Forget Universal Healthcare: Start with Universal Ozempic

[Anonymous]

I also agree with OP. If we’re serious about lowering health care costs, universal access to GLP-1s is the easiest and most cost-effective way to get there.

[Anonymous]

I'm for universal healthcare and also think GLP-1s are amazing. They do more than just obesity and have so many benefits, including inflammation, heart disease risk reduction. It sounds like the vehemently anti-GLP people on this thread do not understand this or obesity as a disease and just have some major superiority complex when it comes to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm for universal healthcare and also think GLP-1s are amazing. They do more than just obesity and have so many benefits, including inflammation, heart disease risk reduction. It sounds like the vehemently anti-GLP people on this thread do not understand this or obesity as a disease and just have some major superiority complex when it comes to it.

The debate over whether obesity is a disease or not is completely irrelevant. The fact that this medication reduces disease risk and makes people live longer is all that matters. Anyone who thinks it’s a bad thing that we found an amazing medications to make society healthier is insane.

[Anonymous]

This is a great idea, OP!

[Anonymous]

[b]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, OP.

Forget AI, automated cars, and all that other tech bro junk. GLP1 is the single greatest invention of the 21st century thus far. It could save millions of years ofife, dramatically improve the quality of life by removing disease burden and save countries trillions of dollars in healthcare costs over the over the long run.

The same thing can occur at no cost if people don't overeat. Relying on medication instead of self-control is wrongheaded.

Yeah, but I dare you to try changing the food industry’s freedom to advertise and develop addicting foods. You see the snicker’s logo and you’re primed for eating one.

And try changing sugar subsidies.

You can do that then we can rely on self-control.

It’s Ozempic or ^this. Fighting the food industry. Those are the choices.

Since no one in government has the “willpower” to make companies pay for making people obese, it should be Ozempic.

[Anonymous]

Why? Because people need access to basic healthcare, and because treatments like this need to be monitored. So carving out this one medication means that those privileged enough to already have healthcare will have access to it, while those who won’t have access to healthcare, let alone consistent healthcare, still won’t have access to this particular class of medications — no matter how wonderful they might be.

I’m much more concerned about universal healthcare access for everyone than I am about this particular carve-out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm for universal healthcare and also think GLP-1s are amazing. They do more than just obesity and have so many benefits, including inflammation, heart disease risk reduction. It sounds like the vehemently anti-GLP people on this thread do not understand this or obesity as a disease and just have some major superiority complex when it comes to it.

No doubt there's also a lot of lack of self-awareness, I suspect a non-trivial percentage of the people who publicly scoff at others about GLP-1 and yap about laziness and lifestyle choices where it comes to others' obesity probably suffer from obesity themselves. It's not as though the red states are full of slim, healthy athletic types making good life choices, in fact they lead the country in obesity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for universal healthcare and also think GLP-1s are amazing. They do more than just obesity and have so many benefits, including inflammation, heart disease risk reduction. It sounds like the vehemently anti-GLP people on this thread do not understand this or obesity as a disease and just have some major superiority complex when it comes to it.

No doubt there's also a lot of lack of self-awareness, I suspect a non-trivial percentage of the people who publicly scoff at others about GLP-1 and yap about laziness and lifestyle choices where it comes to others' obesity probably suffer from obesity themselves. It's not as though the red states are full of slim, healthy athletic types making good life choices, in fact they lead the country in obesity.

Oh, good grief. Now tell us how fit and healthy blue inner-city residents are.
DP

[Anonymous]

Great! Ozempic for kids! Way to go America!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why? Because people need access to basic healthcare, and because treatments like this need to be monitored. So carving out this one medication means that those privileged enough to already have healthcare will have access to it, while those who won’t have access to healthcare, let alone consistent healthcare, still won’t have access to this particular class of medications — no matter how wonderful they might be.

I’m much more concerned about universal healthcare access for everyone than I am about this particular carve-out.

Look at statins. They now cost $5/month with no insurance because they are off-patent and are similar wonder drugs.

GLPs will follow the same trajectory and be equally cheap once off-patent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for universal healthcare and also think GLP-1s are amazing. They do more than just obesity and have so many benefits, including inflammation, heart disease risk reduction. It sounds like the vehemently anti-GLP people on this thread do not understand this or obesity as a disease and just have some major superiority complex when it comes to it.

No doubt there's also a lot of lack of self-awareness, I suspect a non-trivial percentage of the people who publicly scoff at others about GLP-1 and yap about laziness and lifestyle choices where it comes to others' obesity probably suffer from obesity themselves. It's not as though the red states are full of slim, healthy athletic types making good life choices, in fact they lead the country in obesity.

I’m willing to bet a not insignificant number of the thin ones are also metabolically unhealthy.

If everyone is as thin as them, they might actually have to do something to prove their value as people instead of relying on genetic luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for universal healthcare and also think GLP-1s are amazing. They do more than just obesity and have so many benefits, including inflammation, heart disease risk reduction. It sounds like the vehemently anti-GLP people on this thread do not understand this or obesity as a disease and just have some major superiority complex when it comes to it.

No doubt there's also a lot of lack of self-awareness, I suspect a non-trivial percentage of the people who publicly scoff at others about GLP-1 and yap about laziness and lifestyle choices where it comes to others' obesity probably suffer from obesity themselves. It's not as though the red states are full of slim, healthy athletic types making good life choices, in fact they lead the country in obesity.

Oh, good grief. Now tell us how fit and healthy blue inner-city residents are.
DP

The white ones are exceptionally fit and healthy, compared to their cousins in the sticks.

[Anonymous]

How did we go from about 15% obesity in 1970 to what we have now? Anybody care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm for universal healthcare and also think GLP-1s are amazing. They do more than just obesity and have so many benefits, including inflammation, heart disease risk reduction. It sounds like the vehemently anti-GLP people on this thread do not understand this or obesity as a disease and just have some major superiority complex when it comes to it.

Maybe we should give it some time before we celebrate it. Try to remember all the other medical miracles that haven’t quite stood the test of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? Because people need access to basic healthcare, and because treatments like this need to be monitored. So carving out this one medication means that those privileged enough to already have healthcare will have access to it, while those who won’t have access to healthcare, let alone consistent healthcare, still won’t have access to this particular class of medications — no matter how wonderful they might be.

I’m much more concerned about universal healthcare access for everyone than I am about this particular carve-out.

Look at statins. They now cost $5/month with no insurance because they are off-patent and are similar wonder drugs.

GLPs will follow the same trajectory and be equally cheap once off-patent.

Which might be true — but I’d still think that some sort of assessments need to be made prior to prescribing GLPs, and medical care needs to be available for possible side effects, some of which might be serious. So while I think lowering prices is a great idea, I also think that it would be irresponsible, at least at this point, to prescribe them without also ensuring that other comprehensive medical care is also available. That’s on top of my seeing universal health care as a major priority.

As to statins, my mother — who had a wonderful cardiologist— took statins when they were a relatively new treatment. My mother had leg pain that coincided with taking the new medication. This was before muscle pains — some of which were debilitating and long lasting — were officially found to be a side effect of statins. Just something to think about when using a relatively new treatment with burgeoning numbers of people. Some side effects might only occur in specific populations, or in combination with other specific interventions or circumstances— and might not emerge until huge numbers of people have been treated, or ample time has elapsed. Oversight, or, at least access to medical oversight is important.