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.

My proposal for the carve out is make this medication over the counter and free. The government will ship it to you no questions asked as long as you are 18+ and a legal resident of the US.

Instead of government run grocery stores, democrats should run on free ozempic for anyone who wants it. It cuts down on food bills a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Much greater access to fast food and processed food and sedentary lifestyles.

High fructose corn syrup, more processed foods, larger portion sizes, sugar or other sweeteners added to everything, more take-out and convenience food eating

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

Yes — but no one really knows the answers. Obesity rates have changed rapidly. So many variables are in the mix: from stress, to food additives and other issues with processed food, to innumerable environmental factors. People from other countries often gain weight in the US — and lose it when they return home, which at least suggests issues with the food supply. This is the one concern that I share with RFK jr, so it’s too bad that the scientific structures that were set up to continue to work on answering questions like these are being dismantled.

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

Much greater access to fast food and processed food and sedentary lifestyles.

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.

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.

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

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 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 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.

Great! Ozempic for kids! Way to go America!

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 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.

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.