How do you feel about CA's decision to establish a state-run pharma company with the goal of producing affordable insulin?

👍 I agree with the move (64%): “I think it’s wrong to make something that’s necessary for some people to live so unattainable. As long as California is actually doing this to help people and not just be another competitor for profit, I support their decision.”

• “The purpose of government is to leverage collective action for collective benefit. Creating market competition in a market that has regularly exploited its customers is a wonderful way for the government to look out for its people. If a sector doesn’t want government interference, don’t do widespread harm as a business practice.”

👎 I disagree with the move (10%): “While I like the idea of more competition for a lifesaving drug, bureaucracies tend to grow and stifle innovation rather than foster it. I smell boondoggle and the likelihood of a new tax to ‘even the playing field’ that will only raise prices for California patients.”

• “To me, there’s a slippery slope with state-owned companies. It represents a step towards socialism, which has proven disastrous historically.”

🤷‍♀️ Unsure/Other (26%): “I wish this funding was instead going towards addressing the root causes of diabetes (dietary and exercise choices, less healthy food being cheaper than organic) so that people don’t have to be medicated to survive.”

• “I like that California is taking active measures to fight rising drug costs, and their new drug company may provide a good alternative to pharma giants. But I’m wary that it could become a money sink for the state.”

+Note on sample size: We received 7,481 responses. 👏🥳 Some may have been lightly edited for grammar or clarity.