|
Instant Sunrise posted:Okay this is really confusing because until 1982, every slate of ballot measures would start at 1, so every ballot had the same proposition numbers. I'm familiar with 8. But only recently because my home value bounced back and I wasn't expecting the sharp rise in tax, like "woah" kind of a thing. And commercial property is exempt from 8? Holy poo poo. Get rid of 13 for sure then.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:27
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Sundae posted:Facts, reality, and rational voters: Things that have totally defined the last twenty-plus years of US politics. Yeah if nothing else the Democratic party has proven time and again that they're completely unable to drive the narrative by pitting truth against lies. Anything and everything terrible that happens during a Trump presidency will be the fault of the democrats, regardless of what they actually do (probably nothing) for these next four years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Yeah if nothing else the Democratic party has proven time and again that they're completely unable to drive the narrative by pitting truth against lies. Anything and everything terrible that happens during a Trump presidency will be the fault of the democrats, regardless of what they actually do (probably nothing) for these next four years. So is the idea they should have just lied instead? Or do you think there was a way to counter lies with truths that you know but Democrats didn't?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Someday maybe the Democrats will learn that facts don't matter, what matters is feelings, and a narrative. The left needs to exploit people's feelings. And not the nice, fuzzy feelings, like togetherness or love, either: the nasty, base feelings like jealousy, greed, anger, resentment, and fear. Hope sort of played ok, but Change was better (because it's compatible with anger and resentment).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
I don't think any of the meaningful rent control measures passed 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Does statewide UHC have a chance?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I don't think any of the meaningful rent control measures passed Nope.  Mine got killed hard, so I'm probably going to have to move next year once my lease is up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So is the idea they should have just lied instead? Or do you think there was a way to counter lies with truths that you know but Democrats didn't? Neither. I'm not trying to be  or anything, I'm just saying the Democrats love to stick to facts and then act shocked when people ignore them to listen to appeals to emotion and/or lies that are more palatable. Not to get too off topic from the California thread, but this is what killed Hillary in the rustbelt states. She was unwilling to address the issue of manufacturing jobs, probably because she's acutely aware that they're never going to come back. Or if they do, it'll be because domestic manufacturing with robots is cheaper than outsourced labor, and that won't create the jobs union workers in those states want. Meanwhile Trump swooped in, told them they'd been given a bum deal, and that he'd bring back manufacturing jobs like it was in the old days and revive their communities. It's an outright lie, but it's a lie a large voter base wanted to hear and they jumped on his bandwagon because of it. I don't know what the Dems solution to that is. Maybe it is to start lying. Maybe it's to couch hard truths in feel good alternatives, although that's not exactly easier said than done. Maybe it's to pivot away from facts as the focus and build a platform on populist anger like Trump/Bernie did. I honestly don't know. What I do know is that simply sitting around waiting for the Republicans to burn it all down and then point and say "see we told you!" is more likely than not just going to get the Democrats blamed for it all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Neither. I'm not trying to be I agree 100% with this, and I have no idea what message the Democrats could give to this group that sounds even better than "I'm bringing all your jobs and factories back." Both her and Bernie had very similar plans, which was trying to lift up the communities through reeducation, retraining, and government policies and investment. Even if they spend a bunch of time directly pitching that to the Midwest I still don't see how it peels off a bunch of votes from people already super pissed about Obama's government "hope and change" that never materialized who've just been told all their old jobs are returning. I don't see how the left, regardless of who ran, wins this block of voters. Many of them believed in Obama, it didn't pan out, and I don't see how policy wonkery and a plea for more government programs gets them back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
The answer, as always, was to not lose Florida or North Carolina. Neither of those places are suffering from lost factory jobs the way they have in michigan and wisconsin. Appealing to emotional issues that inspire Floridians and North Carolinans to not vote for the populist demagogue has to be easier than trying to hang on to the (EV-wise less important) gutted manufacturing states which, in all honesty, are never going to become industrial powerhouses again and have inappropriate climates for year-round high-tech industry. Being on the shores of the Great Lakes was great for transporting in raw materials and transporting out finished goods; it confers no advantage at all for writing software or developing new medicines or whatever. Maybe Tesla could be convinced to build factories in Milwaukee and Flint but I doubt it. e. I'm not sure about Pennsylvania. It was a key loss as well. The coal industry is dead, and never coming back, irrespective of deregulation, because we're swimming in cheaper natural gas now and nat gas is easier to transport and burn, too. MI and WI together are only 26 EVs, though, which is the point. FL is 29 by itself, and was a closer race than WI. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Ice Cream Barbara posted:Does statewide UHC have a chance? We tried it in 1994 as a ballot measure where it crashed and burned. The legislature passed it twice in the 2000s but Schwarzenegger vetoed it both times. There was another attempt earlier in the current session but it got tabled, as the legislature was focusing on implementing the ACA. If the national-level republicans succeed in repealing the ACA, then we could easily see UHC dusted off and passed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Why is it so hard to get rid of prop 13? Doesn't affect me directly, but my bf has owned his property for just 6 years now and it's ridiculous what he pays that others don't have to. I know. Grandmas. I wonder how real that boogeyman really is? kicking grandma outta her giant empty house by making her sell it for a huge profit is property taxes working as intended
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:If the national-level republicans succeed in repealing the ACA, then we could easily see UHC dusted off and passed. Keep going I'm almost there
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The answer, as always, was to not lose Florida or North Carolina. Neither of those places are suffering from lost factory jobs the way they have in michigan and wisconsin. Appealing to emotional issues that inspire Floridians and North Carolinans to not vote for the populist demagogue has to be easier than trying to hang on to the (EV-wise less important) gutted manufacturing states which, in all honesty, are never going to become industrial powerhouses again and have inappropriate climates for year-round high-tech industry. Being on the shores of the Great Lakes was great for transporting in raw materials and transporting out finished goods; it confers no advantage at all for writing software or developing new medicines or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I dunno what you're getting at here about the weather. There are high tech industries all over the world in a variety of climates. Basically, yeah. But all of those grew up organically based on what was already there previously, or anchored on a company that grew up a lot, like MS in Seattle. In order to kickstart a new high tech industry locus from scratch, you need to either have homegrown already-ready-to-work workers with all the skills and experience you need right there anyway, or you need to somehow attract those workers to come from somewhere else. It is way easier to attract workers to come to (say) the North Carolina research triangle, than it is to attract them to move to Detroit, MI. Part of the reason the SF Bay Area's tech industry is so solid is that, in addition to the built-in already-there worker base, it's got great climate year-round. I think Texas' attempt to kickstart high tech has a better chance of working than, say, Michigan would have. It's a tough job to do in any case. Sooo, if the Democratic party tried to imply that we could somehow kickstart high tech industry in Flint or Milwaukee or something, that'd be pretty implausible. There isn't a huge base of people there already with the skills. Maybe you could point out the cheap property values, but you're trying to convince rich entrepreneurs to move their fledgling high-tech business there: the price of the houses isn't as important to them as what the area is like to live in, whether they can easily hire the staff they need locally, how good the schools are for their kids to attend, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Ice Cream Barbara posted:Keep going I'm almost there
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:State level UHC would have the same problem as Prop 61. UHC doesn't work without price controls, and one state has less leverage than the medical industry, because the state needs to provide the promised health care, but the industry can survive not dealing with one state. So how much does the insurance industry pay you to post here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:So how much does the insurance industry pay you to post here? That's an actual problem, dude. California is the one state with the most possible leverage, because it's got something like 20% of the country's population and universal health care would mean signing up the entire population. But it's still the case that any given medical provider can refuse to cooperate by taking its ball and going home rather than accept a state-determined low price for its products. Everything is in the details, though. If California made its UHC system an attractive reasonably profitable market for providers, price caps might not be such an obstacle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:State level UHC would have the same problem as Prop 61. UHC doesn't work without price controls, and one state has less leverage than the medical industry, because the state needs to provide the promised health care, but the industry can survive not dealing with one state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
I thought 61's problem was "you have to take this and not penny more" instead of fluidly basing the price on negotiating power.
Lycus fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
I don't understand why existing health insurance providers even need to be involved in the first place. Isn't UHC supposed to get away from that? Real question, I don't know too much about the topic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:I don't understand why existing health insurance providers even need to be involved in the first place. Isn't UHC supposed to get away from that? Real question, I don't know too much about the topic. Medical providers and drug companies, not insurance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:That's an actual problem, dude. California is the one state with the most possible leverage, because it's got something like 20% of the country's population and universal health care would mean signing up the entire population. But it's still the case that any given medical provider can refuse to cooperate by taking its ball and going home rather than accept a state-determined low price for its products. Of course it's an actual problem, but literally all that guy does is post about how it's stupid to even attempt it, without ever offering his own solutions (probably because he would get obliterated). He's nothing but a concern troll.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I thought 61's problem was "you have to take this and not penny more" instead of fluidly basing the price on negotiating power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The answer, as always, was to not lose Florida or North Carolina. Neither of those places are suffering from lost factory jobs the way they have in michigan and wisconsin. Appealing to emotional issues that inspire Floridians and North Carolinans to not vote for the populist demagogue has to be easier than trying to hang on to the (EV-wise less important) gutted manufacturing states which, in all honesty, are never going to become industrial powerhouses again and have inappropriate climates for year-round high-tech industry. Being on the shores of the Great Lakes was great for transporting in raw materials and transporting out finished goods; it confers no advantage at all for writing software or developing new medicines or whatever. Lemme riff on this a second, because it's playing to a theme I'm trying to untangle in my head. The problem with "the message doesn't resonate" is that there's an implied but unmentioned "(to white people)" in there. I think this is an important distinction. The black vote showed up. The hispanic vote showed up. The Muslim and LGBT votes showed up. And by and large, they showed up for Hillary. When I compare the Hispanic voters in Vegas doing soul-crushing hospitality work to the plight of a disaffected rust belt worker, I have to kind of scratch my head a little. Like, you can lead a coddled white voter to the policies, but you can't force them intellectually engage. That kind of thinking, I think, tends to lead to poo poo like the DLC, or the Blue Dogs. Anyway, I'm not really sure if any of this connects the way I think it does, but where I'm trying to go is that it might be more worthwhile to try to go after the 50% of registered voters who didn't even show up, rather than worry about what privileged, sheltered white people are whining about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Anyway, I'm not really sure if any of this connects the way I think it does, but where I'm trying to go is that it might be more worthwhile to try to go after the 50% of registered voters who didn't even show up, rather than worry about what privileged, sheltered white people are whining about. I think it's been shown pretty clearly that white people get really mad if you don't focus enough attention on their issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Yeah turnout favors Ds, that's why the republicans almost always gain ground during the low-turnout midterms, and also why Rs universally want to suppress turnout. So maybe you assume you can't get the white no-college men, and go big for the youth vote? Very very risky: the youth just suck rear end at turning out. Obama got a good result there, hillary did not. Run younger, attractive, energizing candidates on a platform of getting out of iraq, also get all the minority voters? You win. e. before anyone says it: bernie had the youth vote, but lost badly in every primary state where the black vote was important. He might well have lost against trump by getting better youth turnout, but worse turnout among black people, and also not getting as much advantage among women. Maybe. I'm speculating a lot. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:That's an actual problem, dude. California is the one state with the most possible leverage, because it's got something like 20% of the country's population and universal health care would mean signing up the entire population. But it's still the case that any given medical provider can refuse to cooperate by taking its ball and going home rather than accept a state-determined low price for its products. This is a ridiculous usage of "actual problem", in that you can theorize it happening but the prior probability says it is extremely unlikely. State-determined my rear end. Of course California can't just make up a number and smugly tell the drug companies sell at a loss. If we assume that California actually negotiations reasonably, you would have to explain the following to justify drug companies being willing to pull out of CA altogether: 1) Given the choice between 1-x revenue and 0, where 1 is current revenue, what business reasons would there be for taking 0 revenue? 2) Canada and California have similar GDP and population, so I assume similar drug market. Why haven't drug companies left Canada to force the Canadian Government into a more favorable situation for drug revenue? I assume if they can live without California money, they can without Canada money, not to mention Australia. You need to explain the answers to these questions in one clip. For example, you can't argue that drug companies would benefit in the long run as an answer to 1) without explaining why they haven't taken that stance with Canada. The answer is straight forward: as long as they aren't losing money on the state as a whole, drug companies will always take 1-x revenue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, are you guys trying to set some sort of goldfish-like record for shortest memories in politics? "I don't need to appeal to the white working class. We can win without them." - 2016 Presidential Runner Up Hillary Clinton Maybe, instead of assuming that the metrics will make everything OK as long as blacks and Latinos in swing states turn out like they did for one of the most charismatic and gifted orators in modern politics, we should reconsider our platform and messaging? Maybe? Cup Runneth Over posted:Of course it's an actual problem, but literally all that guy does is post about how it's stupid to even attempt it, without ever offering his own solutions (probably because he would get obliterated). He's nothing but a concern troll. I think the problem is more complex than people appreciate. I don't have answers because there are no easy answers. Controlling Healthcare costs is something a lot of people with more experience than I have struggled with, and coupled with the way the state budgets, I think there are fundamental questions that need to be answered about single payer before we consider implementing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Holy poo poo, are you guys trying to set some sort of goldfish-like record for shortest memories in politics? Then let's throw our support behind it, and leave it to the policymakers and experts to answer those questions. That's why we elect representatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Holy poo poo, are you guys trying to set some sort of goldfish-like record for shortest memories in politics? I appreciate the pith, but yeah thats what I'm kicking around. The left's reaction to every electoral loss ever has been to water poo poo down for the white working class and then surprise surprise, no one shows up for the midterms and the party ends up on the wrong end of a wave election. I want to get into the makeup of the 50% of registered voters that didn't show up at all before I sweat the white vote. Who are they? What are the major constituencies? Why didn't they vote?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:This is a ridiculous usage of "actual problem", in that you can theorize it happening but the prior probability says it is extremely unlikely. State-determined my rear end. Of course California can't just make up a number and smugly tell the drug companies sell at a loss. If we assume that California actually negotiations reasonably, you would have to explain the following to justify drug companies being willing to pull out of CA altogether: I think I can just keep quoting this over and over: Sundae posted:Facts, reality, and rational voters: Things that have totally defined the last twenty-plus years of US politics. Why should pharma select 1-X revenue as their choice when they can say the government is forcing them to take zero (knowing fully well that the change won't happen instantly, so they still get money in the mean time) and then run a few hundred million in attack ads against the state (plus possibly lobbying for federal intervention in some form) to kill any shot of the anti-corporate healthcare sentiment spreading? Remember the Harry & Louise ad campaigns of the 90s? Remember an entire half of the country screaming about death panels for like four years and then voting for someone who promises to dismantle the entire ACA in favor of deregulation? The industry barely has to try if they want to warp the narrative, and I've seen very little to suggest that anyone on the left either can, or cares to, control the narrative themselves. If you let California be seen as successfully doing any sort of drug price control or UHC-style system, you open the floodgates for other large states. It's fairly easy to shape an anti-government narrative in the USA, so there's no point not fighting it. The actual economics of it are much larger than "medical field interactions with California" and the related industries will absolutely do everything in their power to make sure that CA, as a state, does not get a foothold to anything that could hurt them anywhere else in the country. I'm all for trying it, but you're delusional if you think that "1-X" and "0" are the only two options here. The most obvious three other options are "1 and California loses the fight", "1+X because things backfire after federal intervention" or "1-X but in a way that no other states can implement it easily." As for the Canada and Australia examples, you're talking about completely different scales of governance. If NSW tried to pass a UHC system independent from the rest of deregulated Australia, we might have a comparison here, but that's not how either nation works to the best of my knowledge. You are talking one 'province' out of 50, large or not, attempting to move on its own against the momentum of 49 others and a federal government that doesn't support their actions. Apples and oranges in terms of how it plays out. Sundae fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Holy poo poo, are you guys trying to set some sort of goldfish-like record for shortest memories in politics? Hillary won the popular vote. 52.7% of the population voted for someone whose name isn't Donald Trump, 48% of that being for Hillary. If our election were run like 75% of other democracies, actual ones and pretend ones, she would've won the runoff vote. The real substantive issue is that the US electoral system is absolute ballsack and the only reason why it can't be changed is because the two parties in power are solely benefited by it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Sundae posted:I think I can just keep quoting this over and over: The post assumes that single payer has just been signed into law in California, implying that as a whole Californians support the government's efforts to do it. By leaving the losses as X is implicitly included the possibility of no changes in drug prices (x=0). You're going to have to support 1+x with more than vagaries. You have failed to simultaneously address points one and two, as is necessary to support your point. I pointed out specifically that drug companies have had the opportunity absolutely ruin other countries with similar (or smaller) revenue prospects (and thus a smaller hit to the drug companies in the short term) and yet they haven't done it in an attempt to strong arm them into more money for drug companies. Edit for edit: Sundae posted:As for the Canada and Australia examples, you're talking about completely different scales of governance. If NSW tried to pass a UHC system independent from the rest of deregulated Australia, we might have a comparison here, but that's not how either nation works to the best of my knowledge. You are talking one 'province' out of 50, large or not, attempting to move on its own against the momentum of 49 others and a federal government that doesn't support their actions. Apples and oranges in terms of how it plays out. The post I was responding to (or maybe the one it was defending) specifically said that drug companies could just leave CA because they could survive without the revenue. You can defend why they haven't done it to Kaiser then it you need to pick a group inside the United States. How is one state in a collection of many different than one country in a collect of many? You really need to be specific about what how the Federal Government will get involved in this. Boot and Rally fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
I think you didn't read my edit like 10 min ago where I answered the other part. Also, I don't think the will of California voter majority even matters as long as you have 30% or so who would gladly vote against it and you have 49 other states and the federal government to contend with. It's a nice state, but your post is bordering on Texas Exceptionality in terms of thinking we're our own little island here that can do what it wants. Rationality and economic sense is out the window and has arguably never mattered at all. You couldn't get it passed in the 90s. You couldn't overrule vetoes under Arnold. The weakest national healthcare program ever is about to go on the chopping block at the national level. I'm game for trying the experiment, but California isn't going to come out on top in it. I don't care one bit if I didn't answer your economic questions because they're not comparable scenarios. quote:The post I was responding to (or maybe the one it was defending) specifically said that drug companies could just leave CA because they could survive without the revenue. You can defend why they haven't done it to Kaiser then it you need to pick a group inside the United States. How is one state in a collection of many different than one country in a collect of many? You really need to be specific about what how the Federal Government will get involved in this. Depending on the company, we have left countries and stopped drug production for nations that we didn't like the terms with. I've specifically had an anti-malarial project of mine halted because of changes in financial terms in some of the targeted countries, back in 2009, specifically to try to force the hand of the targeted nations on pricing for other drugs. (Africa has the least leverage of anywhere, sadly, and it really shows even though they have so little money to spare overall. ) Would they leave California? Almost definitely not. Would they take 1-X (maybe) in the short term while they kill the law? Probably. As for specifics, not much point providing specifics to a hypothetical "what if we pass UHC and tell the drug companies it's our way or the highway." That's not exactly much of a specific to argue against. EDIT: VVVVV Crap, I've edited again. Sorry!! I hate edit/quote wars. 
Sundae fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Sundae posted:I think you didn't read my edit like 10 min ago where I answered the other part. Also, I don't think the will of California voter majority even matters as long as you have 30% or so who would gladly vote against it and you have 49 other states and the federal government to contend with. It's a nice state, but your post is bordering on Texas Exceptionality in terms of thinking we're our own little island here that can do what it wants. You've got to get specific on what the Federal Government is going to do. I'd argue that your post are bordering on American Exceptionalism. I don't disagree a lot of what you're saying, I'm not saying it is a done deal. Sundae posted:Depending on the company, we have left countries and stopped drug production for nations that we didn't like the terms with. I've specifically had an anti-malarial project of mine halted because of changes in financial terms in some of the targeted countries, back in 2009, specifically to try to force the hand of the targeted nations on pricing for other drugs. (Africa has the least leverage of anywhere, sadly, and it really shows even though they have so little money to spare overall. There was a reason I picked Canada and Australia and not a much poorer country. I don't provide more specifics because UHC is specific enough! A state negotiating for drug prices as a group, that is all that matters. I also said, specifically, that they would have to negotiate, not "my way or the highway". I think in the end we are rather violent agreement, specifically regarding this: quote:Would they leave California? Almost definitely not. Would they take 1-X (maybe) in the short term while they kill the law? Probably. Excepting of course apparent Federal Government interference. Boot and Rally fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:Haha, hold on. I suck and edited my post again. Sorry about that. I guess from my view as a pharma industry insider and a pessimist, I don't see any reason that California can actually enforce anything they try to do when people are so easy to sway with bullshit advertising and narrative shift. Why it hasn't worked in Canada? Not sure -- unless it's just in general that the profits are perfectly good up there and we're making even more down here (we are), so who cares? Alternatively, maybe it just isn't reasonable to fight an entire country for it in the way that it's reasonable to fight one state in the largest overall market for drugs. You lose California (and then other big states), you lose a lot more than if you lose Canada. The pessimist part in me is that a few weeks of zero, or even localized zero by changing your shipping timings for different counties / cities / regions, could be enough to sway people to not support the very same law they voted for. It's not like we turn on a faucet and say "California, here's the drugs." It's quite possible to cut off specific sectors and redirect shipments based on need, profitability, etc. At my last employer, we had a shortage of some very basic, low-impact drugs because of a factory shutdown for about a year, and the shortages largely impacted lower-income areas and, interestingly, Walgreens over CVS. The price we got from Walgreens was't as much as CVS, so we gave CVS priority. That being said (and supporting your point here), even though Wal-mart paid us the least of any of them, we still kept Walmart stocked due to sheer margin and customer count. On the other hand, supporting my side of the deal from 2012: My company stopped supplying insulin to Walmart because of a pricing disagreement and told them to go find another vendor. We accepted zero over any, knowing that eventually Walmart would come back to our insulin again. It took two years, but they did. On the other hand, there are countries we haven't pulled out of that really do eat into our profit margins significantly. My last company still sold in Saudi Arabia in spite of them forcing price controls on our stuff and, in events of crises, often straight up commandeering it. On the other hand, PFE basically forced Nigeria to eat a bunch of lawsuits and some pricing arrangements by withholding anti-malarials in in 2009. It's not unheard of. Long view short (and my view of course, clearly not fact since we're talking hypotheticals): We have enough anti-government sentiment even in California that, even if it passes, it can be killed relatively easily without actually taking any (or minor) economic hit to pharma while they do it. The drawback of letting it pass in CA is that, if it works, more of the country may implement it. CA may be on par with Canada or Australia in terms of total economy, but once you start adding in New York, Washington, Massachusetts, Minnesota possibly, you start steamrolling to something seriously worth protecting. Stomp the fire out while it's in California and you keep the rest of the USA in tow. Edit #1,000,000: I'm game for trying a UHC system at state level. I think it's a fantastic idea if it works, and I think if it's going to start anywhere, it'll start at CA and not at some podunk little place like Vermont. The problem from pharma's view is that if it works in CA, there's now a precedent for it nationwide that can be pointed to. Think about the drawbacks of UHC touted by the medical industry elsewhere. If you believe the average insurance company, Canadians and the British across the board sit for months and months awaiting emergency surgery and then either die before they get it or go to the USA. This is absolutely not true except for either (1) crazy odd cases, or (2) triaged non-critical stuff that is completely unnecessary. We even have the same problems in the USA if you're trying to schedule non-emergency surgery, but that doesn't stop the anti-UHC citizenry from spouting wait-times and death panels as if they're truths. That's one of the huge obstacles to get over--the willingness of the populace to accept a pre-defined view and not question it at all. (Jesus, typing that sounded elitist as hell, but you know what I mean.) I'm just skeptical of success. :\ Edit #1e6+1: Going to bed since it's late and I have to report to my puppy-killing station in the morning to spoil all of America's hopes and dreams. I'm game for more discussion, and I'll try to think up some actual specifics on actions the industry could take. There were some pharma attempts in Switzerland to impact drug pricing about a decade ago which I'll look up, plus pull some of the old PhRMA conference documents to see if there's more stuff to provide as examples. Goodnight! 
Sundae fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Oh hey, I wonder if that BART extension to San Jose, Los Angeles transit expansion, or HSR were depending on federal funds for completion, because that would make another little cherry on the poo poo sundae that was Tuesday night.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Oh hey, I wonder if that BART extension to San Jose, Los Angeles transit expansion, or HSR were depending on federal funds for completion, because that would make another little cherry on the poo poo sundae that was Tuesday night. Well San Jose passed the half-cent sales tax increase and that money is supposedly going to go into finishing the BART extension, but who knows  We also apparently passed Measure E, which is going to be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Sundae posted:I suck and edited my post again. Sorry about that. I agree that pharma would do everything politically in their power to end UHC in California. I don't think that includes leaving money on the table in a situation where UHC has already passed. I can't see an outcome from attempting to negotiate being worse the the current average prices. Boot and Rally fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 07:08
|
|