Mark Cuban

80 plus percent of prescriptions are controlled by three pharmacy benefit managers. And I would be shocked if they just pass through what the actual tariffs are without any markups or using it as a way to raise prices.

Yeah, without question. I mean, it's it's most likely a positive. You hate to say that, you know, charging.

Yeah, without question. I mean, it's it's most likely a positive. You hate to say that, you know, charging.

Yeah, without question. I mean, it's it's most likely a positive. You hate to say that, you know, charging.

Yeah. The issue is, you know, everybody can see what the tariffs are because they're publishing what the tariffs are from any given country. But when you're buying your medications, we'll probably be the only one that actually published our actual cost out of pocket for the tariffs.

Yeah. The issue is, you know, everybody can see what the tariffs are because they're publishing what the tariffs are from any given country. But when you're buying your medications, we'll probably be the only one that actually published our actual cost out of pocket for the tariffs.

Yeah. The issue is, you know, everybody can see what the tariffs are because they're publishing what the tariffs are from any given country. But when you're buying your medications, we'll probably be the only one that actually published our actual cost out of pocket for the tariffs.

And so most of the other pharmacy benefit managers won't show you that and will use it as a chance to exploit it, and we won't. So if they do exploit it at all, we'll look even cheaper, and that's a benefit for us.

And so most of the other pharmacy benefit managers won't show you that and will use it as a chance to exploit it, and we won't. So if they do exploit it at all, we'll look even cheaper, and that's a benefit for us.

And so most of the other pharmacy benefit managers won't show you that and will use it as a chance to exploit it, and we won't. So if they do exploit it at all, we'll look even cheaper, and that's a benefit for us.

I'm all for Doge, right? I think it's a great idea to cut government that's too big. It's a great idea to cut costs. It's too expensive. But you don't do it all at once. That is the definition of lack of strategic thinking.

I'm all for Doge, right? I think it's a great idea to cut government that's too big. It's a great idea to cut costs. It's too expensive. But you don't do it all at once. That is the definition of lack of strategic thinking.

I'm all for Doge, right? I think it's a great idea to cut government that's too big. It's a great idea to cut costs. It's too expensive. But you don't do it all at once. That is the definition of lack of strategic thinking.

Because what happens is when you do it all at once, there's no chance for communities, cities, states to adapt at all or anticipate or put in processes or plans to help people find other jobs or to replace lost revenue. And what we know is that small cities, towns, states, they're far more reliant on federal spending than bigger cities are.

Because what happens is when you do it all at once, there's no chance for communities, cities, states to adapt at all or anticipate or put in processes or plans to help people find other jobs or to replace lost revenue. And what we know is that small cities, towns, states, they're far more reliant on federal spending than bigger cities are.

Because what happens is when you do it all at once, there's no chance for communities, cities, states to adapt at all or anticipate or put in processes or plans to help people find other jobs or to replace lost revenue. And what we know is that small cities, towns, states, they're far more reliant on federal spending than bigger cities are.

You know, if there's a treasury office in the city of Parkersburg, West Virginia, that has 2,000 people, the city of Parkersburg, West Virginia only has 29,000 people. And if you guess that 15,000 of them are working age, already they've cut 100 plus people from that office. If those cuts continue, that's a disproportionate impact on Parkersburg and the area.

You know, if there's a treasury office in the city of Parkersburg, West Virginia, that has 2,000 people, the city of Parkersburg, West Virginia only has 29,000 people. And if you guess that 15,000 of them are working age, already they've cut 100 plus people from that office. If those cuts continue, that's a disproportionate impact on Parkersburg and the area.

You know, if there's a treasury office in the city of Parkersburg, West Virginia, that has 2,000 people, the city of Parkersburg, West Virginia only has 29,000 people. And if you guess that 15,000 of them are working age, already they've cut 100 plus people from that office. If those cuts continue, that's a disproportionate impact on Parkersburg and the area.

When you look at, there was somebody who published NIH cuts and the impact they had on different communities. Iowa City, the home of the University of Iowa, lost $79 million. If it's maybe NYU and the city of New York, it's not nearly as impactful as Iowa City, Iowa. Or you're seeing in coal mining towns throughout Appalachia where they cut back on the monitors and the people who evaluate safety.