We’ve all fallen victim to the crazy eyes at least once. You just gotta know first hand what’s behind them. Then you gotta decide if it’s worth it to go back again someday. Simple creatures us boys are…
Newsom loves to bash red states. He’s now vacationing in one...
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
We’ve all fallen victim to the crazy eyes at least once. You just gotta know first hand what’s behind them. Then you gotta decide if it’s worth it to go back again someday. Simple creatures us boys are…
R& D costs are associated with new products that come to market and those which don’t. These costs are accounted for.
Drugs like insulin which are on the market for decades, long ago had the R&D write offs taken.
To continue to charge hundreds per month for insulin is disgusting and certainly not in line with the Hoppocratic Oath.
The answer IMO - you leave these publicly held, capitalism fed, big pharma companies alone. We can all buy stock in them. Leave them to spend their billions on R&D and come up with treatments or cures for hideous diseases.
Then, the government helps people buy drugs that can't afford them. A low-income drug plan of some kind. Help the people that need help so they can afford the same treatments the rich can afford.
I am a well-insured retiree, about as unhealthy as they come. I have been taking prescription drugs for a few decades. None of them have ever come close to being more expensive than they were worth to me. I would say that a vast majority of Americans are in the same place.
Would it be easy to figure out who needs assistance? Nope. Difficult to administer fairly? Yup. Would some people take advantage of the plan that don't really need it? Yup. It would be the same as almost every government subsidy program like Medicare, farm subsidies, oil company subsidies, etc.
I'm really tired of people that can't afford expensive medical treatments! Like bone-marrow transplants or cancer drugs. We should be able to figure it out without destroying capitalism.
I don't believe that Big Pharm takes the Hippocratic Oath.
I can only assume that many drug companies can make insulin. The competition should keep the price reasonable to the cost of production. If the drug companies are colluding to set the price too high, that it a crime and must be stopped.
This world is weird. A state passes a law to protect girls in competition and they are branded as anti lgbqt. It's just dumb.
He might have another reason to go to a red state: no more Big Mac’s? 
Is California Going to Kill McDonald’s? | Brad Polumbo
“The bill would establish a panel with members appointed by the governor and legislative leaders composed of workers, union representatives, employers and business advocates,” the Journal explains. “They would set hourly wages of up to $22 for fast food workers starting next year.
fee.org
- Sep 13, 2002
- 93,917
- 189,797
- 113
Have any red states banned state-funded travel to any blue states?
- Sep 13, 2002
- 93,917
- 189,797
- 113
I believe the answer is no, there are no red states that have banned state-funded travel to blue states. That’s the difference here. That’s why your comparison is invalid.
Still his trip isn't state funded. So not really hypocrisy.
I agree with you that it's dumb and it's all about punishing people for having different views then you. But it's not hypocrisy.
As far as the state funded thing. . . I'm actually kind of surprised that DeSantis hasn't tried something like that.
So he can't go visit family now, that just happens to live in a red state? Is that what they are implying here? Being against a states policies and going to visit are 2 completely different things.California Gov. Gavin Newsom is learning the perils of being a blue state warrior.
The Democratic governor in recent weeks has been on the forefront of national political battles pitting California against red state rivals, going so far as to buy ad time in Florida to bash Republican policies in the Sunshine State.
But a recent family vacation to Montana, one of 22 states where California prohibits state-funded travel, has put Newsom on the hot seat, with Republicans and conservative pundits accusing the governor of hypocrisy and double standards.
The governor left town last week as state lawmakers scattered for a monthlong summer recess, but unlike previous trips, didn’t at first announce his whereabouts. News of the governor’s travels to Montana, first reported by CalMatters, immediately sparked backlash from his critics.
Newsom did not violate any law, even if he traveled with a security detail, according to a California Highway Patrol official, and a Newsom spokesperson said the governor paid for the trip to visit family and noted the ban doesn’t apply to personal travel. But the vacation presents unfortunate optics for a liberal firebrand.
The governor has plenty of reasons to travel to Montana: His in-laws live there, and it’s where he and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom were married. The two went so far as to name their eldest daughter “Montana.”
At issue is a state law, signed in 2016 by former Gov. Jerry Brown, which prohibits state-funded travel to states with laws that California deems as discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender. Today that list includes 22 states with a combined population of around 135 million people. The California Department of Justice, not the governor’s office, determines the list.
Montana landed on it last year after enacting a pair of laws that barred transgender students from joining school teams matching their gender identities and allowed businesses to seek exemptions from some laws under the auspices of religious liberty, which LGBTQ advocates said could open the door to discrimination.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement at the time that the Montana measures were among “a recent, dangerous wave of discriminatory new bills signed into law in states across the country.”
Bonta added five states to the prohibited list that day. Florida was another.
A spokesperson for the governor’s office said Wednesday that the news reporting thus far shows a “lack of understanding toward state policy” and conflates Newsom’s personal vacation with prohibited state-funded travel.
“Connecting the two is irresponsible and implies there is something untoward,” said Erin Mellon, the governor’s communications director, said in an email.
“This is a personal trip to visit family who live outside the state. We are not in the business of regulating where people have family or where they spend their vacation. Nor will we persecute them for visiting their family. The press shouldn’t either.”
When asked if the governor had traveled with a state security detail, Mellon said she couldn’t comment due to security concerns. Governors in the past have generally traveled with California Highway Patrol officers acting as bodyguards.
The state’s travel ban would not apply to state-funded security officers, a CHP representative said, citing an exception in the law for “the protection of public health, welfare, or safety” and a separate code section allowing law enforcement to provide for the physical security of elected officials.
Newsom loves to bash red states. He’s now vacationing in one.
The California governor goes out of his way to knock Republican-led states. Now he’s catching heat for traveling to Montana.www.politico.com
- Sep 13, 2002
- 93,917
- 189,797
- 113
I wasn't aware Newsome was there on official business. Wasn't it a private trip?
Was this state travel or not? That appears to be the burning question and we all know the answer to that. It is clear as day in the article. The state policy is no state dollars will pay for travel to states that have negative legislation for LGBTQ individuals. Its no different than red states putting negative laws in place against these individuals. It also doesn't restrict anyone from going to visit these states just not using state money.
It was a personal trip but he used state-funded security. Like it or not, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy inherent in using taxpayer funded security on a personal vacation to a state where you’ve explicitly banned state-funded travel.
To me there is no hypocrisy when it is a personal trip to go see family. If you think there is not sure what to tell you. That security went with him I would assume that is normal practice. They just don't let him go on vacation anywhere without security. Seems like the right is making a mountain over a mole hill including you.
I’m not making a mountain out of a molehill. I’m explaining to you that there is a certain level of hypocrisy in using a taxpayer-funded security detail on a vacation to a state where you have explicitly banned state-funded travel.
If you can’t comprehend that point then you’re simply blinded by partisan loyalty. Because I guarantee that if Kim banned state-funded travel to California and then used a taxpayer-funded security detail on a vacation to Los Angeles, you guys would be making the freakin’ Andes out of it.
