This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

radecicco said:

“UCONN is one of the most heavily subsidized public FBS athletic programs in the country.” Hmmm, sounds like that’s not going down too well with a number of B12 ADs/presidents.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but here's the thing if we decreased our budget, they'd be saying well we don't have a big time budget. The reason why we're heavily subsidized is we're not making P4 money. The thing that amazes me is Rutgers has nearly twice our deficit and they're getting paid 70 million a year.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

HallBall02 said:

Umm who’s take was that? Who was comparing that? Haha. It’s like opposite of what I am saying.



Ok, let me slow it down for you.

Disney is Bruce pearl in this example, so the recruits are potential conservative customers/familes..

I mentioned Disney bc some argue that Disney shouldn’t have gotten politcal or taken a political stance, and would have been better off being more neutral or apolitical.

Slow down and understand before you reply please.

Click to expand...

I understand it. If I was boycotting Disney and they offered me 7 figures. I’ll be their happiest employee. Business is business. I hold no grudge against Kadary for the same thing. It’s business

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

cernjSHU said:

Guess you missed the part where Republican Congresswoman criticized her for creating the nanny state along with Sara Palin and conservatives accusing her of telling people what to eat.

Click to expand...

What’s your guess she caved to republicans or lobbyists? Everyone admits there was a shift in how she went after it as time went on. Republicans shamed her? Doubt it.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Per Fordham site, game November 9th.

Gohall129 said:

Trying to compare Bruce pearls tweet to conservatives boycotting Disney is one of the worst takes I’ve ever seen on the board.

Click to expand...

Umm who’s take was that? Who was comparing that? Haha. It’s like opposite of what I am saying.

Gohall129 said:

Trying to compare Bruce pearls tweet to conservatives boycotting Disney is one of the worst takes I’ve ever seen on the board.

Click to expand...

Ok, let me slow it down for you.

Disney is Bruce pearl in this example, so the recruits are potential conservative customers/familes..

I mentioned Disney bc some argue that Disney shouldn’t have gotten politcal or taken a political stance, and would have been better off being more neutral or apolitical.

Slow down and understand before you reply please.

The SHUttle said:

As I said before, cost control measures will continue to evolve. It is something that needs continued attention, but it is a bit overblown IMHO. The obesity problem is nothing new so I am not following your point.

Click to expand...

My point was from the article that was linked which stated healthcare costs rose by 8% last year primarily due to the spike in weight loss prescriptions.

The SHUttle said:

It's not as if there was some great diet & exercise lifestyle change happening in the country that this now sets back. Those plans that do cover these drugs will increasingly require condition management program engagement also. If someone wants to go around all of that to pay Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, or some other DTC option like Hims/Hers $400/month to get more simple access to the drug, why do I care? As a plan sponsor, I'll welcome anything to impact the PBM & wholesaler spread pricing.

Click to expand...

It’s still contributes to rising healthcare costs whether you pay out of pocket or through your employer plan. It doesn’t “set a plan back”…it just furthers the population’s dependency on the drug industry.

The SHUttle said:

There are potential risks of GI issues with long-term use in addition to rare linkages to some cancers. Statins carry adverse effects too with no guarantees of lifestyle changes, but it's better than waiting for the heart to explode. Continued introduction of generics as well as providers getting a better handle on appropriateness for prescriptions will also help to bring the costs down. Again, I really don't see a meaningful difference.

Click to expand...

Statins are also over prescribed. Read a study that 95% of those taking a statin are unnecessary if you don’t have other risk factors other than elevated cholesterol.

SHUHoopsFan said:

You act like the Obama's gave into conservatives. If they did there wouldn't have been the Affordable Care Act. Since neither one of us were in the room, let's take our best guesses. The Obama's gave into conservatives or lobbyists?

The first article says she should practice what she preaches. Not saying it was a bad idea but don't be dining on ribs and mandating I need to eat berries. Very similar to Newsome going to out eat during covid, while his state is locked down. The second article you link the hit is on what it would costs and even says if it gets passed by the Republican House, it would probably fail with the Democratic Senate. She said we need to fight Congress, not the Republicans and not the Democrats. Then she stopped fighting. I wonder why? I think the links I posted answer why.

Click to expand...

Guess you missed the part where Republican Congresswoman criticized her for creating the nanny state along with Sara Palin and conservatives accusing her of telling people what to eat.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

SHUHoopsFan said:

I actually agree with this. Players are getting paid to play for him. How many of the boycotters would work for Disney if they were offered a paycheck the same Auburn's NIL is.

Click to expand...

This thread is gradually becoming worthy of its own episode of the Twilight Zone.

As I said before, cost control measures will continue to evolve. It is something that needs continued attention, but it is a bit overblown IMHO. The obesity problem is nothing new so I am not following your point. It's not as if there was some great diet & exercise lifestyle change happening in the country that this now sets back. Those plans that do cover these drugs will increasingly require condition management program engagement also. If someone wants to go around all of that to pay Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, or some other DTC option like Hims/Hers $400/month to get more simple access to the drug, why do I care? As a plan sponsor, I'll welcome anything to impact the PBM & wholesaler spread pricing.

There are potential risks of GI issues with long-term use in addition to rare linkages to some cancers. Statins carry adverse effects too with no guarantees of lifestyle changes, but it's better than waiting for the heart to explode. Continued introduction of generics as well as providers getting a better handle on appropriateness for prescriptions will also help to bring the costs down. Again, I really don't see a meaningful difference.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

The SHUttle said:

For the original intent of the thread, Eli Lilly just took the latest step on trying to grab market share by going "direct to consumer" on single-dose Zepbound at half-price. Will PBMs start to sweat? I doubt it, but it is an interesting step.

Click to expand...

So creating a new new dosing / pricing strategy to a new market (DTC) will only increase the send on these drugs.

U.S. ranks 15th on countries with worst obesity…no other industrialized nation on that list. Most South Pacific island nations or Middle Eastern Arab nations.

On the verge of creating a population of GLP1 lifetime addicts. We’ve seen this movie before.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

SHUHoopsFan said:

Well I feel lied to. Thinking this back in February was frowned upon. Liberal media told me so.

Click to expand...

And if Biden had just had a “good day” on the night of the debate he would still be on the ballot.

Lied to? The liberal media, party sycophants, Hollywood, posters on this board…the list goes on. everyone knew…..it was obvious but it took a complete meltdown that dried up financial support to make a change…. And that took several weeks, and by the way he’s still president….with dementia. Can’t make this stuff up.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

For the original intent of the thread, Eli Lilly just took the latest step on trying to grab market share by going "direct to consumer" on single-dose Zepbound at half-price. Will PBMs start to sweat? I doubt it, but it is an interesting step.

SPK145 said:

This will have zero impact. It’s not recruiting anymore, it procurement.

Click to expand...

HallBall02 said:

Disagree with this take. While it certainly is not as impactful, with paying players now… it could hurt recruiting. If you said very little impact, would agree.

Click to expand...

The latter is my take. I'd be more inclined to say no impact if I thought the players were making these decisions on their own. However, we know others (parents, handlers, AAU coaches et al) have input and this might not sit well.

In the end money rules so I doubt it's a major issue but I don't believe it's zero impact.