I went into detail for the rationale here.
The high cost is a direct result of the private healthcare system. It's baked into it. Creating profit is the purpose of it, which is what keeps prices artificially high.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Don't forget, the current image of pure hideousness in gaming.
Fortunately, unless they are at airports, the planes will likely be out of range of their weapons, so the problem is bullets and shotgun pellets raining down randomly over urban environments, not the same plus bits of aircraft.
I pointed out how much money the government doesn't need to spend already... Normal people can do the same with 401ks and just pay later. Also, that makes investing less likely due to you paying initially because the stock goes up and then when you actually sell, the stock was lower than you bought it for so you not only lost money on the investment but then got taxed on money that you never actually gained. Again, you mainly like this tax only because you think these people should pay more.
But who's making all the profit? Insurance company's profit margins aren't big, hospitals can't stay open up in certain areas. Or is it just a massive amount of unneeded bureaucracy?
Nuh uh!
Look at this utter ghastliness. The rancid homeliness unleashed by woke Naughty Dog just to spite the male gamer.
Look at that jaw - the subtle thickness of it... Oh my God, she even has a chin.
A pathetic need to attack anything that might threaten their masturbation fodder.Kim Hyung Tae, the CEO of Shift Up, made a Twitter post displaying a picture of him with Neil Druckmann, sworn enemy of the anti-woke crowd, thanking him for being so welcoming and expressing praise Naughty Dog's upcoming game, Intergalactic.
Naturally, the anti-woke crowd had a mature response to this.
Didn't we just recently have to tell people not to shoot at tornadoes?
Also:
Just witness that absolute hatred for male gamers.
And if those people with 401ks had over 100m in wealth, I'd be happy to tax their yearly rise in wealth too.
And no, since it only ever applies to a fraction of the gain, their wealth would still be increasing.
Insurance companies pay the pharmaceutical manufacturers. Novo Nordisk is the only manufacturer in the US with FDA approval to manufacture semaglutide (sold as Ozempic).
Novo Nordisk's net income was $12billion in 2023. It's net profit margin was ~35% (remember, the average across all industries is just under 10%).
I no longer care about the argument. You didn't seek out the original context. You responded after I posted the link to the interview, so you might have read it from me. You didn't respond to the comments before that, and I guarantee you're not putting in the effort to look something up, find it disagreed with me, and then not respond. Therefore, you did not see the interview until I linked it, if even then. Either way, describing that as you having "sought out" the context is such shameless fart sniffing, it's no longer worth thinking about.
Last edited:
Cecilia Giménez? Is that you?
Living brain donor Marjorie Taylor Greene accuses the Biden administration of controlling the drones being spotted over New Jersey for... some reason.
Marjorie Taylor Greene claims Biden admin is ‘in control of drones’ as MAGAworld pushes wild theories about mystery sightings
Steve Bannon also blamed Joe Biden for the unidentified flying objects, claiming they are evidence of his administration ‘working against’ the incoming Trump administration
Oh lol. "Sought out" isn't some great self-aggrandising claim; it was a 20-second Google after the first post. I expect that most people here do that with dozens of the posts they see. You do. I do. It's hardly difficult.
And of course I didn't respond until you added your two cents-- because nobody else was defending the political doublespeak. I wasn't going to respond to the original tweet just to say, "yes I agree, having googled it!" -- a response only became relevant when it was disputed.
Good lord, you overthink things.
When you misspell the first word in your highly-jargonistic critical post, you lose a lot of credibility.
You can tell this guy used most of these words for the first time, and only using them to sound smarter than he actually is or will never be.
One of your source's arguments was that normal people can't what rich people can with their money, which isn't true. You can have a 401k account where you pay taxes on the income you put in at the time you put it in and then when you take it out, it's completely tax free since your originally paid income taxes on it. Any tax is a fraction of the gain.
Insurance companies pay a "normal" price for ozempic because the negotiate it down. It probably ends up being more than say the UK but it's nowhere near close to the 1300% higher list price. There's hearings where Novo Nordisk explains that to Bernie Sanders for example. And if Novo Nordisk was actually selling ozempic to every single American taking it for 1300% of it's price in the UK, their profit margin would be far higher than 35%.
OK. And you think that's comparable to using 80 million in untaxed shares as collateral for an enormous loan, do you?
The 1300% markup is direct with the customer, that's true. Insurers typically receive a bulk discount, though the cost to the insurer is still over $8k a year per prescription. The customer then still usually ends up paying up to $300 a month even if insured to cover that cost.
So, uhrm, even with the US insurers receiving a little discount, they're still paying hundreds of percent more than the NHS. I'm at least happy to see you've acknowledged that the non-profit system does get it cheaper than the for-profit system.