Funny events in anti-woke world

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,729
832
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
? Rich people can use untaxed wealth in ways that ordinary people cannot. I just gave you an example.



No; insurance companies pay ~8k per year. The consumer can pay up to ~$300 even if they're insured.



The non-profit wing in the US pays more because it is forbidden from negotiating, so that's a worthless comparison. If you compare it to a non-profit service that can negotiate, the latter pays far far far less.

The profits, in the case of drugs like Ozempic, go to the manufacturer: Novo Nordisk. Hence the gigantic profit margin. Novo Nordisk sells to dozens of countries, and yet only reaps these stupidly large profit margins from America.
Rich people can do a lot of things ordinary people cannot. You can make a law restricting said things instead of some weak bandaid that will overall make things worse.

No, they don't.

But if the for-profit wing is making less off themselves than they are off the non-profit wing, seems like the for-profit wing is bad at making profits then. Again, if Novo Nordisk was making that much off ozempic, their profit margins would be far higher. They sell to other countries but what other country that they sell to has the population and obesity rate as America? America might be one of a dozen countries but I'd be guessing like half of the sales are from America and if they are making 1300% more per sale than the UK (which Nova is making profit there too), what is the profit margin in America then?

You and I get gunned down, it's a murder charge (at best). You gun down one CEO and you're a fucking terrorist...
And others are calling them a hero...

They are simply a murderer like every other murderer.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,242
6,459
118
Country
United Kingdom
Rich people can do a lot of things ordinary people cannot. You can make a law restricting said things instead of some weak bandaid that will overall make things worse.
Thank you for conceding that rich people can use this wealth in ways ordinary people cannot, immediately after saying that anyone can do the same things with a 401k.

No, they don't.
That article is paywalled. Can you provide the text?

I can see that the NYT's article is disputed by the CEPR here. According to the CEPR, the main argument used by the NYT is that the list price is reduced by rebates and bulk discounts offered to pharmaceutical benefit managers. But the $8k-per-year price I cited is already taking those discounts into account. Is there a significantly different price tag mentioned by the NYT?

It's worth noting that 58% of health insurers don't cover Ozempic precisely because of cost.

But if the for-profit wing is making less off themselves than they are off the non-profit wing, seems like the for-profit wing is bad at making profits then.
This is why most insurance companies don't cover it. And those that do cover it refuse the majority of claims, and then the customer still pays for a significant part of the price.

Again, if Novo Nordisk was making that much off ozempic, their profit margins would be far higher.
Uhrm, no, that's a foolish assumption. Novo Nordisk produces a lot more than Ozempic. The vast majority of drugs are not subject to the same markup.

They sell to other countries but what other country that they sell to has the population and obesity rate as America? America might be one of a dozen countries but I'd be guessing like half of the sales are from America and if they are making 1300% more per sale than the UK (which Nova is making profit there too), what is the profit margin in America then?
The profit margin from American sales alone will be significantly higher than the global sales average, yes. This is why America has been referred to as "Novo Nordisk's cash cow".

Reminder that 1300% is the increase for those without insurance coverage for Ozempic (which is the majority). For the insured, the profit margin is still hundreds of percent higher than for an NHS sale, but not quite so high.
 
Last edited:

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,269
6,548
118
I can see that the NYT's article is disputed by the CEPR here. According to the CEPR, the main argument used by the NYT is that the list price is reduced by rebates and bulk discounts offered to pharmaceutical benefit managers. But the $8k-per-year price I cited is already taking those discounts into account. Is there a significantly different price tag mentioned by the NYT?
FYI, it's worth noting that due to the wonders of vertical integration and lack of government interest in regulation, many PBMs are owned by healthcare insurance companies.

Heads or tails, they win.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,729
832
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Thank you for conceding that rich people can use this wealth in ways ordinary people cannot, immediately after saying that anyone can do the same things with a 401k.



That article is paywalled. Can you provide the text?

I can see that the NYT's article is disputed by the CEPR here. According to the CEPR, the main argument used by the NYT is that the list price is reduced by rebates and bulk discounts offered to pharmaceutical benefit managers. But the $8k-per-year price I cited is already taking those discounts into account. Is there a significantly different price tag mentioned by the NYT?

It's worth noting that 58% of health insurers don't cover Ozempic precisely because of cost.



This is why most insurance companies don't cover it. And those that do cover it refuse the majority of claims, and then the customer still pays for a significant part of the price.



Uhrm, no, that's a foolish assumption. Novo Nordisk produces a lot more than Ozempic. The vast majority of drugs are not subject to the same markup.



The profit margin from American sales alone will be significantly higher than the global sales average, yes. This is why America has been referred to as "Novo Nordisk's cash cow".

Reminder that 1300% is the increase for those without insurance coverage for Ozempic (which is the majority). For the insured, the profit margin is still hundreds of percent higher than for an NHS sale, but not quite so high.
Normal people can borrow money off stock value because they don't got money to buy stocks. Should rich people not able to use say a yacht as an asset when borrowing money because normal people don't have yachts? Plus the proposed tax on unrealized gains would be far higher than any normal person pays on their unrealized gains from home ownership.

I've seen more than one source that has said the true cost of ozempic is in the $200-300/month range. These prices are secret, it's not like you can just look them up.
Ozempic and Wegovy Don’t Cost What You Think They Do

The problem is daunting: Powerful but expensive new drugs could help many of the 100 million American adults who have obesity and alleviate a grave public health concern.

But how can the nation afford lifelong treatments for so many people, with sticker prices for each patient ranging from about $900 to $1,300 every four weeks?

Some researchers, like Dr. Walter C. Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, have warned that the drugs could add 50 percent to the country’s health care spending.

“You can see this ballooning completely out of control,” he said.

But there is one factor often left out of these discussions: The drugs’ list prices are generally very different from the net prices, which companies receive after making secret deals with health insurers or the intermediaries known as pharmacy benefit managers. Companies generally do not reveal net prices, but there are data sources that can be used to estimate them.

A recent paper published by the American Enterprise Institute revealed that the net prices for the new obesity drugs are just a fraction of the published annual list prices.

And while the drugs’ prices remain out of reach for many, economists anticipate they will soon be driven down. More than a dozen companies are developing obesity drugs. As they enter the market, greater choice is expected to make prices plummet, as has happened with other expensive drugs.

“My prediction is that as competition increases, prices will decrease accordingly,” said Jalpa Doshi, professor of medicine and director of the economics evaluation unit at the University of Pennsylvania.
Strong Demand, Falling Prices?

For now, manufacturers are reaping the rewards of soaring demand.

Investors expect Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Wegovy, to earn $4 billion in revenue this year. The company’s other drug, Ozempic, is expected to bring in $11 billion. The drugs are driving such a bonanza that they account for almost all of the latest economic growth in Denmark, the home of Novo Nordisk.

Those revenues are based on the net prices.

For their analysis, Benedic N. Ippolito, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, and Joseph F. Levy, a health economist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, relied on data from SSR Health, which uses company financial filings and estimates of the number of prescriptions filled.

The economists derived net prices by using data from SSR Health for the second quarter of 2022 through the first quarter of 2023. The exception is Mounjaro, made by Eli Lilly, for which only data from the first quarter of 2023 was available.

Net prices, the revenue divided by the number of prescriptions in their analysis, appear to be around $700 every four weeks for Wegovy, or about $650 less than the list price; about $300 for Ozempic, or nearly $650 less than the list price; and approximately $215 for Mounjaro, or about $800 less than its list price.

That means Wegovy’s net price is about half of its list price, Ozempic’s is nearly two-thirds lower and Mounjaro’s net price is nearly 80 percent lower than its list price.

Dr. Ippolito cautioned that because prices and prescriptions are in flux, these figures might change over time, but added that “these estimates give a good sense for the likely amount paid by many insurers and give a good sense for the amount of discounting going on.”

Pragya Kakani, an economist at Weill Cornell Medical College, analyzed similar data with similar results but was not involved in Dr. Ippolito and Dr. Levy’s research.
Image
A line of Ozempic pens on the assembly line lit in red by the assembly line machinery.
Novo Nordisk’s other drug, Ozempic, is expected to bring the company $11 billion.Credit...Tom Little/Reuters

Craig Garthwaite, a health care economist at Northwestern University, is especially intrigued by the net prices of Ozempic and Mounjaro. Both are approved for people with diabetes but also cause weight loss. Wegovy, the same drug as Ozempic, is approved for weight loss. But the price of Ozempic is substantially lower than Wegovy’s price.

The reason may be that Ozempic has a direct competitor in Mounjaro.

But even Wegovy, which so far has the market for the new obesity drugs to itself, has an unexpectedly low net price, Amitabh Chandra, a health care economist at Harvard, said.

“One might have naïvely thought that these are new medicines that are in great demand, so rebates would be small to nil,” Dr. Chandra said.

“I was shocked,” he said, “by the extent of the rebates.”
A Price We Already Pay

One question looms, experts say: What is weight loss worth to patients and society?

Obesity itself is expensive because it increases the risk for expensive diseases like diabetes and heart disease. One study found that obesity was associated with $1,861 excess yearly health costs per person, accounting for $172.74 billion in annual extra costs.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an influential nonprofit group, asked about a year ago if the new weight-loss drugs are cost-effective, meaning that their value in terms of a better quality of life, a longer life and benefit to society exceeds their cost.

Wegovy, the group reported, was not cost-effective. But the institute relied on an early and less precise estimate of the drug’s net price.

When shown Wegovy’s estimated net price in the A.E.I. research, the group’s chief medical officer, Dr. David M. Rind, said that if the calculations were correct, Wegovy was cost-effective but “still poses major budget challenges.”
Image
A close-up view of a pharmacist’s hands holding an unopened box of Mounjaro in a pharmacy.
Ozempic’s price is substantially lower than Wegovy’s price, which may be because Ozempic has a direct competitor in Mounjaro. Credit...George Frey/Reuters

Dr. Willett, of Harvard, added in an interview: “I don’t think anyone can predict exactly where this will go because competition may reduce prices, and the uptake is still not clear, but the potential cost could go way beyond anything we have seen.”

Still, the expectation is that with less obesity, there will be fewer expensive obesity-related health problems, including type 2 diabetes.

Not only can diabetes lead to kidney failure, blindness and amputations, it also doubles the risk for heart attacks and strokes.

Patients may also get relief from the extreme social stigma and, often, self-loathing that accompanies obesity.

Until recently, the idea that treating obesity would reduce obesity-related health risks was based on anecdotes and correlations, not cause and effect.

Then in August Novo Nordisk announced the results of a large study, showing that Wegovy can reduce the risk of heart attacks, strokes, hospitalizations for heart failure and heart disease deaths by 20 percent.

That outcome alters the picture, Dr. Garthwaite said.

Some insurers do not cover drugs like Wegovy and may view obesity medications as vanity drugs. In response, some patients are suing their insurers.

With a cardiovascular benefit, he said, that rationale for not covering the drugs is “out the window.”
Costs We Can’t All Afford

While the net prices of the drugs may be lower than expected, they remain too expensive for many potential patients.

Those on Medicare, for instance, have no insurance coverage for Wegovy because Medicare is prevented by law from covering weight-loss drugs. Few state Medicaid programs cover the drug.

And while Novo Nordisk says that 80 percent of private insurers cover Wegovy, the drug is not affordable for all insured patients.

Katherine Baicker, a health economist, provost at the University of Chicago and an Eli Lilly board member, said that cheaper health insurance includes co-pays and deductibles that often render Wegovy out of reach. Patients with low-premium plans offered through the Affordable Care Act would similarly be priced out.
Image
The lobby of Novo Nordisk’s sleek office in Denmark. The company’s logo, featuring a bull with a ball above its horns, is printed on a white wall separating two open floors.
A large study by Novo Nordisk showed that Wegovy can reduce the risk of heart attacks, strokes, hospitalizations for heart failure and heart disease deaths by 20 percent.Credit...Tom Little/Reuters

Dr. Scott Ramsey, a health economist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, worries that poorer patients, who are uninsured or whose insurance requires high co-pays, will be looking on longingly as wealthier patients get the drugs.

“We spent 15 years talking about the soaring cost of obesity to the health care system,” Dr. Garthwaite, the Northwestern economist, added. But with a way to cut that cost in reach, he said the attitude of some insurers seems to be, “we don’t want you to come up with a fix that costs money.”
Waves and Peaks

Relief should be coming soon, health economists predict, with companies rushing to develop their own drugs. Competition may lead to lower prices.

That happened, for example, with drugs for hepatitis C. An effective cure for the liver disease initially cost as much as $84,000, leading to dire warnings that the cost would be comparable to “total spending in the United States on all drugs.”

The list price of the hepatitis C treatment plunged, as competitors entered the market. Pharmacy benefit managers, which negotiate with drug makers, had more leverage as companies competed. Net prices fell accordingly.

A similar scenario may play out with Wegovy, which “is riding the wave of not having any direct competition,” Dr. Doshi said. But that status will end soon.

A version of Mounjaro by Eli Lilly is expected to be approved this year for obesity — a potential opening for insurers to agree to cover Wegovy but not Mounjaro, for example, if Wegovy’s price were to be sufficiently reduced.

Dr. Ippolito added that with more than 70 obesity drugs in development, he expected that competition would only increase.

For now, although the price of the drugs is likely at its peak, Dr. Chandra, the Harvard health care economist, argued that it is imperative for access to the drugs to be increased, even if that imposes a cost to society.

The purpose of health insurance is not to save money, he said, but “to improve the quality of life, happiness and self-esteem.”

Most claims for ozempic should probably be refused. It is a drug that you technically don't need because you can lose weight and eat properly without it.

I'd expect the profit margins to be bigger than just 30-something% with as big of a cash cow as ozempic. Most companies don't have a product/service that literally prints money. Nintendo has a profit margin of 32%.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,242
6,459
118
Country
United Kingdom
Normal people can borrow money off stock value because they don't got money to buy stocks. Should rich people not able to use say a yacht as an asset when borrowing money because normal people don't have yachts? Plus the proposed tax on unrealized gains would be far higher than any normal person pays on their unrealized gains from home ownership.
I have zero problem with counting the value of a yacht when calculating a wealth tax, and/or an increase on upper bands of property taxes.

And yes, it would be higher than the property tax increase on a home. So what? I (and most people) believe that centimillionaires accruing wealth without work should pay a higher proportion than ordinary working people. That should be uncontroversial.

I've seen more than one source that has said the true cost of ozempic is in the $200-300/month range. These prices are secret, it's not like you can just look them up.
That is the cost to the individual whose insurance is already covering the rest.

Ozempic and Wegovy Don’t Cost What You Think They Do

The problem is daunting: Powerful but expensive new drugs could help many of the 100 million American adults who have obesity and alleviate a grave public health concern.

But how can the nation afford lifelong treatments for so many people, with sticker prices for each patient ranging from about $900 to $1,300 every four weeks?

Some researchers, like Dr. Walter C. Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, have warned that the drugs could add 50 percent to the country’s health care spending.

“You can see this ballooning completely out of control,” he said.

But there is one factor often left out of these discussions: The drugs’ list prices are generally very different from the net prices, which companies receive after making secret deals with health insurers or the intermediaries known as pharmacy benefit managers. Companies generally do not reveal net prices, but there are data sources that can be used to estimate them.

A recent paper published by the American Enterprise Institute revealed that the net prices for the new obesity drugs are just a fraction of the published annual list prices.

And while the drugs’ prices remain out of reach for many, economists anticipate they will soon be driven down. More than a dozen companies are developing obesity drugs. As they enter the market, greater choice is expected to make prices plummet, as has happened with other expensive drugs.

“My prediction is that as competition increases, prices will decrease accordingly,” said Jalpa Doshi, professor of medicine and director of the economics evaluation unit at the University of Pennsylvania.
Strong Demand, Falling Prices?

For now, manufacturers are reaping the rewards of soaring demand.

Investors expect Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Wegovy, to earn $4 billion in revenue this year. The company’s other drug, Ozempic, is expected to bring in $11 billion. The drugs are driving such a bonanza that they account for almost all of the latest economic growth in Denmark, the home of Novo Nordisk.

Those revenues are based on the net prices.

For their analysis, Benedic N. Ippolito, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, and Joseph F. Levy, a health economist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, relied on data from SSR Health, which uses company financial filings and estimates of the number of prescriptions filled.

The economists derived net prices by using data from SSR Health for the second quarter of 2022 through the first quarter of 2023. The exception is Mounjaro, made by Eli Lilly, for which only data from the first quarter of 2023 was available.

Net prices, the revenue divided by the number of prescriptions in their analysis, appear to be around $700 every four weeks for Wegovy, or about $650 less than the list price; about $300 for Ozempic, or nearly $650 less than the list price; and approximately $215 for Mounjaro, or about $800 less than its list price.

That means Wegovy’s net price is about half of its list price, Ozempic’s is nearly two-thirds lower and Mounjaro’s net price is nearly 80 percent lower than its list price.

Dr. Ippolito cautioned that because prices and prescriptions are in flux, these figures might change over time, but added that “these estimates give a good sense for the likely amount paid by many insurers and give a good sense for the amount of discounting going on.”

Pragya Kakani, an economist at Weill Cornell Medical College, analyzed similar data with similar results but was not involved in Dr. Ippolito and Dr. Levy’s research.
Image
A line of Ozempic pens on the assembly line lit in red by the assembly line machinery.
Novo Nordisk’s other drug, Ozempic, is expected to bring the company $11 billion.Credit...Tom Little/Reuters

Craig Garthwaite, a health care economist at Northwestern University, is especially intrigued by the net prices of Ozempic and Mounjaro. Both are approved for people with diabetes but also cause weight loss. Wegovy, the same drug as Ozempic, is approved for weight loss. But the price of Ozempic is substantially lower than Wegovy’s price.

The reason may be that Ozempic has a direct competitor in Mounjaro.

But even Wegovy, which so far has the market for the new obesity drugs to itself, has an unexpectedly low net price, Amitabh Chandra, a health care economist at Harvard, said.

“One might have naïvely thought that these are new medicines that are in great demand, so rebates would be small to nil,” Dr. Chandra said.

“I was shocked,” he said, “by the extent of the rebates.”
A Price We Already Pay

One question looms, experts say: What is weight loss worth to patients and society?

Obesity itself is expensive because it increases the risk for expensive diseases like diabetes and heart disease. One study found that obesity was associated with $1,861 excess yearly health costs per person, accounting for $172.74 billion in annual extra costs.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an influential nonprofit group, asked about a year ago if the new weight-loss drugs are cost-effective, meaning that their value in terms of a better quality of life, a longer life and benefit to society exceeds their cost.

Wegovy, the group reported, was not cost-effective. But the institute relied on an early and less precise estimate of the drug’s net price.

When shown Wegovy’s estimated net price in the A.E.I. research, the group’s chief medical officer, Dr. David M. Rind, said that if the calculations were correct, Wegovy was cost-effective but “still poses major budget challenges.”
Image
A close-up view of a pharmacist’s hands holding an unopened box of Mounjaro in a pharmacy.
Ozempic’s price is substantially lower than Wegovy’s price, which may be because Ozempic has a direct competitor in Mounjaro. Credit...George Frey/Reuters

Dr. Willett, of Harvard, added in an interview: “I don’t think anyone can predict exactly where this will go because competition may reduce prices, and the uptake is still not clear, but the potential cost could go way beyond anything we have seen.”

Still, the expectation is that with less obesity, there will be fewer expensive obesity-related health problems, including type 2 diabetes.

Not only can diabetes lead to kidney failure, blindness and amputations, it also doubles the risk for heart attacks and strokes.

Patients may also get relief from the extreme social stigma and, often, self-loathing that accompanies obesity.

Until recently, the idea that treating obesity would reduce obesity-related health risks was based on anecdotes and correlations, not cause and effect.

Then in August Novo Nordisk announced the results of a large study, showing that Wegovy can reduce the risk of heart attacks, strokes, hospitalizations for heart failure and heart disease deaths by 20 percent.

That outcome alters the picture, Dr. Garthwaite said.

Some insurers do not cover drugs like Wegovy and may view obesity medications as vanity drugs. In response, some patients are suing their insurers.

With a cardiovascular benefit, he said, that rationale for not covering the drugs is “out the window.”
Costs We Can’t All Afford

While the net prices of the drugs may be lower than expected, they remain too expensive for many potential patients.

Those on Medicare, for instance, have no insurance coverage for Wegovy because Medicare is prevented by law from covering weight-loss drugs. Few state Medicaid programs cover the drug.

And while Novo Nordisk says that 80 percent of private insurers cover Wegovy, the drug is not affordable for all insured patients.

Katherine Baicker, a health economist, provost at the University of Chicago and an Eli Lilly board member, said that cheaper health insurance includes co-pays and deductibles that often render Wegovy out of reach. Patients with low-premium plans offered through the Affordable Care Act would similarly be priced out.
Image
The lobby of Novo Nordisk’s sleek office in Denmark. The company’s logo, featuring a bull with a ball above its horns, is printed on a white wall separating two open floors.
A large study by Novo Nordisk showed that Wegovy can reduce the risk of heart attacks, strokes, hospitalizations for heart failure and heart disease deaths by 20 percent.Credit...Tom Little/Reuters

Dr. Scott Ramsey, a health economist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, worries that poorer patients, who are uninsured or whose insurance requires high co-pays, will be looking on longingly as wealthier patients get the drugs.

“We spent 15 years talking about the soaring cost of obesity to the health care system,” Dr. Garthwaite, the Northwestern economist, added. But with a way to cut that cost in reach, he said the attitude of some insurers seems to be, “we don’t want you to come up with a fix that costs money.”
Waves and Peaks

Relief should be coming soon, health economists predict, with companies rushing to develop their own drugs. Competition may lead to lower prices.

That happened, for example, with drugs for hepatitis C. An effective cure for the liver disease initially cost as much as $84,000, leading to dire warnings that the cost would be comparable to “total spending in the United States on all drugs.”

The list price of the hepatitis C treatment plunged, as competitors entered the market. Pharmacy benefit managers, which negotiate with drug makers, had more leverage as companies competed. Net prices fell accordingly.

A similar scenario may play out with Wegovy, which “is riding the wave of not having any direct competition,” Dr. Doshi said. But that status will end soon.

A version of Mounjaro by Eli Lilly is expected to be approved this year for obesity — a potential opening for insurers to agree to cover Wegovy but not Mounjaro, for example, if Wegovy’s price were to be sufficiently reduced.

Dr. Ippolito added that with more than 70 obesity drugs in development, he expected that competition would only increase.

For now, although the price of the drugs is likely at its peak, Dr. Chandra, the Harvard health care economist, argued that it is imperative for access to the drugs to be increased, even if that imposes a cost to society.

The purpose of health insurance is not to save money, he said, but “to improve the quality of life, happiness and self-esteem.”
Thank you, appreciated.

So, the NYT puts the net price at $300, the source for which is the American Enterprise Institute (specifically this). The AEI has calculated this as the net payment made to the manufacturer, divided by the number of prescriptions.

That's quite an unreliable metric, but let's assume it's right for a moment. That means that even with bulk discounts and rebates, American insurers still pay 300% as much for Ozempic as the NHS does. And fewer than half insurers offer it. And those that do cover it still require the patient to pay for a chunk of it-- often over half.

Most claims for ozempic should probably be refused. It is a drug that you technically don't need because you can lose weight and eat properly without it.
OK, and I'm sure an insurance provider with a financial motivation to refuse coverage will only turn people down with good reason.

Side note, you know it's also prescribed for type 2 diabetes, right?

I'd expect the profit margins to be bigger than just 30-something% with as big of a cash cow as ozempic.
This is because you have a poor grasp of business margins. Ozempic is a product with a relatively small target market, and only one section of that market-- the US-- provides this margin. 35% is absolutely obscene.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,729
832
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I have zero problem with counting the value of a yacht when calculating a wealth tax, and/or an increase on upper bands of property taxes.

And yes, it would be higher than the property tax increase on a home. So what? I (and most people) believe that centimillionaires accruing wealth without work should pay a higher proportion than ordinary working people. That should be uncontroversial.



That is the cost to the individual whose insurance is already covering the rest.



Thank you, appreciated.

So, the NYT puts the net price at $300, the source for which is the American Enterprise Institute (specifically this). The AEI has calculated this as the net payment made to the manufacturer, divided by the number of prescriptions.

That's quite an unreliable metric, but let's assume it's right for a moment. That means that even with bulk discounts and rebates, American insurers still pay 300% as much for Ozempic as the NHS does. And fewer than half insurers offer it. And those that do cover it still require the patient to pay for a chunk of it-- often over half.



OK, and I'm sure an insurance provider with a financial motivation to refuse coverage will only turn people down with good reason.

Side note, you know it's also prescribed for type 2 diabetes, right?



This is because you have a poor grasp of business margins. Ozempic is a product with a relatively small target market, and only one section of that market-- the US-- provides this margin. 35% is absolutely obscene.
I agree the more you make, the higher percentage you should pay. I also don't have to agree with every tax levied against the rich.

It depends on the insurance, some people don't pay anything but the co-pay for ozempic.

I'm talking about when it's not prescribed for type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is also something you can control with diet alone so being on ozempic forever or for years shouldn't be a thing.

How is Nintendo's profit margin nearly as high and they don't have some drug that prints money like Novo Nordisk?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,242
6,459
118
Country
United Kingdom
It depends on the insurance, some people don't pay anything but the co-pay for ozempic.
Some. Others do, up into the hundreds. We've already established most don't even cover Ozempic-- it's an even smaller percentage that fully cover Ozempic.

I'm talking about when it's not prescribed for type 2 diabetes.
Exactly the same pricing applies whether its for diabetes or obesity. So if you're talking about the price of the drug, you're absolutely talking about both.

How is Nintendo's profit margin nearly as high and they don't have some drug that prints money like Novo Nordisk?
What possible relevance does this have? Are you just trying to imply that 35% profit margin (over three times the average) is normal, and therefore their business practices and pricing structure must be fine?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,729
832
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Some. Others do, up into the hundreds. We've already established most don't even cover Ozempic-- it's an even smaller percentage that fully cover Ozempic.



Exactly the same pricing applies whether its for diabetes or obesity. So if you're talking about the price of the drug, you're absolutely talking about both.



What possible relevance does this have? Are you just trying to imply that 35% profit margin (over three times the average) is normal, and therefore their business practices and pricing structure must be fine?
You claimed that the individual pays everything minus the insurance negotiated discount (if I understood what you were saying correctly) and that's not true. Most insurances cover ozempic for diabetes. How many people that could afford ozempic without insurance are actually paying those insane prices? If you're rich enough to afford it on your own, I'm sure you have insurance that covers it. Who is actually paying those insane prices then? Outside of state insurances that cover it and can't negotiate, you then have a very very very small amount of people rich enough paying for ozempic out of pocket that their insurance doesn't cover.

I never claimed otherwise. I said why would insurance cover something (drug or procedure or whatever) that's not really needed. So there will be tons of insurance denials for ozempic because most want it for weight loss. When it's prescribed for diabetes, it's usually not denied, which is what I said that your responding to.

I'm saying that if you have something that prints money (at the level you're claiming), wouldn't you be having a significantly higher profit margin than say Nintendo.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,242
6,459
118
Country
United Kingdom
You claimed that the individual pays everything minus the insurance negotiated discount (if I understood what you were saying correctly) and that's not true.
No, I didn't. But the individual can still be paying hundreds even when insured.

Most insurances cover ozempic for diabetes.
This appears to be true, yes, though I can't find a number. The proportion of coverage for weight loss seems to be between 20 and 42%.

How many people that could afford ozempic without insurance are actually paying those insane prices? If you're rich enough to afford it on your own, I'm sure you have insurance that covers it. Who is actually paying those insane prices then? Outside of state insurances that cover it and can't negotiate, you then have a very very very small amount of people rich enough paying for ozempic out of pocket that their insurance doesn't cover.
...I'm more concerned about the people who can't afford it. How many people need such a drug as semaglutide, can't get it through the insurance system, and cannot afford it themselves due to the insane price?

I never claimed otherwise. I said why would insurance cover something (drug or procedure or whatever) that's not really needed. So there will be tons of insurance denials for ozempic because most want it for weight loss. When it's prescribed for diabetes, it's usually not denied, which is what I said that your responding to.
"Needed" is a bit of a woolly term, isn't it? Is something "needed" if there's any alternative? These decisions are supposed to be made by doctors independently. Medical experts. Not businessmen who have a profit motive to refuse.

The average for denied health insurance claims is indeed not a majority, it's about 20%. No matter how you cut it, that's tens of millions of claims.

I'm saying that if you have something that prints money (at the level you're claiming), wouldn't you be having a significantly higher profit margin than say Nintendo.
No. Because the profit margin is determined by all it's products and sales. One product with a relatively small target market, even if that one product is obscenely overpriced, is not going to singlehandedly drive the profit margin into the 40s or 50s. That's completely insane. The fact that the margin is already over three times the average is already ridiculously high.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,269
6,548
118
"Needed" is a bit of a woolly term, isn't it?
Indeed.

Are antidepressants "needed"? Painkillers? Gastrointestinal antispasmodics? The list is huge.

A person generally is not going to die if they don't have these, or there are alternative options in case they might. People might be much less happy or (as those who run society more care about) productive without them, though.
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
12,991
9,524
118
Trump team affirms he’s leader of GOP amid ‘President Musk’ barbs

President-elect Trump’s transition team pushed back against Democratic lawmakers who suggested Elon Musk is the “real leader” of the Republican Party after his aggressive pressure campaign against a stopgap spending measure.

“As soon as President Trump released his official stance on the CR [continuing resolution], Republicans on Capitol Hill echoed his point of view. President Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. Full stop,” said Karoline Leavitt, transition spokesperson for the Trump-Vance team, in a statement shared with The Hill.
Musk, a close ally of Trump, fired off numerous social media posts on Wednesday railing against the bipartisan spending measure, which was released Tuesday night ahead of the Dec. 20 shutdown deadline.

Musk, who is co-leading Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) advisory panel to slash government spending, urged members of Congress to vote against the bill, describing the more-than-1500-page measure as a big “piece of pork.”
At one point, he argued any lawmaker who supports the CR should be voted out of office and called for a moratorium on all legislation until Trump takes office on Jan. 20.

He, along with DOGE co-leader Vivek Ramaswamy, posted online about the CR for hours on Wednesday before Trump and Vice President-elect Vance broke their silence and came out against the measure.

Amid mounting pressure from Trump and his allies, the CR quickly crumbled, and several Democrats were quick to point the finger at Musk’s barrage of online posts as a driving factor in the breakdown.

Several Democratic lawmakers argued “President Elon Musk” is responsible for any impending government shutdown and used the situation as a chance to question Trump’s grip on his own party.

It remains unclear how much of a role Musk and Ramaswamy’s online posts played in Trump and Vance’s public opposition and whether the two DOGE leaders were in communication with the president-elect.

Several GOP members told The Hill on Wednesday they believe Musk has growing influence on Capitol Hill, with at least one lawmaker reportedly suggesting his posts may have impacted the vote count for the original CR.

The bill would have funded the government through March 14 and averted the Dec. 20 deadline.
House Republicans are now looking at an alternative government funding stopgap that excludes a debt ceiling increase and instead works on a committee to raise the borrowing limit twice next year in an effort to appease Trump.

The new bill, which is still being hashed out and is subject to change, would be similar to Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La) earlier plan, minus some policy provisions, two sources told The Hill on Thursday.
1734696029624.gif

Anyway, speaking of Musk thing
1734696002691.jpeg

Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,225
5,005
118
Isn't it wonderful that we're now living in a world where a multi-billionaire can literally buy countries?
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
12,991
9,524
118
Isn't it wonderful that we're now living in a world where a multi-billionaire can literally buy countries?
Now? This is neither new, nor exceptional. The wealthy have always owned the politicians, assuming they weren't one and the same of course.

The only notable difference is Musk is an edgy manchild, so it loudly shitposts it for all to see.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,269
6,548
118
Isn't it wonderful that we're now living in a world where a multi-billionaire can literally buy countries?
Potentially that's been the norm across history. Powerful individuals (chiefly aristocrats or generals, more so these days businessmen) have always been able to control kingdoms, or singly been more powerful than small realms.

One might argue one of the great achievements of the 20th Century in the West was to both constrain the ultra-powerful and deliver unparalleled growth for the poor-middle; equality far exceeding most societies before or - bearing how mind how things seem to be going - very possibly after. Equality that has been delberately unpicked in the last few decades. And thus we are moving back to dominance by an aristocracy: albeit one mostly without hereditary titles.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,729
832
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
No, I didn't. But the individual can still be paying hundreds even when insured.



This appears to be true, yes, though I can't find a number. The proportion of coverage for weight loss seems to be between 20 and 42%.



...I'm more concerned about the people who can't afford it. How many people need such a drug as semaglutide, can't get it through the insurance system, and cannot afford it themselves due to the insane price?



"Needed" is a bit of a woolly term, isn't it? Is something "needed" if there's any alternative? These decisions are supposed to be made by doctors independently. Medical experts. Not businessmen who have a profit motive to refuse.

The average for denied health insurance claims is indeed not a majority, it's about 20%. No matter how you cut it, that's tens of millions of claims.



No. Because the profit margin is determined by all it's products and sales. One product with a relatively small target market, even if that one product is obscenely overpriced, is not going to singlehandedly drive the profit margin into the 40s or 50s. That's completely insane. The fact that the margin is already over three times the average is already ridiculously high.
Or just the copay like any other drug.

But the people that can't afford are not paying for it obviously. My point is who is paying the prices you claimed that ozempic cost (8k/year)? It's really just probably state insurers that can't negotiate and the few people rich enough to afford it where their insurance doesn't cover it.

They are pushing for ozempic to be used long-term, which doesn't make sense when you can simply eat properly. If anything, ozempic should just be used as a tool to help people eat properly as it could be used to get people off the cycle of carb addiction easier and make those first few weeks to a month of a healthy diet a lot easier by requiring a lot less willpower. The same thing is essentially true for diabetes but that would be a longer period of use. Long-term use of ozempic really makes no sense for either weight loss or diabetes. Part of the horrible healthcare system in the US is treating symptoms with drugs vs actually going after the root cause and fixing that. That would result in healthcare being cheaper for everyone.
GLP-1 medications like Ozempic and Wegovy are meant for long-term use.

But like no one is paying the prices for ozempic that you claimed they were. If they were, then their profit margin would be much higher.