Bill denial for the prescription drug price cap called ‘a major setback’ for diabetics in the state

  • harmonea@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    The context that it’s a copay cap only is really important, and I see why it was vetoed - for not going far enough while a viable interim solution is already in place that gives the state breathing room to wait for a more complete solution.

    I’ve been seeing a lot of misleading as hell headlines about this guy’s vetoes lately. There was another one yesterday about him vetoing a bill that would have banned caste discrimination, but that one was because CA’s anti-discrimination laws already covered discrimination based on ancestry.

    • squiblet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Also the one about psilocybin, which was because he said they needed to provide more detail about regulation. Not because he opposed the general concept. Yeah, probably there’s a campaign to make him look bad.

      • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I’ll toss in two more theories:

        One, he lost track of the optics of vetoing 3 bills with high visibility and ideological importance to the American left: drug prices, drug decriminalization, and racial discrimination.

        Two, the American left has low tolerance for ideological impurity - people are upset that he’s not a progressive like Bernie Sanders nor a firebrand like AOC. However, the lack of those two qualities appeals to the middle, it might peel away some disillusioned Republicans. As another commenter said, “pick your battles.” Newsom seems to be doing just that.

        I’m not saying either of these is more likely than a coordinated effort to discredit him, just that they are other possibilities.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          The thing is he did provide valid details and reasons for these vetoes. The headlines didn’t have to be phrased in a way that made it look like he disagreed with the main idea. Most people don’t bother reading articles and are generally inept at absorbing details, so it’s unfortunate he gave someone that ammo.