The Nation's Financial Condition

[a fan]

I wouldn’t play any merger arb games under this admin.

Can you share why?

And why is MOIC more important in your view?

TIA

Just this admin is more into killing deals. Not a comment on my view (I think they are right to want more anticompetitive enforcement but I think Khans approach is a soon to be failed academic/abstractions wet dream that doesn’t function in reality). To bet on a closing of a deal at price agreed to is dangerous compared with admins where deals are “waived in”. Nobody makes money betting on deals failing long term but in suppose you could take an occasional shot on that side within this admin but the general strategy is tot ale the spread between current value and agreed value exchange at a closing. Not betting both ways hence a tighter enforcement makes it a tougher trade. (Like trying to be an agency debenture prop trader in a flat zero rate yield curve, no upside margin lots of downside)

IRRs have to be reinvested in the same vehicle and same environment which isn’t replicable. It’s a modeling convention. Of course playing with $100 MOIC and IRR don’t matter but for folks using those terms. I can bang you some nice IRRs in turd vehicles but if you took $500k or $1mm to $560 or $1.18mm that’s cool but it didn’t change your life. When you take that $500k to 1.5 or 2x that’s a managing change. (there modeling Methodology problems and should use “modified IRR” instead and a bunch of quantitative issues I’ll set aside)

Got it. Appreciate the response.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I wouldn’t play any merger arb games under this admin.

Can you share why?

And why is MOIC more important in your view?

TIA

Just this admin is more into killing deals. Not a comment on my view (I think they are right to want more anticompetitive enforcement but I think Khans approach is a soon to be failed academic/abstractions wet dream that doesn’t function in reality). To bet on a closing of a deal at price agreed to is dangerous compared with admins where deals are “waived in”. Nobody makes money betting on deals failing long term but in suppose you could take an occasional shot on that side within this admin but the general strategy is tot ale the spread between current value and agreed value exchange at a closing. Not betting both ways hence a tighter enforcement makes it a tougher trade. (Like trying to be an agency debenture prop trader in a flat zero rate yield curve, no upside margin lots of downside)

IRRs have to be reinvested in the same vehicle and same environment which isn’t replicable. It’s a modeling convention. Of course playing with $100 MOIC and IRR don’t matter but for folks using those terms. I can bang you some nice IRRs in turd vehicles but if you took $500k or $1mm to $560 or $1.18mm that’s cool but it didn’t change your life. When you take that $500k to 1.5 or 2x that’s a managing change. (there modeling Methodology problems and should use “modified IRR” instead and a bunch of quantitative issues I’ll set aside)

Got it. Appreciate the response.

MOIC has an implied IRR which varies over the time to realize as well as the multiple. Much easier to just bang out a 10x return than figure out the annualized return versus some other use of capital which is an abstraction.

[Farfromgeneva]

I wouldn’t play any merger arb games under this admin.

Can you share why?

And why is MOIC more important in your view?

TIA

Just this admin is more into killing deals. Not a comment on my view (I think they are right to want more anticompetitive enforcement but I think Khans approach is a soon to be failed academic/abstractions wet dream that doesn’t function in reality). To bet on a closing of a deal at price agreed to is dangerous compared with admins where deals are “waived in”. Nobody makes money betting on deals failing long term but in suppose you could take an occasional shot on that side within this admin but the general strategy is tot ale the spread between current value and agreed value exchange at a closing. Not betting both ways hence a tighter enforcement makes it a tougher trade. (Like trying to be an agency debenture prop trader in a flat zero rate yield curve, no upside margin lots of downside)

IRRs have to be reinvested in the same vehicle and same environment which isn’t replicable. It’s a modeling convention. Of course playing with $100 MOIC and IRR don’t matter but for folks using those terms. I can bang you some nice IRRs in turd vehicles but if you took $500k or $1mm to $560 or $1.18mm that’s cool but it didn’t change your life. When you take that $500k to 1.5 or 2x that’s a managing change. (there modeling Methodology problems and should use “modified IRR” instead and a bunch of quantitative issues I’ll set aside)

Got it. Appreciate the response.

MOIC has an implied IRR which varies over the time to realize as well as the multiple. Much easier to just bang out a 10x return than figure out the annualized return versus some other use of capital which is an abstraction.

Harder to front load GP promote and carry with MOIC compensation model…

[OCanada]

Lobbying is one of the reasons are healthcare system is the world’s most expensive. Lobbyists also direct or help direct campaign contributions which flow heavilybin healthcare. There was a time before big money was permitted the lobbyists did help educate but thst has long since evolved. I once was part of a video made on lobbying for the banking industry. I would not now.

Yep.

OS is asking the .gov to step in and FORCE insurers to carry a product that OBVIOUSLY isn't cost effective.

Because if the tests were cost effective? Insurers would JUMP at the chance to lower their costs.

Instead, if it's forced on them, and Illumina has a monopoly on the product? Now patients are on the hook for lining Old Salt's pockets.

Best part is that Old Salt has unwillingly educated the forum as to how monopolies work in America, why they make, in this case, American Health Care the most expensive in the world....while at the same time, not the best outcome.

It's all about directing our money to the .01%ers on a crooked playing field.

So it is fair to say there is a conflict of interest. A concept Justice Thomas and his wife do not recognize

[old salt]

QFP:

Yes -- if that's what it takes to get a revolutionary early cancer diagnostic test approved, mass produced & widely available.
That's how the game is played. Remember former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottleib? He was the most credible COVID commentator, widely seen on CBS. He's still on ILMN's BoD. ILMN are the good guys. This cancer test & their other previous genetic mapping breakthroughs are why I held their stock for so long, rather than cashing out as soon as Khan went after them...because I believe in what they are doing.

That's counter to everything you claim to believe in.

If this is such a great test? Every insurer will cover it as a free market choice...do I have to explain why?

You're here demanding that the .gov step in and FORCE them to cover it. You get that, right? If you believe this, you're in the wrong political party.

There you go again, making up sh!t & lying about my position. The reason for ILMN & GRAL to merge was that ILMN has the $$$ to get it to market faster. Govt insurance will cover it if it's effective (& cost effective). Mass production & widespread use will bring the price down. At it's current price, most people won't opt for the test unless it's covered by private or govt health insurance. It's a preventative diagnostic test.

Yes -- if that's what it takes to get a revolutionary early cancer diagnostic test approved, mass produced & widely available.
That's how the game is played. Remember former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottleib? He was the most credible COVID commentator, widely seen on CBS. He's still on ILMN's BoD. ILMN are the good guys. This cancer test & their other previous genetic mapping breakthroughs are why I held their stock for so long, rather than cashing out as soon as Khan went after them...because I believe in what they are doing.

That's counter to everything you claim to believe in.

If this is such a great test? Every insurer will cover it as a free market choice...do I have to explain why?

You're here demanding that the .gov step in and FORCE them to cover it. You get that, right? If you believe this, you're in the wrong political party.

There you go again, making up sh!t & lying about my position.

You JUST told me the ONLY thing the merger brought was lobbying power.

Go look.

And the thing you want lobbied? You want the government to FORCE insurers to cover Illumina/Grails test.

You want the .gov to step in. You JUST posted that.

Go look. Tell me I'm wrong. You don't want the free market insurers to decide for themselves.

I repeated what you told me. The reason you're yelling at me.....again...is that you're caught wanting the .gov to interfere with free market choices.

All to line your pockets. I have no problem with your greed. I'm simply pointing out, that contrary to your claims, you DO want government help if it makes you rich.

Wrong again. Counter to what you claim I believe in, as usual, speaking again on my behalf.

I wanted the govt to not interfere & allow ILMN to partner with GRAL to bring the test to market.
Then IF it's a cost effective preventative, it could be mandated coverage IF insurance companies don't cover it on their own.

Not all lobbing is nefarious. It's also used to educate legislators & staff.

I've got skin in the game. I hold GRAL stock & ILMN owns 14.5% of GRAL. IF the test fails, I'll lose even more than I've already lost due to Khan's interference. What has been the upside of Khan blocking the merger ?

It's not making me rich. Whatever value of my ILMN stock survives will be bequeathed to a charitable foundation,...unless it's all taxed away first as unrealized cap gains.

[a fan]

QFP:

What does lobbying have to do with private insurers choosing to pick up the cost for a test? I don't understand.

And YOU responded:

Mandated insurance benefits, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid.

I fail to see how letting the insurers cover the test voluntarily is a bad thing.

[old salt]

QFP:

Govt insurance will cover it if it's effective (& cost effective). Mass production & widespread use will bring the price down.

Then IF it's a cost effective preventative, it could be mandated coverage IF insurance companies don't cover it on their own.

[a fan]

QFP:

Govt insurance will cover it if it's effective (& cost effective). Mass production & widespread use will bring the price down.

Then IF it's a cost effective preventative, it could be mandated coverage IF insurance companies don't cover it on their own.

You can't make up your mind.

Is the Grail cancer test cost effective, or not? Which is it?

If it's cost effective, as you are telling us here...you understand that there is no need for Grail to merge with Illumina, right?

Please tell us you understand that.

[old salt]

QFP:

Govt insurance will cover it if it's effective (& cost effective). Mass production & widespread use will bring the price down.

Then IF it's a cost effective preventative, it could be mandated coverage IF insurance companies don't cover it on their own.

You can't make up your mind.

Is the Grail cancer test cost effective, or not? Which is it?

If it's cost effective, as you are telling us here...you understand that there is no need for Grail to merge with Illumina, right?

Please tell us you understand that.

You are feigning stupidity. You know that I am referring to what could have happened in the future had ILMN & GRAL been allowed to merge.

That prospect is what caused ILMN's share price to rise to $516/sh after the reacquisition of GRAL was announced. It's now down to $125/sh, thanks to Comrade Khan's war on private enterprise.

When the Galleri MCED test goes into mass production, economies of scale will bring the price down low enough for insurers to negotiate a price which makes it cost effective to cover it, IF it proves effective enough for patients to demand it. There's no chance of that happening until it receives FDA approval.

Stop wasting my time. I'm done responding to your dishonest dialogue.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/471991 ... or-galleri

GRAIL's Galleri test detects over 50 cancer types early, potentially saving lives, and is progressing towards FDA approval and broader insurance coverage.
The company, a spinoff from Illumina, has significant backing and aims to reduce costs while expanding its market presence and regulatory validation.
Despite high cash burn, GRAIL's strong cash reserves and strategic focus on FDA approval and Medicare reimbursement present substantial upside potential.
Additionally, management’s cost-cutting measures, including a 30% workforce reduction, aim to extend GRAIL's cash runway.
Given its promising technology and current valuation below cash value, I rate GRAL a speculative "buy" for investors who understand its unique risks and opportunities.

GRAIL, Inc. (NASDAQ:GRAL) is a spinoff from Illumina (ILMN) that develops innovative multi-cancer early detection [MCED] tests. The company uses its Next-Generation Sequencing [NGS] technology to provide early diagnostics that can potentially save lives. Its leading product is the Galleri test, which detects over 50 types of cancer from a simple blood sample. This makes Galleri one of the most complete and seamless early detection tools available. The company already distributes its products as a Laboratory Developed Test [LDT], but it’s now actively working on securing FDA approval for Galleri. I believe the company seems to have enough resources for the foreseeable future, assuming management’s cost-cutting measures work as expected. On top of that, if GRAL manages to secure regulatory approval, it could also make it more affordable through broader insurance coverage policies. Thus, I rate GRAL a “buy” for investors who understand GRAL’s unique investment risks.

Galleri: Business Overview
GRAIL is a healthcare company headquartered in Menlo Park, California, that develops multi-cancer early detection [MCED] methods. This way, GRAL can help diagnose diseases at treatable stages when they can be cured. Their primary product is the Galleri test, which detects more than 50 cancer types from a single blood sample before symptoms appear. Particularly, one of the main issues with late cancer detection is that more than 80% of cancer deaths occur in patients who were diagnosed late. This is why early, effective screening methods can potentially save lives.

Moreover, more than 86% of cancers are not recognized by current screening protocols. These include deadly cancers like pancreatic, liver, and ovarian malignancies, which are often detected too late when the therapy alternatives are limited. In fact, survival rates are four times higher when cancers are identified early compared to those detected during their late stages.

Therefore, GRAL’s Galleri test analyzes circulating tumor DNA [ctDNA] in the bloodstream. For this, the company’s technology uses NGS and machine learning algorithms to identify methylation patterns in ctDNA related to cancer. Methylation is a DNA modification that turns genes on or off and serves to identify specific cancers. Interestingly, this makes detection less invasive and more accessible than other screening techniques. However, the key benefit is that it also allows for early-stage diagnosis. This is why GRAL’s Galleri test is an important advancement in cancer diagnostics that could improve patient outcomes through early detection.

Spinoff: Potential Opportunity
Initially, GRAIL was founded in 2016 with Illumina’s support. It was incubated within that parent company and received external investments from notable figures such as Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos​. The idea was to apply Next-Generation Sequencing [NGS] technology in blood-based tests to detect cancer. GRAL later began large-scale clinical research, such as the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA) trials. These tests validated its technology and gathered information from thousands of individuals.

Then, by 2021, the company launched its Galleri test as a Laboratory Developed Test [LDT]. It’s worth mentioning that LDTs are offered by certified laboratories [CLIA-certified labs]. This allowed GRAL to collect additional data, which can be commercialized without FDA approval. However, their lack of regulatory validation may have stunted Galleri’s market adoption. This is why one of GRAL’s main strategic objectives now centers around obtaining FDA approval for Galleri to broaden the test’s acceptance and secure broad insurance coverage.

Eventually, ILMN reacquired GRAL in a $7.1 billion deal to incorporate its technology into its genomics portfolio. ILMN thought there were scientific and financial synergies. However, the European Commission and several EU countries raised regulatory challenges involving competition concerns. They argued that ILMN would own the technology that diagnoses cancer and cancer detection firms. Over time, this acquisition concerned ILMN because it could generate anti-competitive liabilities if regulators cracked down on it. For instance, ILMN could theoretically favor NGS access to GRAL, undermining other similar companies.

In 2022, the European Commission blocked the ILMN’s GRAL acquisition. However, although ILMN lacked regulatory clearance, it still went through with it. This led the Commission to charge a fine of €432 million. ILMN subsequently challenged the ruling, and a legal battle ensued. Initially, the General Court of the European Union ruled in supporting the European Commission's position. However, on September 3, 2024, a higher judicial body, the Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], overturned the General Court ruling. This canceled the fine and found that the European Commission exceeded its authority in blocking the merger.

Nevertheless, intense scrutiny over the merger and pressure due to regulatory limitations led ILMN to spinoff GRAL in June 2024, before the CJEU’s decision. Currently, ILMN retains a 14.5% stake in the firm. Therefore, GRAL started trading as a standalone company on June 25, 2024. ILMN distributed one GRAL share for every six shares of ILMN. This is how GRAL is now an independent early cancer detection business.

Shareholder Value: Cost Cutting Measures
On August 23, 2024, the company announced a 30% workforce reduction, which spurred a 3% increase in the stock price. During their latest earnings call, management highlighted that the multi-cancer early detection [MCED] market is growing. This is a sizeable secular tailwind, with more than 100 million individuals in the US and over 300 million worldwide. Furthermore, they mentioned that Galleri is progressing with its FDA premarket approval [PMA] with data from NHS-Galleri and PATHFINDER 2. These are sizeable datasets that include tens of thousands of individuals. But more importantly, GRAL believes they can reach FDA submission by 1H2026.

Moreover, Galleri-Medicare, or REACH, aims to obtain Medicare coverage following FDA approval. This would enroll 50,000 beneficiaries to produce further clinical proof. It’s important to mention that Galleri is already a relative commercial success, with over 215,000 Galleri tests prescribed by 11,000 healthcare providers. In a way, GRAL is already a leader among MCED testing companies. The company has sold more than 180,000 tests through March 2024.

Below Cash Value: Valuation Analysis
From a valuation perspective, GRAL trades at a $394.0 million market cap, making it a microcap in its sector. Its balance sheet holds $958.8 million in cash and equivalents with no financial debt. However, it does have $422.2 million in deferred tax liabilities linked to its spinoff from ILMN. Also, GRAL’s book value stands at $2.7 billion, which seems high compared to the market cap. Yet, this includes $2.1 billion in intangible assets. I suspect this may be written down over time, as we saw with the $1.4 billion goodwill impairment in 1H2024. So, focusing on GRAL’s total assets or book value doesn’t seem appropriate. Instead, I'll concentrate on GRAL’s cash value and cash burn.

Furthermore, despite a massive $1.8 billion loss in 1H2024, I estimate GRAL’s latest quarterly cash burn was $173.2 million by adding its CFOs and Net CAPEX. This gives the company a cash runway of about 1.4 years. This isn’t as bad as the headline Q2 2024 net loss of $1.6 billion, but it’s still a tight runway.

Nevertheless, GRAL’s main strategy at this point is to push towards FDA approval for Galleri, their flagship MCED test. If they get this, Galleri could see greater market adoption and higher revenues that might justify the ongoing cash burn. Management also mentioned their focus on broad reimbursement policies through Medicare, which could make Galleri a more affordable test. That alone could position Galleri as the go-to prophylactic test, with revenues following suit.

If GRAL achieves these objectives, I think there’s a clear path toward becoming a sustainable standalone company. Overall, I believe GRAL is no longer just another microcap biotech with speculative IP. Instead, this spinoff feels more like a turnaround story, where the focus is on cutting costs and growing revenues. Additionally, Galleri is promising, and I believe it should become more accessible because early cancer detection is key.

Investment Caveats: Risk Analysis
Naturally, GRAL’s bull case isn’t without its risks. Particularly, I believe the current high cash burn indicates that they’ll probably require another equity offering in 2025 or 2026. This would dilute shareholders and lead to potential downside. However, if management successfully reins in its expenses, my runway estimate could be extended significantly. GRAL aims to decrease its cash burn to $325 million annually and extend the cash runway from 2H2026 to 2028. Moreover, if their FDA approval materializes and Medicare reimbursement policies make its test accessible, then GRAL’s upside potential is also considerable.

Therefore, GRAL is especially compelling because it’s trading below its cash reserves. Also, management is making the right moves on paper, but time will tell if they succeed. In this case, the main risks are execution risks rather than clinical trials. After all, Galleri is already being used, and so far, it has helped many patients through timely diagnosis. As it stands, I believe this justifies being bullish on the shares, which is why I rate GRAL a “buy” for investors who understand its unique risks and opportunities.

Speculative “Buy”: Conclusion
Overall, GRAL is an interesting spinoff trading below cash value. This alone mitigates its execution risks. However, those risks remain, and if management fails to grow revenues through broader reimbursement policies and regulatory validation, shareholders could suffer significant losses. In particular, the company’s unsustainable cash burn is undeniable, so GRAL doesn’t have ample room for maneuvering. But if they’re successful, I believe there’s significant upside potential for its MCED test that could become a standard prophylactic measure. Thus, I rate GRAL a speculative “buy” for investors who understand its unique investment proposition.

This article was written by
Myriam Alvarez
Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Old article, seems strangely relevant:

https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump

[a fan]

QFP:

Govt insurance will cover it if it's effective (& cost effective). Mass production & widespread use will bring the price down.

Then IF it's a cost effective preventative, it could be mandated coverage IF insurance companies don't cover it on their own.

You can't make up your mind.

Is the Grail cancer test cost effective, or not? Which is it?

If it's cost effective, as you are telling us here...you understand that there is no need for Grail to merge with Illumina, right?

Please tell us you understand that.

You are feigning stupidity. You know that I am referring to what could have happened in the future had ILMN & GRAL been allowed to merge.

So your answer is: no, the current Grail cancer test is NOT cost effective. Which is why insurers aren't willingly covering it today.

And this is why you wanted the merger.....so that lobbyists can FORCE insurers to carry a test they would never cover because it's a monopoly, and Illumina would gouge consumers.

[old salt]

QFP:

Govt insurance will cover it if it's effective (& cost effective). Mass production & widespread use will bring the price down.

Then IF it's a cost effective preventative, it could be mandated coverage IF insurance companies don't cover it on their own.

You can't make up your mind.

Is the Grail cancer test cost effective, or not? Which is it?

If it's cost effective, as you are telling us here...you understand that there is no need for Grail to merge with Illumina, right?

Please tell us you understand that.

You are feigning stupidity. You know that I am referring to what could have happened in the future had ILMN & GRAL been allowed to merge.

So your answer is: no, the current Grail cancer test is NOT cost effective. Which is why insurers aren't willingly covering it today.

And this is why you wanted the merger.....so that lobbyists can FORCE insurers to carry a test they would never cover because it's a monopoly, and Illumina would gouge consumers.

Stop speculating about what I want & what my position is. I've told you multiple times.
I never claimed that Galera is cost effective YET.
I do not expect the govt or private insurers to cover the Galera test until it is FDA approved & proven effective, THEN govt & private insurers can negotiate a cost effective price with GRAL that makes it widely available.
That's why I wanted the merger with ILMN, who has the deep pockets to see the project through certification, mass production & acceptance by govt & private insurers. Had the merger gone through, GRAL's cash position would not be a concern, layoffs would not be necessary & they'd have a longer runway (in Seeking Alpha's terms). Lobbyists are necessary to make the case to govt & to hold off attacks by less capable competitors (like the EUro whiners) & govt drones like Khan.

[Kismet]

Lobbyists are necessary to make the case to govt & to hold off attacks by less capable competitors (like the EUro whiners) & govt drones like Khan.

Lobbyists are NEVER necessary. Who protects US from lobbyists?

In fact, they are a much bigger issue overall than Ms. Khan will ever be.

[a fan]

Stop speculating about what I want & what my position is. I've told you multiple times.
I never claimed that Galera is cost effective YET.

Oh, I know.....you just did it in a roundabout way.....you want the .gov to step in and force insurers to carry an expensive test that is NOT cost effective.

You want your monopoly to bully Insurers, using the government as a tool to cheat the free market. All I'm doing it repeating what YOU told us you wanted. You want fat .gov contracts for a test that is plainly too expensive for private insurers.

I do not expect the govt or private insurers to cover the Galera test until it is FDA approved & proven effective, THEN govt & private insurers can negotiate a cost effective price with GRAL that makes it widely available.

You don't get it: why are you on here DEMANDING that the government FORCE insurers to carry what is clearly an overly-expensive test?

You're SUPPOSED to be for market forces, remember? Why are you insisting that the .gov get involved?

Lobbyists are necessary to make the case to govt......

Again, this shows you like big government just fine....so long as it lines your pockets.

If it doesn't? Then you're on here complaining about it. Remember your complaints about "throwing money at education"? That's because you already have your .gov education, so you don't care about proper spending levels anymore. And that's fine.

What you want is a "Selfish-ocracy", where the .gov is Old Salt's personal cash register, and it's plainly how you judge Federal Spending: if it lines your pockets, you think .gov is good. If it dares to help anyone else? You're on here complaining about Big Government.

And that's fine. It's why you are a Republican. Most of you think like this in 2024. But I'm not going to not point out this constant hypocrisy....and point it out politely.

[Farfromgeneva]

Stop speculating about what I want & what my position is. I've told you multiple times.
I never claimed that Galera is cost effective YET.

Oh, I know.....you just did it in a roundabout way.....you want the .gov to step in and force insurers to carry an expensive test that is NOT cost effective.

You want your monopoly to bully Insurers, using the government as a tool to cheat the free market. All I'm doing it repeating what YOU told us you wanted. You want fat .gov contracts for a test that is plainly too expensive for private insurers.

I do not expect the govt or private insurers to cover the Galera test until it is FDA approved & proven effective, THEN govt & private insurers can negotiate a cost effective price with GRAL that makes it widely available.

You don't get it: why are you on here DEMANDING that the government FORCE insurers to carry what is clearly an overly-expensive test?

You're SUPPOSED to be for market forces, remember? Why are you insisting that the .gov get involved?

Lobbyists are necessary to make the case to govt......

Again, this shows you like big government just fine....so long as it lines your pockets.

If it doesn't? Then you're on here complaining about it. Remember your complaints about "throwing money at education"? That's because you already have your .gov education, so you don't care about proper spending levels anymore. And that's fine.

What you want is a "Selfish-ocracy", where the .gov is Old Salt's personal cash register, and it's plainly how you judge Federal Spending: if it lines your pockets, you think .gov is good. If it dares to help anyone else? You're on here complaining about Big Government.

And that's fine. It's why you are a Republican. Most of you think like this in 2024. But I'm not going to not point out this constant hypocrisy....and point it out politely.

Yoooooo, shop by me had a 15yr Pappy in a glass case. I'm going to let you guess what these dirt merchants were offering it for...

[Jim Malone]

$3,000

Yoooooo, shop by me had a 15yr Pappy in a glass case. I'm going to let you guess what these dirt merchants were offering it for...

[Farfromgeneva]

$3,000

Yoooooo, shop by me had a 15yr Pappy in a glass case. I'm going to let you guess what these dirt merchants were offering it for...

$1,699! What a fng joke. From call is 04-2015 I would get 2-3 paper bottles a year across the 10-23 spectrum. Can’t recall ever paying much more than $150 for any I know the whole bourbon rich tool thing last decade but that’s just absurd. I could buy a top shelf entrepreneur at the St Regis in Buckhead and a bottle of blue label for the same amount!

[old salt]

Stop speculating about what I want & what my position is. I've told you multiple times.
I never claimed that Galera is cost effective YET.

Oh, I know.....you just did it in a roundabout way.....you want the .gov to step in and force insurers to carry an expensive test that is NOT cost effective.

You want your monopoly to bully Insurers, using the government as a tool to cheat the free market. All I'm doing it repeating what YOU told us you wanted. You want fat .gov contracts for a test that is plainly too expensive for private insurers.

I do not expect the govt or private insurers to cover the Galera test until it is FDA approved & proven effective, THEN govt & private insurers can negotiate a cost effective price with GRAL that makes it widely available.

You don't get it: why are you on here DEMANDING that the government FORCE insurers to carry what is clearly an overly-expensive test?

You're SUPPOSED to be for market forces, remember? Why are you insisting that the .gov get involved?

Lobbyists are necessary to make the case to govt......

Again, this shows you like big government just fine....so long as it lines your pockets.

If it doesn't? Then you're on here complaining about it. Remember your complaints about "throwing money at education"? That's because you already have your .gov education, so you don't care about proper spending levels anymore. And that's fine.

What you want is a "Selfish-ocracy", where the .gov is Old Salt's personal cash register, and it's plainly how you judge Federal Spending: if it lines your pockets, you think .gov is good. If it dares to help anyone else? You're on here complaining about Big Government.

And that's fine. It's why you are a Republican. Most of you think like this in 2024. But I'm not going to not point out this constant hypocrisy....and point it out politely.

You are a dishonest manipulator of my words & my position.

How many times do I need to restate my position that govt & private insurers should not cover the Galera test until it is FDA approved, mass produced & can be offered at a cost effective price for the general public, at all income levels.

IMHO -- the govt did not need to do anything other than stay the hell out of the way & allow ILMN to acquire GRAL, so ILMN could then conduct the tests to earn FDA approval & bring Galera to market in quantities that enable an affordable price.

Lobbyists are neeeded for protection from agenda driven drones like Khan & less capable competitors (like the EUro whiners) who helped sabotage the merger. I don't want the govt to do anything other than administer the FDA approval process. If Galera meets expectations & earns FDA approval, market forces will take care of the rest without govt meddling. Thanks to Khan's meddling, it's not yet assured that GRAL has the capital to secure FDA approval & increase production sufficiently to bring down the price to where it can be widely covered.

If Galera proves effective & mass production brings the price down, public pressure will force both govt & private insurers to cover it.
Only then may it need to be a mandated benefit if insurers refuse to cover it.

[a fan]

You are a dishonest manipulator of my words & my position.

How many times do I need to restate my position that govt & private insurers should not cover the Galera test until it is FDA approved, mass produced & can be offered at a cost effective price for the general public, at all income levels.

Then why did YOU bring up the need for lobbying to FORCE insurers to carry the cancer test?

You're getting mad at me because of what YOU said. I didn't bring up the need for lobbying. YOU DID. I'm not going to let you call me a liar for quoting you exactly.

You want lobbyists to FORCE insurers to carry the test. I even asked you to clarify what you meant...and you did. You told me it was about Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid.....FORCING insurers to carry something they wouldn't carry on their own volition.

If you don't think that they need to force the .gov to carry the test? Why did YOU bring up the dire need for lobbying??

Why are you yelling at me for something YOU TOLD US?

[Typical Lax Dad]

This company?

https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 023-08-09/