|
I still have a clown running for office here that is equating weed to terrorism. gently caress off, Paul Chabot, you loving GWB wannabe.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
I mean, a lot of people equate drug use with crime, which is really a covert way to vent class and racial anxieties most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Prop 64 would be good if it didn't add a shitton of new crimes with mandatory minimum sentences along with recreational marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
So I've been hearing a lot about Prop 61 but haven't had time to really delve into it until now, as I go through my ballot. People arguing against it are saying drug companies will simply raise the cost of veteran's drugs so they can continue to charge what they charge ordinary people and gently caress everyone over in the process, but I thought the VA was funded federally and couldn't be tampered with?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Prop 64 would be good if it didn't add a shitton of new crimes with mandatory minimum sentences along with recreational marijuana. Like what? I just breezed through the text and didn't see any new crimes with mandatory minimum sentences. Maybe a few that had mandatory 10 days of drug education.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Prop 64 would be good if it didn't add a shitton of new crimes with mandatory minimum sentences along with recreational marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Like what? I just breezed through the text and didn't see any new crimes with mandatory minimum sentences. Maybe a few that had mandatory 10 days of drug education. Same. I haven't seen anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:So I've been hearing a lot about Prop 61 but haven't had time to really delve into it until now, as I go through my ballot. People arguing against it are saying drug companies will simply raise the cost of veteran's drugs so they can continue to charge what they charge ordinary people and gently caress everyone over in the process, but I thought the VA was funded federally and couldn't be tampered with? I don't think either side of prop 61 has a good idea as to how it will play out if it is enacted, so your decision will probably come down to how you think drug companies will react to such a measure. I know nothing about the legality of raising VA prices, but the voter guide lists it as a possible outcome in the ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST section.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:So I've been hearing a lot about Prop 61 but haven't had time to really delve into it until now, as I go through my ballot. People arguing against it are saying drug companies will simply raise the cost of veteran's drugs so they can continue to charge what they charge ordinary people and gently caress everyone over in the process, but I thought the VA was funded federally and couldn't be tampered with? Federal agencies still negotiate prices with the drug companies. It's complicated. Nobody actually knows what will happen with 61. My personal sense is that given California is about a fifth of the population of the country, I doubt many drug companies will be willing to entirely pull specific drugs from patients on affected assistance plans just to avoid lowering prices to match what they're already selling to the huge VA system. On the other hand, drugs are weird. There's probably some niche drugs that are more frequently prescribed to non-VA patients than to VA patients - like I dunno, drugs specifically for kids? In a few cases it might benefit a drug co to just renegotiate the price higher, or pull it from the VA (so if the VA isn't buying it at all, prop 61 doesn't apply), or who the gently caress knows. I've been really torn on 61. On the one hand, we desperately need to lower drug prices, especially for economically disadvantaged patients, and 61's intent is plainly to do that. On the other hand, I think I have to vote No, because it's essentially an untested experiment in drug pricing, it's overly complicated, and as a result I think a really poorly conceived piece of legislation. If 61 fails, I don't want that to "send a message" that Californians don't want lower drug costs for people on MediCal or whatever, and it's probably going to be spun that way... but I also don't think it's wise to try this kind of experiment out when people's lives are potentially at stake. I think it behooves us as citizens to support well-written laws and fight badly-written laws, irrespective of the outcomes that we want or hope for. But I keep coming back to the general "well gently caress drug companies anyway" thought, and I know that they've been fighting 61 hard, and their propaganda is definitely "this could gently caress the VA, or drugs could just be withdrawn, etc." so I'm worried that possibly I'm just letting that message get to me? Like I don't actually know - even with skimming the actual text of the law - whether those outcomes are likely, or just horseshit. It's sort of dumb to agonize over a specific vote for a specific proposition that will end up being decided by tens of thousands of votes at least, but  I hate the thought that I voted wrong and really try not to do that. Maybe I should just skip 61. Fewer votes in total for a bill might suggest that it was too complicated for voters to figure out? Ehh, probably indistinguishable from voter apathy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
It's a win-win either way. Either the drug prices get lowered for everybody (yay!) or the drug companies get further vilified because they hate ARE TROOPS and pushes "gently caress drug companies" closer to the center. Plus, further eroding the benefits given to exploited people fighting imperialist wars helps push the very visible veterans voting block left. For example, I've noticed a very sharp leftward migration in many of my formerly enlisted friends starting at around 2008 when they realized that maybe Republicans don't have their best interests at heart. They've transitioned from "cultural Republicans" voting straight ticket R because that is the American Team to conservative Democrats. I'll take it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It's a win-win either way. Either the drug prices get lowered for everybody (yay!) or the drug companies get further vilified because they hate ARE TROOPS and pushes "gently caress drug companies" closer to the center. Plus, further eroding the benefits given to exploited people fighting imperialist wars helps push the very visible veterans voting block left. For example, I've noticed a very sharp leftward migration in many of my formerly enlisted friends starting at around 2008 when they realized that maybe Republicans don't have their best interests at heart. They've transitioned from "cultural Republicans" voting straight ticket R because that is the American Team to conservative Democrats. I'll take it. This is what I think. If the drug companies pull out all the stops to gently caress with the costs of drugs for veterans that is going to be terrible PR for them and will add more fuel to the public to fight against them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It's a win-win either way. Either the drug prices get lowered for everybody (yay!) or the drug companies get further vilified because they hate ARE TROOPS and pushes "gently caress drug companies" closer to the center. Plus, further eroding the benefits given to exploited people fighting imperialist wars helps push the very visible veterans voting block left. For example, I've noticed a very sharp leftward migration in many of my formerly enlisted friends starting at around 2008 when they realized that maybe Republicans don't have their best interests at heart. They've transitioned from "cultural Republicans" voting straight ticket R because that is the American Team to conservative Democrats. I'll take it. The other scenario, and the one I think is more likely to happen than higher prices for the VA, is that drug companies simply ignore prop 61 and it becomes that much harder for the state to procure perscription drugs. Also... California Voter Guide posted:Drug Manufacturers Might Decline to Offer Lowest VA Prices to the State for Some Drugs. So it is possible that California ends up paying more in some cases. There's also the fact that the price paid by the VA is not always publicly know which creates yet another barrier for procurement. I think Pete's opinion on Prop 61 makes the NO argument better than I ever could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Like what? I just breezed through the text and didn't see any new crimes with mandatory minimum sentences. Maybe a few that had mandatory 10 days of drug education. I kept hearing that possession of a plant as a minor now had a 3 year minimum sentence, but now I can't find anything about it except on Facebook. I already voted no on it. Good thing my vote doesn't matter anywho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:I kept hearing that possession of a plant as a minor now had a 3 year minimum sentence, but now I can't find anything about it except on Facebook. Sounds like a bunch of BS quote:A person who engages in the conduct described in paragraph (I) ofsubdivision (a) ofSection 11362.3 is guilty ofan infraction punishable by no more than a one hundred dollar ($100) fine; lovely OCR sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Sounds like a bunch of BS Yeah, besides my fear-mongering friends making up poo poo like mandatory minimum sentences, the only other negatives I could find were growers against it because it "would invite big business to swoop in and steal all their profits". Which doesn't really have an effect on me. As long as it doesn't gently caress up medical marijuana I'm fine with it passing honestly. Now if it somehow fails by one vote... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It's a win-win either way. Either the drug prices get lowered for everybody (yay!) or the drug companies get further vilified because they hate ARE TROOPS and pushes "gently caress drug companies" closer to the center. Plus, further eroding the benefits given to exploited people fighting imperialist wars helps push the very visible veterans voting block left. For example, I've noticed a very sharp leftward migration in many of my formerly enlisted friends starting at around 2008 when they realized that maybe Republicans don't have their best interests at heart. They've transitioned from "cultural Republicans" voting straight ticket R because that is the American Team to conservative Democrats. I'll take it. Brodeurs Nanny posted:This is what I think. If the drug companies pull out all the stops to gently caress with the costs of drugs for veterans that is going to be terrible PR for them and will add more fuel to the public to fight against them.  "I want to use veterans' healthcare as a political football, that way people who aren't as smart as me will get mad at drug companies if they raise rates, those money-grubbing bastards." That about the size of it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Yeah, besides my fear-mongering friends making up poo poo like mandatory minimum sentences, the only other negatives I could find were growers against it because it "would invite big business to swoop in and steal all their profits". Which doesn't really have an effect on me. Jerry!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
I thought detergent pouches had been reworked to look less candy-like? drat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Yeah. Like, literally hoping to use the price people pay for medicine as leverage to try to shift their political views. That's, uhhh, "problematic."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Yeah, besides my fear-mongering friends making up poo poo like mandatory minimum sentences, the only other negatives I could find were growers against it because it "would invite big business to swoop in and steal all their profits". Which doesn't really have an effect on me. They (the growers, not your dipshit friends) aren't entirely wrong. Marijuana cultivation exists in a strange world where because it's illegal, it's profitable. If marijuana ever becomes legal nationwide, it's price will plummet like a stone. It's called weed for a reason, you can abuse the gently caress out of a marijuana plant and you'll still get a sizeable quantity off of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
What's wrong with that? Veterans get used as a political football all the time. Why not let the left get some access to that play?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
BattleHamster posted:The other scenario, and the one I think is more likely to happen than higher prices for the VA, is that drug companies simply ignore prop 61 and it becomes that much harder for the state to procure perscription drugs. Also... Prop 61 is definitely the hardest one and one I havent filled out on my ballot yet. I've read Pete's about it before and he makes a lot of really good points and agrees it's a good idea, there's nothing stopping drug companies just going lolno you're going to pay $1k a pill and the state still has to provide drugs somehow. Ultimately I think a lot of his points are sort of pie in the sky theory-crafing though. I still think I'll vote yes on it but i really wish it was a lot better. Xaris fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
I guess I was unclear - I think they would face massive backlash and resistance for trying something like that therefore I don't think they would do it. If I thought it was something that was reasonably likely to happen, I would vote no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
I just read Pete's write-up, having already voted, and his write-up is pretty damned convincing on no. Hrm. I didn't really think about what would happen if the drug companies just refused to sell at that price, leaving the state with no leverage to enforce the proposition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:I just read Pete's write-up, having already voted, and his write-up is pretty damned convincing on no. Hrm. I didn't really think about what would happen if the drug companies just refused to sell at that price, leaving the state with no leverage to enforce the proposition. I considered it, but I talked to my dad and he seemed pretty positive that at the end of the day, they want to make money and won't turn down making a large profit to gently caress people over for the chance to make a huge one if there were any risks. I told him he might be underestimating how greedy and inhuman drug companies are, but he's been around the block a lot longer than me so I took his word for it. Plus the proposition bars the state from buying drugs at a higher price. They can refuse to sell at that price, but that just means the state is powerless to buy. They won't be making any money, just causing a political ruckus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Just saw a commercial on tv with Bernie Sanders urging a Yes on 61.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:I just read Pete's write-up, having already voted, and his write-up is pretty damned convincing on no. Hrm. I didn't really think about what would happen if the drug companies just refused to sell at that price, leaving the state with no leverage to enforce the proposition. Howdy, also-voted buddy. Time for misgivings and second thoughts!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What's wrong with that? Veterans get used as a political football all the time. Why not let the left get some access to that play? Brodeurs Nanny posted:I guess I was unclear - I think they would face massive backlash and resistance for trying something like that therefore I don't think they would do it. If I thought it was something that was reasonably likely to happen, I would vote no. Brodeurs Nanny posted:I didn't really think about what would happen
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, if you go in with the assumption that using people as a political prop without their permssion or monkeying with how much they pay for drugs are lovely things to do, saying that other people have done it is not a terribly good justification for doing it yourself. Eh you're being condescending. There are countless different scenarios and reactions and we all can't consider all of them. And not just bad press, I think if they literally raised prices on veterans it would get national attention and resistance to a pretty unprecedented level and it would lessen their leverage. Maybe I'm being too idealistic but them loving over veterans is something I don't think they'd do. I think they'd be far more likely to just refuse to sell at those prices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Hey, how about pharma companies and insurance companies quantify their pricing structures then regulate them and just fix the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:They (the growers, not your dipshit friends) aren't entirely wrong. Marijuana cultivation exists in a strange world where because it's illegal, it's profitable. If marijuana ever becomes legal nationwide, it's price will plummet like a stone. It's called weed for a reason, you can abuse the gently caress out of a marijuana plant and you'll still get a sizeable quantity off of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, if you go in with the assumption that using people as a political prop without their permssion or monkeying with how much they pay for drugs are lovely things to do, saying that other people have done it is not a terribly good justification for doing it yourself. This is one of the dumbest and stunningly naive things I've ever read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:And not just bad press, I think if they literally raised prices on veterans it would get national attention and resistance to a pretty unprecedented level and it would lessen their leverage. Maybe I'm being too idealistic but them loving over veterans is something I don't think they'd do. I think they'd be far more likely to just refuse to sell at those prices. You'd be surprised how easy it is to blanket an area with ads and sponsored content blaming the government for it, and just how many people will swallow that uncritically because they already distrust the state and will latch onto anything that supports their pre-conceived notion of the world. But yes, I agree with your second view. They'd just refuse to sell at the price, PhRMA would go whole hog on ads in California blaming the government for nobody being able to get their medications because the state refuses to pay their fair share, and enough people would swallow it to muddy the waters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:This is one of the dumbest and stunningly naive things I've ever read. Wow you're terrible. Basically you're saying that if someone else does evil poo poo and gets political advantage thereby, we should also do evil poo poo in order to possibly gain our own political advantage thereby. Presuming that you're a human being, and therefore would agree that arbitrarily causing anyone - veterans or some other group - to suddenly have to pay much higher prices for medicine or perhaps not be able to afford medicine or perhaps have some medicines suddenly be completely unavailable to them - is evil poo poo. Because it is. You don't have to like soldiers to accept the idea that when people are dependent on a system for their life and health, deliberately loving with that system's likelihood of delivering life and health just so you can score political points is wrong. Now, the actual argument here is whether or not this proposition is likely to do that, and that's a reasonable argument to have on both sides. But you've gone off on this other hosed up tangent of arguing that even if the VA totally does suddenly lose access to certain medications, or suddenly have to pay much higher prices for them, that's totally OK because other people have used these hospital patients as political footballs before. And that's a grotesque position to take, dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:Eh you're being condescending. There are countless different scenarios and reactions and we all can't consider all of them. EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget that your premise was based on using the healthcare of third parties as a lever to force drug companies to do what you wanted. Even if you 99% believed that they wouldn't raise Rx prices for veterans, that's a pretty lovely gamble to take with other people's health when you have no skin in the game. Shbobdb posted:This is one of the dumbest and stunningly naive things I've ever read. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
If there being a 1% chance of some people being hosed over by a backlash from a proposition is a reason for you to not vote for something, it doesn't seem like any proposition would work for you. Drug companies are going to bring the hammer and hellfire to keep price-gouging and they will find ways to gently caress people over. I think that in this particular case, they would not risk veterans' health over simply killing the leverage of the state to enforce lower prices. If I were to vote again today I would vote no based on that, but you know, sorry I didn't see every nuance in the proposition. I'm still learning the ways of local voting and this is my first time dealing with propositions in the most complicated state for law in the union. Also hey I never claimed to be smart or savvy so that just seems like you're stroking your own ego when nobody asked you to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
That 1% figure is your invention. My guess (which is as good as yours) is the chances are more like 30%+
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Pharma companies know that they have no duty to the state, citizens of California, or veterans. The measure can really only lead to one thing if passed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:That 1% figure is your invention. My guess (which is as good as yours) is the chances are more like 30%+ I was using his number not mine. Mine isn't 1% either but he mentioned that even if it was, I shouldn't play political football with people when I don't have skin in the game. But everything is political football. Any measure will gently caress people over somehow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
I also think condescending tones often keep people from entering a discourse and voicing their views. If you want to endorse democracy, you should start by holding measured and respectful discussions on issues and feel good that someone even gives a poo poo about a state proposition. Treating people with disrespect is going to deter them from being engaged and interested and you have to assume that a lot of people are just getting the hang of the complexities of local politics and need guidance and further perspective. Part of the reason why there is a strong anti-intellectual portion of the population is because intellectual people can often be so infuriatingly condescending to those trying to learn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:17
|
|