 126]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

I heard you the first time.

Summers Lied to Manchin: Prove it. Prove that a man with a history of public service and who has previously and recently been venerated by Republicans for being wildly critical of Biden knowingly LIED to Joe Manchin when he knew his thoughts were wrong. Prove it. 

Next, kindly regale us with your economic bonafides that prove you know what the fuck you're talking about. I'll assume it's at least a masters in economics, if not a PhD, as well as practical read world experience and employment in that space. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, Donny. 

My apologies, I’m getting about 10 notifications a second and it’s slowing up my page loading. You just said that Summers told him this bill lowers inflation long term. That’s a lie. You’ve been duped, my man. People always want to shoot the messenger, I get it. 

[Captainant 27466]

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I've got to ask...can you read? I mean, obviously you can type words, but is your reading comprehension at a second or maybe THIRD grade reading level? I never said this bill would reduce inflation. In fact, I never said anything. I reported what Summers allegedly said to Manchin. Do you need someone to explain to you the difference? What WAS said was that it would lower the national debt. Here is my original post below, just to make it easier on you, with the pertinent areas bolded:

Poe is one of the MAGA chosen who exist purely to muddy the waters and prevent discussion. In most places we call that trolling, but on surly we excuse it because they've been posting on the board for so long and don't want to hurt and feefees.

I'd stop engaging with someone who gets a kick out of being a contrarian thread derailer.

[SydneyCarton 47884]

3 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

My apologies, I’m getting about 10 notifications a second and it’s slowing up my page loading. You just said that Summers told him this bill lowers inflation long term. That’s a lie. You’ve been duped, my man. People always want to shoot the messenger, I get it. 

You were fucking saying?
Larry Summers details how Senate plan will reduce inflation

 

Spoiler

Supporters of the plan passed by the Senate over the weekend cheered the benefits they hoped it would bring in climate change and health care. But final passage was achieved only after negotiations with moderate Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema that turned on questions about funding, including raising corporate taxes. Manchin also sought assurances that the bill, dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, would not increase the deficit and rein in inflation. The bill’s architects say their final plan addresses all those concerns and potentially cuts hundreds of billions from the deficit. Economist Lawrence H. Summers, Harvard’s Charles W. Eliot University Professor, president emeritus, and former U.S. Treasury Secretary, has been supportive of the legislation, saying it addresses needs while lowering inflation at a time when that has become an important national priority. The Gazette spoke with Summers about the law, its impact on the economy and inflation, and his thoughts on its action — long-awaited — on climate change.

Q&A

Lawrence H. Summers

GAZETTE: Some have questioned whether the Inflation Reduction Act comes as billed, whether it truly would reduce inflation, and you’ve been on the record saying you believe it would. What do you like about it and why is that the case?

SUMMERS:  The tendency of this bill will be to reduce inflation, because over time it reduces demand by bringing down budget deficits. I think the revenue estimates for the IRS enforcement effort — which is related to research that Natasha Sarin and I did at the Harvard Kennedy School — is substantially low. I think we will do significantly better on revenue. So number one: It will reduce deficits. Number two: We will augment the supply of key commodities, particularly in the energy sector, because of the subsidies and other support. And number three: We will bring down prices, particularly of pharmaceutical goods, by using the government’s purchasing power more effectively to procure at low costs. So, the net effect of this bill is going to be to reduce inflation, while at the same time doing very, very important things for the environment, very important things for fairness and access to health care, doing very important things in terms of strengthening the tax system by assuring that all who should pay, do pay.

GAZETTE: If you were designing just an inflation-reduction bill, would it have elements that are similar to this?

SUMMERS:  Bringing down pharmaceutical prices would be a crucial thing. Achieving overall budget deficit reduction would be an important aspect, supporting a greater energy supply would be an important aspect. And there’s an agreement that is not formally part of the bill but is in association with it, to accelerate site permitting and siting and construction of pipelines, which I think is very important in terms of efficient use of infrastructure and that also has a range of environmental and safety benefits. It’s really not smart for the richest, most sophisticated country on earth to have large amounts of oil and natural gas shipped around in tanker trucks.

GAZETTE: It’s been reported that you counseled West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin on this legislation and perhaps played a role in his decision-making. Had you been in touch with him regularly and how hard was it to convince him about the bill’s merits?

SUMMERS:  I have for many years spoken frequently to many public officials in both the legislative and the executive branch and in both political parties. It’s part of how academic experts can contribute to public policy. I share my substantive views in my writings and in appearances on television and podcasts and in various other forms. And I give private advice privately, so I’ll decline to comment on the rhythm of my conversations with Senator Manchin over the last year.

GAZETTE: Is it possible to talk about how large an impact on inflation this bill might have?

SUMMERS:  It’s in the right direction. By far the most important determinants of inflation are monetary policy and the cyclical behavior of the economy. So, while I think this is a step in the right direction — and therefore is a very large change from the measures that were enacted in early 2021 — I don’t think it’s a huge change. But those who are saying that a bill that achieves hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit reduction over 10 years is going to be noninflationary need to recognize that a corollary of that view is that a bill that spent close to $3 trillion in one year [on pandemic relief] was really quite inflationary.

GAZETTE: You recently put the chance of recession in the next two years at around 75 percent. Does this change that at all?

SUMMERS:  The recession that I think is likely in the next two years is baked in by a combination of the overheating of the economy and the supply shocks that the economy has suffered from what’s happened in Russia and China.

GAZETTE: We last spoke in February, and there have been several interest rate increases since then. How far along are we on the road to where we need to be with interest rates?

SUMMERS:  Inflation as measured by the CPI [consumer price index] is above 9 percent. That has a range of special factors included in it, but I think it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that we’re a 4 to 5 percent inflation country. It would be very surprising if interest rates in the 2s were sufficient to bring 4 or 5 percent inflation substantially down in a durable way.

GAZETTE: Would interest rates have to be above that base inflation rate to have the effect we’re looking for?

SUMMERS:  Traditionally, interest rates have had to rise above inflation in order to bring inflation under control. But there are a lot of special features of the current economy, so I would not make a confident forecast. I nonetheless would be surprised if the 3¼ percent interest rates that the market is now envisioning were sufficient.

GAZETTE: Do you endorse the aggressive pace in raising rates that the central bank has employed?

SUMMERS:  Unlike the case in 2021, when I thought policy was missing the core reality of substantial and accelerating inflation, I think that policy now is in the right quadrant. I think the most difficult decisions and challenging moments are likely to lie ahead of us, because I think the economy is weaker than it was, and we’re still a substantial distance from achieving inflation objectives.

GAZETTE: At some point, will those things converge, requiring a very close call for policymakers?

SUMMERS: The judgments involved in monetary policy in the next six or nine months are going to be as difficult as any set of monetary policy judgments in many, many years. The easier judgments are when the direction is clear. During the financial crisis, it was clear that we needed to expand — how much and through what instruments were the difficult questions. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, for Paul Volcker, it was challenging, but the direction was entirely clear. The most difficult moments are when there are competing pressures from inflation, to restrain; and from slowdown, to expand. That’s what I fear we have ahead of us.

GAZETTE: What do you see as the economic impact of some of the tax pieces of this legislation, like the corporate minimum tax?

SUMMERS: The corporate minimum tax is something that I have worked on for some years. Unlike many experts, I think there is some virtue to having parallelism between profits reported for accounting purposes and for tax purposes. For tax purposes, people want to understate profits; for accounting purposes, they want to overstate profits. The two represent offsetting pressures that may drive toward more honest reporting. People are right to believe that we should have a variety of incentives in the tax code, but that companies that report profits to their shareholders very regularly and are rewarded by the stock market very regularly should pay something in taxes. That’s a legitimate feeling that public policy should respond to.

GAZETTE: Will they have a particular economic impact or are they not large enough?

SUMMERS: We’re talking about $1.4 billion a year in a $22 trillion economy. So, I don’t think those provisions will have major economic effects beyond being a step toward more economic fairness. I say that not as someone who has the philosophy that tax policy should be an instrument for tearing down the wealthiest. I think it’s important to avoid — in every sphere — envy-based policies.

GAZETTE: What do you think of the tax changes made to get Sen. Sinema aboard, which included scrapping a proposal that would have raised rates for some very wealthy taxpayers on “carried interest” income?

SUMMERS: I was sorry about the last-minute changes which reflected the success of narrow special interests against the public interest. Rarely, have I seen a public policy issue as clear as the merits of taxing carried interest at full income tax rates.

GAZETTE: Looping back to the climate aspects of the legislation: Are there prospects for long-term economic benefit, if the tax credits, subsidies, and other climate-focused steps are successful?

SUMMERS: There are some in the environmental community who speak so warmly of the benefits of climate investments that you might think that if climate didn’t exist as a problem, it would be a good idea to pretend it did so we would get the benefits of the solutions. I think that is misleading. The better paradigm for thinking about these issues is that the planet is facing existential risks, and we need to contain those existential risks as inexpensively as possible. We in the U.S. can benefit from being a leader and an exporter in the development of new technologies and new approaches. I think that this bill will help in that regard. With any challenge — from writing a term paper to saving a planet — it is easier to meet it if you begin early than if you begin late.

GAZETTE: And as far as effectiveness of the approaches — the tax credits for consumers, industry subsidies?

SUMMERS: These are very valuable experiments, and they are getting us moving in a good way. The stakes here are so high that it is definitely — as my old boss Bill Clinton used to say — “a good idea to get caught trying” and to get caught trying in a whole variety of ways. I think we will learn a great deal and there’ll be much for the environmental economists at Harvard and other places to study from the experiences of all these various subjects and these various programs.

GAZETTE: So, even though this has been billed as the biggest climate effort ever by the federal government, let’s see how these things work before we claim victory?

SUMMERS: To use Churchill’s rhetoric: This is surely not the end; it is surely not the beginning of the end. But in terms of a major national commitment of substantial resources — not just to planning but to incentivizing actual transformation — it might be the end of the beginning.

So to be clear, not only did summers lie to manchin, summers is on the record telling everyone why he thinks it will lower inflation. But yes, everyone involved is lying. Not you though, you've got it straight because you can read Summers mind. 

You truly are a piece of shit. 

[SydneyCarton 47884]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Poe is one of the MAGA chosen who exist purely to muddy the waters and prevent discussion. In most places we call that trolling, but on surly we excuse it because they've been posting on the board for so long and don't want to hurt and feefees.

I'd stop engaging with someone who gets a kick out of being a contrarian thread derailer.

He's got 1k posts and 1400 rep. We should just crowd source him, then. 

[Gil Bang 25898]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

I hope California sells insulin outside of California

And, anytime it's shipped to a red state, print "THIS LOW COST MEDICATION BROUGHT TO YOU BY SOCIALISM" right on the fucking box

[UnivTex34 1763]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

He's got 1k posts and 1400 rep. We should just crowd source him, then. 

Is this not a Workswithseed sock? Seems his account started posting way more regularly about the time WWS stopped posting.

[GenXer 2778]

24 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

 

Bernie was my guy in 2020. Like many other progressive issues, he led the messaging with insulin. I got irritated when it came down to Joe and Bernie, and the other Dems endorsed Joe.

That being said, I am eternally grateful to Joe. He played an instrumental role in getting ACA passed. For diabetics, that is the most important and impactful health legislation of my lifetime. I’m also grateful to Hillary as she brought healthcare expenses to the forefront during the 90’s. But of course, the republicans killed it.

[Poe It Up 126]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You were fucking saying?
Larry Summers details how Senate plan will reduce inflation

 

  Hide contents

Supporters of the plan passed by the Senate over the weekend cheered the benefits they hoped it would bring in climate change and health care. But final passage was achieved only after negotiations with moderate Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema that turned on questions about funding, including raising corporate taxes. Manchin also sought assurances that the bill, dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, would not increase the deficit and rein in inflation. The bill’s architects say their final plan addresses all those concerns and potentially cuts hundreds of billions from the deficit. Economist Lawrence H. Summers, Harvard’s Charles W. Eliot University Professor, president emeritus, and former U.S. Treasury Secretary, has been supportive of the legislation, saying it addresses needs while lowering inflation at a time when that has become an important national priority. The Gazette spoke with Summers about the law, its impact on the economy and inflation, and his thoughts on its action — long-awaited — on climate change.

Q&A

Lawrence H. Summers

GAZETTE: Some have questioned whether the Inflation Reduction Act comes as billed, whether it truly would reduce inflation, and you’ve been on the record saying you believe it would. What do you like about it and why is that the case?

SUMMERS:  The tendency of this bill will be to reduce inflation, because over time it reduces demand by bringing down budget deficits. I think the revenue estimates for the IRS enforcement effort — which is related to research that Natasha Sarin and I did at the Harvard Kennedy School — is substantially low. I think we will do significantly better on revenue. So number one: It will reduce deficits. Number two: We will augment the supply of key commodities, particularly in the energy sector, because of the subsidies and other support. And number three: We will bring down prices, particularly of pharmaceutical goods, by using the government’s purchasing power more effectively to procure at low costs. So, the net effect of this bill is going to be to reduce inflation, while at the same time doing very, very important things for the environment, very important things for fairness and access to health care, doing very important things in terms of strengthening the tax system by assuring that all who should pay, do pay.

GAZETTE: If you were designing just an inflation-reduction bill, would it have elements that are similar to this?

SUMMERS:  Bringing down pharmaceutical prices would be a crucial thing. Achieving overall budget deficit reduction would be an important aspect, supporting a greater energy supply would be an important aspect. And there’s an agreement that is not formally part of the bill but is in association with it, to accelerate site permitting and siting and construction of pipelines, which I think is very important in terms of efficient use of infrastructure and that also has a range of environmental and safety benefits. It’s really not smart for the richest, most sophisticated country on earth to have large amounts of oil and natural gas shipped around in tanker trucks.

GAZETTE: It’s been reported that you counseled West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin on this legislation and perhaps played a role in his decision-making. Had you been in touch with him regularly and how hard was it to convince him about the bill’s merits?

SUMMERS:  I have for many years spoken frequently to many public officials in both the legislative and the executive branch and in both political parties. It’s part of how academic experts can contribute to public policy. I share my substantive views in my writings and in appearances on television and podcasts and in various other forms. And I give private advice privately, so I’ll decline to comment on the rhythm of my conversations with Senator Manchin over the last year.

GAZETTE: Is it possible to talk about how large an impact on inflation this bill might have?

SUMMERS:  It’s in the right direction. By far the most important determinants of inflation are monetary policy and the cyclical behavior of the economy. So, while I think this is a step in the right direction — and therefore is a very large change from the measures that were enacted in early 2021 — I don’t think it’s a huge change. But those who are saying that a bill that achieves hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit reduction over 10 years is going to be noninflationary need to recognize that a corollary of that view is that a bill that spent close to $3 trillion in one year [on pandemic relief] was really quite inflationary.

GAZETTE: You recently put the chance of recession in the next two years at around 75 percent. Does this change that at all?

SUMMERS:  The recession that I think is likely in the next two years is baked in by a combination of the overheating of the economy and the supply shocks that the economy has suffered from what’s happened in Russia and China.

GAZETTE: We last spoke in February, and there have been several interest rate increases since then. How far along are we on the road to where we need to be with interest rates?

SUMMERS:  Inflation as measured by the CPI [consumer price index] is above 9 percent. That has a range of special factors included in it, but I think it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that we’re a 4 to 5 percent inflation country. It would be very surprising if interest rates in the 2s were sufficient to bring 4 or 5 percent inflation substantially down in a durable way.

GAZETTE: Would interest rates have to be above that base inflation rate to have the effect we’re looking for?

SUMMERS:  Traditionally, interest rates have had to rise above inflation in order to bring inflation under control. But there are a lot of special features of the current economy, so I would not make a confident forecast. I nonetheless would be surprised if the 3¼ percent interest rates that the market is now envisioning were sufficient.

GAZETTE: Do you endorse the aggressive pace in raising rates that the central bank has employed?

SUMMERS:  Unlike the case in 2021, when I thought policy was missing the core reality of substantial and accelerating inflation, I think that policy now is in the right quadrant. I think the most difficult decisions and challenging moments are likely to lie ahead of us, because I think the economy is weaker than it was, and we’re still a substantial distance from achieving inflation objectives.

GAZETTE: At some point, will those things converge, requiring a very close call for policymakers?

SUMMERS: The judgments involved in monetary policy in the next six or nine months are going to be as difficult as any set of monetary policy judgments in many, many years. The easier judgments are when the direction is clear. During the financial crisis, it was clear that we needed to expand — how much and through what instruments were the difficult questions. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, for Paul Volcker, it was challenging, but the direction was entirely clear. The most difficult moments are when there are competing pressures from inflation, to restrain; and from slowdown, to expand. That’s what I fear we have ahead of us.

GAZETTE: What do you see as the economic impact of some of the tax pieces of this legislation, like the corporate minimum tax?

SUMMERS: The corporate minimum tax is something that I have worked on for some years. Unlike many experts, I think there is some virtue to having parallelism between profits reported for accounting purposes and for tax purposes. For tax purposes, people want to understate profits; for accounting purposes, they want to overstate profits. The two represent offsetting pressures that may drive toward more honest reporting. People are right to believe that we should have a variety of incentives in the tax code, but that companies that report profits to their shareholders very regularly and are rewarded by the stock market very regularly should pay something in taxes. That’s a legitimate feeling that public policy should respond to.

GAZETTE: Will they have a particular economic impact or are they not large enough?

SUMMERS: We’re talking about $1.4 billion a year in a $22 trillion economy. So, I don’t think those provisions will have major economic effects beyond being a step toward more economic fairness. I say that not as someone who has the philosophy that tax policy should be an instrument for tearing down the wealthiest. I think it’s important to avoid — in every sphere — envy-based policies.

GAZETTE: What do you think of the tax changes made to get Sen. Sinema aboard, which included scrapping a proposal that would have raised rates for some very wealthy taxpayers on “carried interest” income?

SUMMERS: I was sorry about the last-minute changes which reflected the success of narrow special interests against the public interest. Rarely, have I seen a public policy issue as clear as the merits of taxing carried interest at full income tax rates.

GAZETTE: Looping back to the climate aspects of the legislation: Are there prospects for long-term economic benefit, if the tax credits, subsidies, and other climate-focused steps are successful?

SUMMERS: There are some in the environmental community who speak so warmly of the benefits of climate investments that you might think that if climate didn’t exist as a problem, it would be a good idea to pretend it did so we would get the benefits of the solutions. I think that is misleading. The better paradigm for thinking about these issues is that the planet is facing existential risks, and we need to contain those existential risks as inexpensively as possible. We in the U.S. can benefit from being a leader and an exporter in the development of new technologies and new approaches. I think that this bill will help in that regard. With any challenge — from writing a term paper to saving a planet — it is easier to meet it if you begin early than if you begin late.

GAZETTE: And as far as effectiveness of the approaches — the tax credits for consumers, industry subsidies?

SUMMERS: These are very valuable experiments, and they are getting us moving in a good way. The stakes here are so high that it is definitely — as my old boss Bill Clinton used to say — “a good idea to get caught trying” and to get caught trying in a whole variety of ways. I think we will learn a great deal and there’ll be much for the environmental economists at Harvard and other places to study from the experiences of all these various subjects and these various programs.

GAZETTE: So, even though this has been billed as the biggest climate effort ever by the federal government, let’s see how these things work before we claim victory?

SUMMERS: To use Churchill’s rhetoric: This is surely not the end; it is surely not the beginning of the end. But in terms of a major national commitment of substantial resources — not just to planning but to incentivizing actual transformation — it might be the end of the beginning.

So to be clear, not only did summers lie to manchin, summers is on the record telling everyone why he thinks it will lower inflation. But yes, everyone involved is lying. Not you though, you've got it straight because you can read Summers mind. 

You truly are a piece of shit. 

If he told Manchin it’s actually going to affect inflation, then yes. Like I’ve said from the beginning, props to the Dems here. Calling it the Inflation Reduction Act was genius. Although I do understand why they’re trying to change it now. 

[SydneyCarton 47884]

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

If he told Manchin it’s actually going to affect inflation, then yes. Like I’ve said from the beginning, props to the Dems here. Calling it the Inflation Reduction Act was genius. Although I do understand why they’re trying to change it now. 

"If he told manchin" he posts as he completely ignores an entirely posted article, by the economic expert in question, which details exactly how and why he thinks the bill will reduce inflation. 

Seriously, get fucked asshole. 

[Poe It Up 126]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Poe is one of the MAGA chosen who exist purely to muddy the waters and prevent discussion. In most places we call that trolling, but on surly we excuse it because they've been posting on the board for so long and don't want to hurt and feefees.

I'd stop engaging with someone who gets a kick out of being a contrarian thread derailer.

Maga, give me a break. I’ve always been honest about voting for Trump, unlike a lot on here. Still, I just want to win, which is why I want Trump gone and Desantis to run. 

[Upgrayedd 5806]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

I hope California sells insulin outside of California

$350 a pop

[Js1 85112]

Just now, Upgrayedd said:

$350 a pop

Upcharge for red states 

[GenXer 2778]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Actually you're not really saying much.

You want it done a certain way and if they don't do it that way, it's a bad policy and will destroy the Dems in November.  Despite it not being their fault. 

Where did I say it’s bad policy? Strawman argument.
 

It’s great that the olds get insulin capped at $35 per month. Does this help the uninsured 20 year old at UT that woke up this morning to find his pancreas stopped producing insulin? Nope. I was that 20 year old a long time ago.

Where did I say this will destroy the Dems in Nov? Another strawman argument. You’re on a roll. The price cap doesn’t go into effect until next year.

I agree the republicans are the problem. They’ve always been the problem. For decades, they’ve actively worked against my healthcare, and I fucking hate them for it.

Edited August 18, 2022 by GenXer
Numbers are hard

[GenXer 2778]

16 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Upcharge for red states 

Great. Us type 1’s continue to get extorted.

[GenXer 2778]

50 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They lie.  It's what they do.  It's more natural to them than breathing.  I've never seen a political movement so fundamentally built on lies and lying, save and except some movements I've read about in history books (spoiler: and all of those movements were, like, really, really, really bad.  Like, wildly oppressive/genocidal bad).

I must be naive. I simply don’t understand how a human functions like this.

[washparkhorn 9935]

 

[Foosters 17734]

44 minutes ago, UnivTex34 said:

Is this not a Workswithseed sock? Seems his account started posting way more regularly about the time WWS stopped posting.

Amazingly, I don't think WWS was as racist or homophobic as Poe. 

[GenXer 2778]

1 hour ago, Goredho said:

The federal government is fucked for the foreseeable future.  Move to a real state.

HB21-1307 & Emergency and 12-Month Insulin Supply

The Insulin Affordability Program was created by HB21-1307 (Prescription Insulin Pricing and Access). Beginning January 1, 2022, eligible individuals can receive a 12-month prescription for insulin for no more than a $50 copay for a 30-day supply and an emergency 30-day supply of insulin once per 12-month period for no more than a $35 copay. The law directs the Division to create an application for the program. 

The program will go into effect January 1, 2022.

Insulin Affordability Program for Emergency and 12-Month Insulin Supply Application

Who qualifies for the Insulin Affordability Program?

To be eligible for this program you must:

Be a resident of Colorado

Have a current prescription for insulin

Pay more than $100 for a 30-day supply for your insulin

Present identification proving Colorado residency including, but not limited to, a valid Colorado identification card, driver's license or permit, or tribal-issued identification. If you are a minor under the age of 18, your parent or legal guardian must provide proof of residency.

All this dirty socialism and we still get a tax break:

On May 23, 2022, Gov. Jared Polis signed a new law (Senate Bill 22-233) to give Coloradans a tax rebate of $750 for individual filers and $1,500 for joint filers this summer. This law will provide immediate relief to Coloradans by sending you a check this summer instead of spring of 2023, and we at the Colorado Department of Revenue are working hard to make sure that you get the right tax refund amount as soon as possible. 

 

I looked at this and thought “hmmm.. eligibility.” Here’s what the link says

To be eligible for this program you must:

• Be a resident of Colorado
• Have a current prescription for insulin
• Pay more than $100 for a 30-day supply for your insulin
• Present identification proving Colorado residency including, but not limited to, a valid Colorado identification card, driver's license or permit, or tribal-issued identification. If you are a minor under the age of 18, your parent or legal guardian must provide proof of residency.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is how you ensure everyone is protected. Bravo, Colorado. Well done.

[Poe It Up 126]

13 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Amazingly, I don't think WWS was as racist or homophobic as Poe. 

When have I ever even discussed race? 

[safe sex 11684]

Poe can spell slightly better some days

[Poe It Up 126]

3 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Poe can spell slightly better some days

Thank you for noticing. I didn’t always spell this goodly. 

[Foosters 17734]

8 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

When have I ever even discussed race? 

When you supported the demonization of Mexicans because you think its good politics. 

[Poe It Up 126]

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

When you supported the demonization of Mexicans because you think its good politics. 

Are you sure you have the right poster? 

[Voldemort86 2259]

Diabetes fucking sucks. I don’t have it, but have always feared getting it. Watch your weight if you can folks. The bigger your belly, the more chances you have of getting type 2. Stay healthy out there.

[Covri 6231]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Why are y’all so easy to be baited and trolled?

[Gatorubet 30116]

2 hours ago, GenXer said:

The cap of $35 per month is great but I’m concerned about the 19 year old college student that may not have health insurance. Will that person who is barely scraping by fall through the cracks with this bill? I was that person 35 years ago.

Can we just note your desire for universal healthcare and leave it at that?

[Goredho 17349]

40 minutes ago, GenXer said:

I looked at this and thought “hmmm.. eligibility.” Here’s what the link says

To be eligible for this program you must:

• Be a resident of Colorado
• Have a current prescription for insulin
• Pay more than $100 for a 30-day supply for your insulin
• Present identification proving Colorado residency including, but not limited to, a valid Colorado identification card, driver's license or permit, or tribal-issued identification. If you are a minor under the age of 18, your parent or legal guardian must provide proof of residency.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is how you ensure everyone is protected. Bravo, Colorado. Well done.

This is what governance is possible when you don't have a critical mass of obstructionists and hatchet men (aka Republicans) dismantling your government.

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

1 hour ago, GenXer said:

I must be naive. I simply don’t understand how a human functions like this.

By sleeping on mattresses made of money.

 

[GenXer 2778]

40 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Can we just note your desire for universal healthcare and leave it at that?

The Venn diagram of universal healthcare and elimination of extortionary insulin prices isn’t a perfect circle. I’m just looking for all type 1 diabetics to be able to purchase insulin at a reasonable cost. That doesn’t seem to be too far fetched.

My endocrinologist has told me some of her patients ration their insulin because of its cost. This issue is literally life or death.

[SydneyCarton 47884]

2 hours ago, GenXer said:

Where did I say it’s bad policy? Strawman argument.
 

It’s great that the olds get insulin capped at $35 per month. Does this help the uninsured 20 year old at UT that woke up this morning to find his pancreas stopped producing insulin? Nope. I was that 20 year old a long time ago.

Where did I say this will destroy the Dems in Nov? Another strawman argument. You’re on a roll. The price cap doesn’t go into effect until next year.

I agree the republicans are the problem. They’ve always been the problem. For decades, they’ve actively worked against my healthcare, and I fucking hate them for it.

 

2 hours ago, GenXer said:

Great. Us type 1’s continue to get extorted.

Listen, this is going to sound like I'm being an asshole, but I'm being earnest here: Why don't you move? To another state like Colorado, or another country with better healthcare. I realize moving isn't easy for people, and sometimes it's not possible. I'm not sure what your field is, but Canada is hiring, and the UK has good programs for people with certain skills or education levels. I'd look around. 

Other folks here are looking around as well. I'm not saying is moving is easy. But for someone who sounds so harassed, pained, and aggrieved by the shit they've had to endure because they're a diabetic, I'd seriously look for greener pastures. Quality of life is important, we only have so many years. 

2 hours ago, GenXer said:

I must be naive. I simply don’t understand how a human functions like this.

You're not naive. You're myopic.

[GenXer 2778]

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

Listen, this is going to sound like I'm being an asshole, but I'm being earnest here: Why don't you move? To another state like Colorado, or another country with better healthcare. I realize moving isn't easy for people, and sometimes it's not possible. I'm not sure what your field is, but Canada is hiring, and the UK has good programs for people with certain skills or education levels. I'd look around. 

We are looking around. I posted as such in the thread where everyone discussed moving. We’re considering Maine.

Our kid is out of college, and we both work remotely in tech.

My critique of the bill isn’t for my own financial considerations. At this point in my life, insulin costing $35 or $200 per vial doesn’t move the needle much for me. We do quite well.

What upsets me about the cost of insulin stems from my empathy for the less fortunate. I guess I just shouldn’t give a shit about others.

[SydneyCarton 47884]

1 minute ago, GenXer said:

We are looking around. I posted as such in the thread where everyone discussed moving. We’re considering Maine.

Our kid is out of college, and we both work remotely in tech.

My critique of the bill isn’t for my own financial considerations. At this point in my life, insulin costing $35 or $200 per vial doesn’t move the needle much for me. We do quite well.

What upsets me about the cost of insulin stems from my empathy for the less fortunate. I guess I just shouldn’t give a shit about others.

Only if you're willing to join the GOP. 

[GenXer 2778]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Only if you're willing to join the GOP. 

No. Fucking. Way.

I’ve taken a lot of vitriol in this thread. Js1 immediately labeled me a troll and has clung to that. Penelope gave my OP a “fuck you” then retracted it. Someone else called me a concern troll as well. All this for pointing out how the bill that passed doesn’t help many less-fortunate people.

Even though I recently joined surly, I’ve lurked for a long time and have a lot of respect for many posters. I’m a ledge guy. The reaction I’ve gotten for my critique of the bill leads me to believe us progressives also lack empathy as the examples of vulnerable people I’ve described have been disregarded in favor of a touchdown dance for the bill.

[Captainant 27466]

26 minutes ago, GenXer said:

I’ve taken a lot of vitriol in this thread. Js1 immediately labeled me a troll and has clung to that. Penelope gave my OP a “fuck you” then retracted it. Someone else called me a concern troll as well. All this for pointing out how the bill that passed doesn’t help many less-fortunate people.

I called you a concern troll, because your post read exactly like a concern troll post of someone who's either completely not been paying attention - or someone who's trolling in bad faith. You're right the bill doesn't help many less-fortunate people - those provisions got stripped from the bill BY THE REPUBLICANS. And you led with blaming the democrats for that? Yeah. Kind of off kilter.

26 minutes ago, GenXer said:

Even though I recently joined surly, I’ve lurked for a long time and have a lot of respect for many posters. I’m a ledge guy. The reaction I’ve gotten for my critique of the bill leads me to believe us progressives also lack empathy as the examples of vulnerable people I’ve described have been disregarded in favor of a touchdown dance for the bill.

You got heat because you had an uninformed and weak-ass take on the bill. Folks aren't 100% thrilled and happy with the bill, but they're glad something got passed to do make some progress. Your position is apparently that the dems only have so many shots to take, so since this wasn't perfect, they shouldn't have wasted the shot and sat on their hands passing nothing? Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

But it's not the dems limiting legislation. They're trying to get fucking something, anything, passed. You're goddamn right that we shouldn't be resting on our laurels - and the democrats aren't! There's narrow legislation to address insulin prices RIGHT NOW - are you going to blame the senate dems for only having 36 sponsors for the bill and blame them for not getting any GQP support? 

It's not that we lack empathy, it's that you're being a pollyanna to think that the republicans would even want such legislation to advance.

edit: like literally everything you're saying you want is in this bill. Blame the republicans for roadblocking it, not the dems for being forced to take a piecemeal approach.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Captainant

[SydneyCarton 47884]

19 minutes ago, GenXer said:

No. Fucking. Way.

I’ve taken a lot of vitriol in this thread. Js1 immediately labeled me a troll and has clung to that. Penelope gave my OP a “fuck you” then retracted it. Someone else called me a concern troll as well. All this for pointing out how the bill that passed doesn’t help many less-fortunate people.

Even though I recently joined surly, I’ve lurked for a long time and have a lot of respect for many posters. I’m a ledge guy. The reaction I’ve gotten for my critique of the bill leads me to believe us progressives also lack empathy as the examples of vulnerable people I’ve described have been disregarded in favor of a touchdown dance for the bill.

Progressives don't lack empathy. The things you wanted were struck from the bill by Republicans. But yeah, people get pretty irritated with "Well the Democrats did a shitty job" getting landmark legislation passed, against major odds and huge pushback, which will help millions of people...but it's not perfect so fuck them." 

Telling progressives, of which I do not consider myself one, that they lack empathy when they fought tooth and nail to get SOMETHING passed that will help some people is rarely going to be a popular move. Sort of like me telling you that you lack empathy because you're dismissing the millions of people this will help because it doesn't help everyone.

[Foosters 17734]

21 minutes ago, GenXer said:

progressives also lack empathy 

I'm sorry you're just now figuring this out. Many people call themselves progressive because they don't hate gay people, support legal marijuana, and have a BLM sign in their yard. But fuck the homeless, the poor, the disenfranchised.

[GenXer 2778]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I called you a concern troll, because your post read exactly like a concern troll post of someone who's either completely not been paying attention - or someone who's trolling in bad faith. You're right the bill doesn't help many less-fortunate people - those provisions got stripped from the bill BY THE REPUBLICANS. And you led with blaming the democrats for that? Yeah. Kind of off kilter.

You got heat because you had an uninformed and weak-ass take on the bill. Folks aren't 100% thrilled and happy with the bill, but they're glad something got passed to do make some progress. Your position is apparently that the dems only have so many shots to take, so since this wasn't perfect, they shouldn't have wasted the shot and sat on their hands passing nothing? Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

But it's not the dems limiting legislation. They're trying to get fucking something, anything, passed. You're goddamn right that we shouldn't be resting on our laurels - and the democrats aren't! There's narrow legislation to address insulin prices RIGHT NOW - are you going to blame the senate dems for only having 36 sponsors for the bill and blame them for not getting and GQP support? 

It's not that we lack empathy, it's that you're being a pollyanna to think that the republicans would even want such legislation to advance.

You are wrong to take my position that nothing should pass. ACA wasn’t ideal but upthread I said it was the most important and impactful healthcare legislation in my lifetime. That’s a damn good endorsement on my part.

I get the babysteps part of legislation, and agree that’s the only way to get stuff past the republicans. No need to bold. We’re all aware they’re irredeemable pieces of shit.

I still believe Dems could be creative and allow for everyone to purchase prescription meds from international online sources. That’s my critique of Dems. There are international providers that do that now. But, customs might snatch it. Or, is the online provider a good faith actor. I’d like the FDA to approve them before I inject the stuff in my body.

I don’t know if this would even require a change in legislation. 

You’re correct that I didn’t know the details of the bill. I don’t read legislation for a hobby, and I’m not an attorney. This community is full of attorneys. That’s why I posted questions. You’re just conditioned to see a question as a trolling effort.

[GenXer 2778]

19 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Progressives don't lack empathy. The things you wanted were struck from the bill by Republicans. But yeah, people get pretty irritated with "Well the Democrats did a shitty job" getting landmark legislation passed, against major odds and huge pushback, which will help millions of people...but it's not perfect so fuck them." 

I’m not talking about progressives in the larger sense. I’m talking about progressives in this forum.

[SydneyCarton 47884]

3 minutes ago, GenXer said:

I’m not talking about progressives in the larger sense. I’m talking about progressives in this forum.

I'm not sure you can differentiate one from the other. I'm also not sure "no no, I like progressives, I just don't like YOU progressives" is a winning argument either. If you don't understand why, substitute Progressives in that sentence with Gays, Blacks, Women, Christians, Muslims or anything you like and see if it feels cringy, or rings hollow. You can even add in "in this forum" if it makes you feel better. 

Listen man, you seem to be posting here in good faith, and that's great. But you've got to understand why the way you have presented and phrased things have irritated some folks. 

[Captainant 27466]

7 minutes ago, GenXer said:

I still believe Dems could be creative and allow for everyone to purchase prescription meds from international online sources. That’s my critique of Dems. There are international providers that do that now. But, customs might snatch it. Or, is the online provider a good faith actor. I’d like the FDA to approve them before I inject the stuff in my body.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2181?r=31&s=1

Damn those democrats for proposing legislatively what you're asking for!!! Damn them for failing to get republican votes!

11 minutes ago, GenXer said:

I don’t know if this would even require a change in legislation. 

It would. Individuals are statutorily prohibited from importing, with some waiver-based exceptions

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/384

12 minutes ago, GenXer said:

You’re correct that I didn’t know the details of the bill. I don’t read legislation for a hobby, and I’m not an attorney. This community is full of attorneys. That’s why I posted questions. You’re just conditioned to see a question as a trolling effort.

I'm not an attorney, I'm a tech bro. Use google. I searched for "US legislation international prescriptions" and the top two links are the ones I spent a minute reading and posting here for you. When "jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs" is a classic refrain from trolls, and when the questions you're posing take less than 5 minutes to look up for yourself.... Yeah you're gonna take some flak. Be better.

I'm conditioned to see that sort of shit as a trolling effort, because when you're a brand new low post and rep poster coming in and framing a discussion completely incorrectly and counterfactually, nine times out of ten you're a sock puppet troll.

[Satchel 6908]

Good:

https://apnews.com/article/health-california-diabetes-government-and-politics-f846c58d4cb327578d1c7b3a9495d496

Now, with several insulin patents nearing their expiration dates, California is looking to disrupt that market by making its own insulin and selling it for a much cheaper price. Last month, after a few years of study, state lawmakers approved $100 million for the project, with $50 million dedicated to developing three types of insulin and the rest set aside to invest in a manufacturing facility.

[GenXer 2778]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm not sure you can differentiate one from the other. I'm also not sure "no no, I like progressives, I just don't like YOU progressives" is a winning argument either. If you don't understand why, substitute Progressives in that sentence with Gays, Blacks, Women, Christians, Muslims or anything you like and see if it feels cringy, or rings hollow. You can even add in "in this forum" if it makes you feel better. 

Listen man, you seem to be posting here in good faith, and that's great. But you've got to understand why the way you have presented and phrased things have irritated some folks. 

I consider myself progressive so if I critique progressives, I’m also critiquing myself. Self reflection is a good thing in my opinion. No one is perfect.

I was taken back somewhat by the immediate backlash. I was hoping for some healthy discussion on the bill.

Good feedback on my presentation and phrasing. I re-read my OP. I understand why it could be interpreted as incendiary as I launched directly into criticism without giving credit to the Dems where credit’s due. I don’t have any cred in this forum so it’s impossible to know my angle. I look forward to what the senate can pass next to reduce insulin costs for everyone regardless of their health insurance (or lack thereof).

Peace.

[GenXer 2778]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2181?r=31&s=1

Damn those democrats for proposing legislatively what you're asking for!!! Damn them for failing to get republican votes!

It would. Individuals are statutorily prohibited from importing, with some waiver-based exceptions

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/384

I'm not an attorney, I'm a tech bro. Use google. I searched for "US legislation international prescriptions" and the top two links are the ones I spent a minute reading and posting here for you. When "jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs" is a classic refrain from trolls, and when the questions you're posing take less than 5 minutes to look up for yourself.... Yeah you're gonna take some flak. Be better.

I'm conditioned to see that sort of shit as a trolling effort, because when you're a brand new low post and rep poster coming in and framing a discussion completely incorrectly and counterfactually, nine times out of ten you're a sock puppet troll.

Thanks for the link. Fucking republicans.