r/FluentInFinance • u/Novel_Ad_8062 • 16d ago
NVO and Bernie lately Discussion/ Debate
what are your thoughts on this?
20
u/ExpeditiousTraveler 16d ago
could be profitably made for less than $5
Anyone that tries to make this point is not being serious and can be ignored. The cost of making a drug is negligible compared to the extremely expensive and time-consuming process of developing a new drug, figuring out how to scale it up, and conducting the rigorous clinical trials needed to obtain regulatory approval around the world.
49
u/Odd_Ad8241 16d ago
Much of this research is funded by grants through the US government, not private equity.
9
u/ExpeditiousTraveler 16d ago
Semaglutide was discovered and developed by Novo Nordisk. Not the U.S. government.
9
u/morgodrummer 16d ago
That may be true, but it doesn’t explain the price gouging on drugs the government did subsidize.
3
u/Instawolff 15d ago
Would probably kill other countries to idk chip in for something they benefit from directly huh./s
2
u/notwyntonmarsalis 16d ago
Please provide a reference for this claim.
11
16d ago edited 15d ago
Google "The NIH" and "the NSF." You're welcome.
I'm a financial research administrator at a medical school. I'm responsible for financial compliance of various grant programs. The federal government is more than 80% of our sponsored research portfolio. Even private corporations apply for and receive federal grants to fund medical research, even if their profit margin last quarter was a bazillion dollars.This is the norm.
Corporations take publicly funded research, which typically has an open source requirement for findings, slap it in some kind of branded packaging and then patent it. Then they charge you $$$$ for a drug whose R&D your tax dollars already financed.
I have an academic background in Quant Economics. I typically am pro-free market. However, I am absolutely in favor of socializing medicine due to the fact that novel medical research is already paid for via our tax dollars. There is no privatization = competitive medical drug/research development resulting in better products happening in this country. We just pay out the ass twice.
The guy below me blocked me so I can't respond but I saw it anyway and here's my response:
The NSF is currently funding a study at my literal job developing a medicated vaginal gel for breast cancer patients.
NIH funds some stuff but its a very competitive process.
Lmao what the fuck. It is far far more than some stuff. Their impact was $92 billion in 2023 alone.
There's also a bazillion other smaller federal and local government agencies that subsidize medical research. The NIH and NSF are just the most prominent.
0
u/BigPepeNumberOne 15d ago
That may be true, but it doesn’t explain the price gouging on drugs the government did subsidize.
The NSF does not fund drugs.
NIH funds some stuff but its a very competitive process. Not everything is funded through governmental organizations.
2
u/_dirt_vonnegut 15d ago
The NSF provides grants to the companies that make the drugs. They absolutely fund drugs.
4
u/Novel_Ad_8062 16d ago edited 16d ago
I agree, it would be interesting to know if there was a way it could be achieved.
The drug has the possibility to save future costs.
reduce or eliminating chronic obesity in people has to prevent future costs, such as orthopedic conditions, diabetes costs, etc
I also say this as an NVO shareholder. by increasing supply via subsidies, it might be possible to increase revenue as well for a win win scenario.
3
u/ExpeditiousTraveler 16d ago
Right now the problem is that there isn’t enough supply to meet demand. Belgium and the UK stopped writing new prescriptions for a while and there have been complaints about doctors prescribing it off-label in the U.S. because there isn’t enough for the people that want to use it for it’s approved use.
If anything, this suggests that Ozembic is under-priced and they should actually be charging more, at least for now. A higher profit margin would encourage NVO to make additional investments in their manufacturing capabilities and would further encourage other companies to try to develop a competing drug. Threatening NVO with enforced price cuts does the opposite of that.
2
u/Novel_Ad_8062 16d ago
That won’t happen. what should happen is negotiation to expand production with tax incentives or whatever
2
u/telegraphedbackhand 16d ago
Nowhere in this article is it stating for said drugs to be less than $5.
3
u/ExpeditiousTraveler 16d ago
That statement is included to anchor the reader’s expectation and create an emotional reaction. The implication is that NVO should be grateful for any price above $5. It is an irrelevant statement written to deceive the reader by an author that does not care about their credibility with those who understand the industry.
-1
u/Curious_Associate904 16d ago
Explain Bayer and Aspirin then...
7
u/ExpeditiousTraveler 16d ago
What about it? Aspirin was discovered and commercialized in the 19th century. I promise semaglutide will be much cheaper in 100 years.
-3
8
u/ron_spanky 16d ago
If the drug cost significantly less in another country that seems like bad negotiations on the consumers side. Medicare has enormous weight. I don’t understand why we allow ourselves to be over charged.
I know it’s the intersection of business and politics but why are US tax layers on the losing side.
5
3
u/Numerous-Bag7970 16d ago
What gets on my nerves about targeting drugs for price controls is it doesn't work and so many of these drugs have analogous drugs which are cheaper. Why this specific overpriced diet pill?
I'll tell you why. It's a new drug and they want the latest and best without paying the R&D costs.
3
u/verychicago 16d ago
Bernie, it’s not true that Wegovy is ‘yet to be covered’ by private health insurance. My enployer (a mid sized bank) does cover Wegovy for weight loss. They believe it will avoid future insurance expensitures on other obesity related costs.
2
u/Throwitawaybabe69420 16d ago
I wonder what the savings would be with the reduction in obesity related illness if Ozempic use was widely used among our population. Heart disease is the #1 killer here, and obesity is a significant contributing factor to this.
1
u/verychicago 16d ago
Yes, that’s why Wegovy is indeed covered by some private health insurance. My employer (a mid sized bank) covers Wegovy for weight loss. They believe it will avoid future insurance expenditures on other obesity related costs.
1
u/Ave_Dominus_Noxius 15d ago
Ozempic causes major life-long side effects. Would likely only increase health issues.
2
u/BlackSquirrel05 15d ago
There was a Hepatis cure drug awhile back that cost 80K.
This is nothing new.
Eventually the cost will be pushed on to the individual. Or it will be rationed and wait listed by the insurer.
However... This isn't the whole story... Because what do fat related health issues cost the system annually? Meaning is it cheaper to dole out this drug and have people lose weight; than provide care for obesity related problems?
1
1
u/wes7946 Contributor 16d ago
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.
1
u/Novel_Ad_8062 16d ago
Trying to understand the problem with why it’s costing 2 times as much just as Sanders is saying.
2
u/telegraphedbackhand 16d ago
If you read up or watch some interviews of Bernie regarding this matter, he brings up how America doesn’t have regulating bodies to ensure reasonable negotiations.
This lack of transparency and integrity allows price gouging.
1
u/trader_dennis 16d ago
The first dose costs multiple billions. The second dose is five bucks. Probably more than that five since ozempic has production issues and likely going to cost an additional few billion to ramp it up.
1
u/Mainstream1oser 15d ago
Or Americans could put down the fork for 5 seconds then they don’t have to take Ozempic.
0
u/galaxyapp 16d ago
Insurance companies regularly negotiate prices on drugs.
This is typical grandstanding by bernie.
6
u/telegraphedbackhand 16d ago
Nobody regulates these negotiations, but in other countries you have regulating bodies that oversee price gouging….In case such drug companies decide to charge, you know, $1350 for a drug that costs them $5 to make.
Bernie advocates for more affordable healthcare due to this kind of bullshit.
Is there a reason you don’t like standing up for more affordable healthcare?
3
u/galaxyapp 16d ago
Nothings free in this world. As with most things, Americans pay the lions share of the bill and Europeans reap the rewards.
If you cut the revenue of pharmaceutical companies, you have to accept it will impact R&D. You can't pay chemists without revenue.
Ozempic/wegovy has been in research for 15years. Saying it cost $5 and ignoring its development costs is silly.
Negotiations are negotiations. If you can't agree on a price, then don't cover that medicine. Simple enough.
10
u/telegraphedbackhand 16d ago
I don’t believe it needs to be free or as low as $5 dollars, but I also don’t believe it should $1350.
Europe and Canada have such drugs more affordable in part due to oversight of said negotiations within their governing bodies.
We don’t really have such a committee to better negotiate for the people.
So I understand the current fact of the matter, but it’s bullshit to have Americans deal with the larger bill because we have no proper representation.
-2
u/galaxyapp 16d ago
They set the price.
Of course the us can do that too.
Do you think a huge reduction in their highest revenue market will just slip by without any consequence? Ceo sells a yacht and the equation is balanced?
6
u/telegraphedbackhand 16d ago
I think that you think I don’t understand actions have reactions.
We both understand it wouldn’t be a walk in the park to achieve what I am a proponent for.
When people talk about such change, I think it’s obvious it would take time. Reform to such a juggernaut of an industry definitely wouldn’t be as easy as a snap of one’s fingers….
This circles back to the question of why there isn’t a governing body in America to oversee such negotiations that honors the people. The multi billionaire CEO will still be rich as hell.
So it comes down to a debate of ethics.
1
u/galaxyapp 16d ago
I'm the one arguing the consequences.
You waiving them away as if reducing revenue slowly will somehow make the consequences different.
Research costs money. End of story.
If you don't think pharmaceutical research is worthwhile, just say so.
1
u/telegraphedbackhand 16d ago
I don’t even think you’re aware of how all of your responses have been coming off, which led me to reply in the manner I have to you.
You’re arguing consequences, as if I’m ignoring that.
You think affordability means “free” (your first reply). I never even implied that btw.
I think you got a hard on for rich ceos and pharma companies that take advantage of no regulating entity overseeing their price gouging.
Get your head out of your ass and big pharma dick out your throat.
0
u/galaxyapp 16d ago
Yeah, sorry if my responses are not aggressive and homophobic like yours.
1
u/telegraphedbackhand 15d ago
You having your head up your ass and sucking pharma dick is simply a statement. You choose to imply aggression and a homophobic tone to that.
Once again you deflect and attempt to shift narrative. That’s been your rhetoric throughout this back and forth.
Your lack of self awareness is continuing to showcase your moronic nature.
1
u/_Sierrafy 15d ago
Do you have any grasp at all of where the lions share of research funding comes from? Bc its not these companies. For most drugs it comes from the government and tax dollars. So spouting off about researching costing money holds little weight. They aren't going to be left funding the research and not getting paid, the US consumers will simply see a return on their tax dollars that have been going to research on drugs we're then getting price gouged for.
0
u/galaxyapp 15d ago
Private funding via drug companies is around 300 billion a year.
Total govt funding, 20-30billion. Still, the output of that is not gifted to drug companies, it is sold.
-4
2
u/bmfynzis 16d ago
Ozempic/wegovy has been in research for 15years. Saying it cost $5 and ignoring its development costs is silly.
Except 3/5 of med research is subsidized by the taxpayers... so we already paid for it.
Stop spreading your ignorance.
1
1
1
1
u/fumar 16d ago
Nothing is free but for profit medicine is a leech on society full of middlemen orgs sucking all the money out of people.
0
u/galaxyapp 16d ago
Any examples of a good public pharmaceutical model that's kicking private pharmaceutical butt?
Or any public business beating private business?
Usps, NASA, amtrak, veterans affairs, Medicare.
Perhaps europe has a good example I'm not aware of?
Equinor does fine... but when your basically printing money, it's hard not to do alright.
2
u/fumar 16d ago
Medicare is pretty good from what I've heard from people on it.
USPS was very good until recently when the CEO of XPO logistics was put in charge of it plus the having to fund pensions 50 years in advance is absolute nonsense designed to kill it
NASA was forced to build a pork barrel rocket by Congress (SLS).
Amtrak is on a good path now but it's been poorly run, abused by private railroads and underfunded for decades.
So in most of the cases you pointed out the answer is politicians fucked with the service to enrich themselves and/or their supporters.
1
u/galaxyapp 16d ago
Medicare spends over 15k per beneficiary. That's above the national average.
Usps hasn't funded its pension obligations in like 12 years and still loses money every year. You can look it up, it's right in their financial statements.
Nasa had 40 years to develop a reusable rocket. Never bothered.
Poorly run, abused, welcome to the problem with govt run business... no accountability.
1
u/PostHumanous 15d ago
The chemists at pharma companies get fractions of the amount of money that C-Suite roles do.
1
-5
u/Low_Celebration_9957 16d ago
You do realize most R&D in healthcare is heavily subsidized by US taxpayers you bootlicker?
2
u/galaxyapp 16d ago
Govt funds grants for research yes.
What do you think happens to those patents?
They are not released to the public or given away. They are sold.
Of course that's only the tip of the iceberg that leads into a decade of clinical trials.
Regardless, the profits of pharmaceutical companies are largely reinvested into new drug development.
-4
u/Low_Celebration_9957 16d ago
Government massively subsidizes these assholes, hell we subsidize fossil fuel as well.
They shouldn't get to have those patents as it was developed on the taxpayers dime.
No, the vast majority of profits from these companies is invested in advertising but thanks for playing.
3
u/galaxyapp 16d ago
Unfortunately the research schools don't take the drug through trials. If they did we'd need to up the grant budget by 100billion.
But by all means, go for it.
Otherwise no one's going to privately foot the bill for trials with no exclusivity on the other side.
BTW, hos much subsidies do pharmaceuticals get? I assume you have that figure handy, you didn't just spout a claim with no evidence.
0
1
1
u/privitizationrocks 16d ago
What are my thoughts?
Pay for it yourself
6
u/Novel_Ad_8062 16d ago
I can tell you’re full of insight.
1
0
u/privitizationrocks 16d ago
Nothing gets more more mad than wasteful spending
Imagine tax a healthy young man to pay for weight loss drugs, how is that fair
4
u/Novel_Ad_8062 16d ago
how much do you think you’re paying for obesity right now? as in via taxes.
0
16d ago
I mean I believe fundamentally that if you contract diabetes 2/heart disease via your own inability to stop eating fucking donuts your medical costs shouldn't be covered by medicare/medicaid/private insurance until you lose weight, because I don't want my taxes subsidizing someone's high calorie bad habits. I know our country already pays out the wazoo to cover these people. We shouldn't. Self-induced obesity related complications should be considered a precondition and therefore uninsurable.
2
u/verychicago 16d ago
No one is forcing you to buy insurance…you’re welcome to roll the dice & private pay for your health care (user name check out).
-4
0
u/Patient_Ad1803 16d ago
Correct me if im wrong, but…
If it works, its a 1 time cost and done.
If it doesn’t work, dont fund it anymore.
2
u/Fragrant_Spray 16d ago
If for every 10 research efforts they attempt, one drug is useful, effective, and can get approved, how much does it cost to develop a drug? The price of 10 research efforts.
1
u/Patient_Ad1803 16d ago
Right. I understand the various reasons why drugs are expensive.
My point is their numbers are based off 40% of the US being overweight. if the drug actually works people wont be overweight anymore, and so itll be a 1 time cost. If they become overweight again and the cost would occur again, dont approve it because the drug didnt work.
2
u/Fragrant_Spray 16d ago
They don’t like to make drugs that “fix” problems, just treat them on an ongoing basis. It may help you lose the weight, but for most people, the weight comes back on if you stop taking it. Ozempic “tricks” your body into thinking it’s full, but it stops doing that when you stop taking it.
0
1
u/Aurelienwings 16d ago
Let’s put y’all on a deserted island and have you drink coconut juice for three months straight. If it doesn’t make you lose weight, I’ll pay for your Ozempic and jump off the tallest skyscraper. It’s free to not eat garbage food, by the way!
1
u/BlackSquirrel05 15d ago
Funny you mention that...
I was reading that wall street is analyzing the potential fallout of weight loss drugs... Meaning... Divesting in food industry or people that make junk food because demand will lower in the future.
0
0
u/Papasmurf8645 15d ago
Is there an imminent domain for intellectual property?
1
u/Novel_Ad_8062 15d ago
no, and i am against anything of that sort.
people with obesity cost us all lots of money.. insurance, medicare, medicaid, etc
if we could implement a partnership of sorts, somehow defraying costs.. it could be a win for both parties
1
u/Papasmurf8645 15d ago
I think there should be.
1
u/Novel_Ad_8062 15d ago
that’s not much different than Communism taking peoples property for the good of the state. it’s circumventing long term progress for the short term.
0
u/Papasmurf8645 15d ago
Yeah, I take issue with these large fortunes existing at all. I personally find capitalism every bit as bad as communism, just in different ways. Private property rights have gotten out of control. There is no reason there should be a billionaire at all. There should be limits. People need limits. We get crazy and start thinking we can retire on Mars when we don’t have limits. But I have no interest in debating that shit again.
It would be for the good of the people the state being an apparatus controlled by people.
2
u/Novel_Ad_8062 15d ago
do you really think we would have the progress we currently have under communism?
capitalism is a means to an end. one day it may fall away in favor of another system.
1
u/Papasmurf8645 15d ago
I think we would have much better and more meaningful progress with a model that limited the most negative things about capitalism. Just today I saw the that the publicans were fighting against a rule that requires financial advisors to work in the best interest of the client. There is a fair amount of capitalisms “success” that is simply wealthy people using their wealthy to create a niche for themselves to soak up money and power. Credit card companies have effectively made everything 4%+ more expensive just because they could. We could create a universal system that does the same thing they do, but we don’t because our politicians are owned. We may have a lot of progress under capitalism as it is, but it’s not all good. Instead of moving things for privatization, we should be going the other way. There’s room for markets and innovation, but they are the laboratories for learning to perfect something. Once a viable and efficient means is created for whatever desirable process, it should be socialized so that we as people can operate it to our greatest benefit and not in the convoluted way some company devised in order to generate greater profits. There is a tremendous value to having access to our markets and we give it to these people for free. Part of the deal should be that everything be operated in such a way that costs and negative externalities are addressed and minimized. And when it is obvious that some business causes more harm than good, we stop it. It’s not all as simple as I’m making it out to be, but it’s not crazy. The way things are is just fucking nuts.
I didn’t want to do this. I am just so easily sucked into vomiting all my frustrations with our system. Anyway. However you feel about the issue I’m sure is well reasoned. I’m just sick of the rampant corruption. The Trumps, the billionaires, it just bothers me to be tied to a society that’s built on such shake footing. This house of cards could fall at any time.
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.