Meanwhile, life saving drugs cost thousands
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
75 points (97.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2003 readers
1100 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Heart disease, strongly correlated with obesity, kills more Americans than anything else. These are life-saving drugs.
Not only that, it would greatly reduce the strain on the medical system, improving outcomes for everyone. GLP-1 agonists for anyone who wants them I say.
You're right but c'mon it is damn hilarious that we as a society feel it's easier to invent a drug to not get fat than it is to stop food manufacturers from making us absolute garbage to eat.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
But by all means finding new drugs means more people can get rich! Solving the crap food crisis makes less people money.
Kraft and Nestle lines must go up, all according to plan.
I'm not fat shaming but obesity is a problem that for most people can be solved without a drug that tricks your brain into not eating. I'm also not really anti-Ozempic...I just think they specifically chose this one because it's hot right now.
My inhaler, which used to be free, now costs me $400/month. My mom just found out the Medicare plan she uses to not pay $8000/month for her pulmonary fibrosis is going away so now she gets to shop around to find a new insurer. Neither of us have options besides these drugs and the prices keep going up.
Are cheaper prescriptions a good thing? Of course! But drug prices are a symptom of the greater problem of our broken healthcare system so forgive me for sticking my nose up at Biden trying to score a win by making it cheaper for people to effortlessly lose weight...
As we learn more and more about weight loss and gain, we find that it's no where near as simple as it -feels- like it should be. It certainly isn't -most- people that could do it without help. And even with the best help available, it still isn't -most- people that achieve reasonable results. It's as hard a problem to tackle as the people affected by it kept telling us all along.
My point is that the root cause of obesity is societal, not medical. I am not discounting its seriousness at all not am I taking the "just exercise lol" stance here - it's just that Ozempic doesn't fix the issues behind the problem. Obesity usually leads to an early death but I'm not sure how that makes it a better candidate for healthcare coverage than the thousands of other health issues we face.
I am scoffing at this because it's so obviously an attempt at courting favor as opposed to addressing any real problem. They did this for the headline. Everything has become so expensive and the thing they're doing about it is subsidizing a weight loss pill. I don't have the words to describe why I feel that's so dystopian....but I do feel that way. Doritos for breakfast, Chex Mix for lunch, Ozempic and a beer for dinner. It's fine. Just keep buying so two scummy industries can keep profiting...
Looking forward to the inevitably awful healthcare policies in the next few years. I might not be able to afford to breathe but at least I'll stay skinny! Hell I might not even need Ozempic, grocery prices alone will keep me thin.
100%, your problem is a big deal. I only ask that you not downplay someone else's problem. I understand the circumstances, making it feel like a this or that situation, but the truth is much more likely that they didn't even consider helping more with your problem. Helping with this one didn't take away from you. Your concerns are valid and they definitely should be addressed. And it's understandable to be angry that they haven't been addressed, but direct that anger at the cause, not other people with different problems. Their problem is a big deal too, you just don't have as much knowledge about it as you do about yours.
It's not downplaying their problem, it's rolling my eyes that this is their "solution" to a decades-old problem and mirrors how this country handles a LOT of problems....do absolutely nothing (because it would hurt the rich) and hope for a miracle. I am frustrated by the government and am directing none of my disdain at the public here.
It's this drug because it's popular. It's now to try to fix his broken legacy.
Add to that the cynic in me feeling like this expanded coverage will get rolled back in the coming years....after people are already "hooked" on a weight loss drug a lot of people need to keep using forever to maintain their weight.
There's all this air around you, just breathe. It's that simple.
because why address the problem when you can just sell more pills?
How would you address the problem without rewriting the constitution? You can't force people to eat healthier or force companies to sell healthier food.
as we've been reminded this month, public opinion can be molded in literally any way shape or form by people who have the means. even if it's something ridiculous.
but again: why bother if you can just sell more pills?
Public opinion has been molded by decades of marketing from food companies. It's much harder to undo beliefs once they are set.
The FDA could be more strict about banning harmful ingredients. The US allows far more chemical additives than Western Europe.
That sounds great. Let’s do that too!
A truth in marketing law could probably help a little and be easy enough to pass.
Make them show the real product in the advertisements not a fake version meant to entice you.
Along those same lines it would probably be possible to limit those ads in the first place. The human brain is quite susceptible to propaganda and ads are just one of capitalism's versions of that. Cut the ads and suddenly you have a lot less people being reminded constantly and programmed to consume.
Or classify those foods like alcohol/tobacco and put sin taxes on them.
A truth in marketing law would likely fail free speech tests. Sin taxes on food can work, but they REALLY piss people off. A lot of politicians have lost their careers to sugar taxes.
Yeah not saying any of this would be likely, just that the options are there.
Not sure that I agree that it would fall under free speech if it can clearly be shown to be false advertising. Current courts certainly wouldn't let that happen but we can dream.
But Clowny McClownface will just put this back and then some in a few weeks.