US health care is already morally bankrupt anyway.
Might as well stop paying for fat people's health care all together. They already know what the problem is.
Making fat people less fat means they live healthier lives and cost the healthcare system less.
At least that's what we think in countries where healthcare is ran for the good of its people and not for some shareholder's profits.
If they don't get healthcare then their healthcare doesn't cost the system anything.
No one’s explaining because it seems pretty obvious to most, but I’m gonna anyway in case you really don’t understand. It mostly comes down to your unusual preference towards the two most extreme options, which invalidates your entire premise, but I’ll get to that at the end of this.
Let’s use the worst case scenario numbers for now. The report indicates that Ozempic costs ~$969 a month, a number I’ll use because it fits the analysis that, if 50% of obese Americans took it, it would be ~400bil a year. Don’t have more than 10min for this so I can’t promise that’s accurate, but a quick Google search seemed to agree.
That’s about $11.7k a year. From what I can find, 2/3 people stop using it after about a year. Let’s go with 60 weeks, which is where weight loss seems to plateau. So around $13.5k per person.
Thanks to the absurd cost of healthcare in the US, a single hospital stay for obesity related emergencies will cover a lot of years of Ozempic. But of course, this is the extreme case, and it doesn’t need to be this way.
The report indicates that Ozempic is sold for less than 16% of the US price in virtually every other country. Let’s go with the next highest price, $155 (I assume USD as the others appear in $ as well) per month in Canada. That’s less than $1900 a year. A single hospital stay could cover dozens of people. Long term care for obesity or obesity related issues is also more than $1900 a year or $2200 for 60 months. This pricing is still profitable for Novo Nordisk, merely not extortionately so.
Thus why your opinion is unpopular: you appear either too dull to consider a broader view, or cruel for saying that 70 million people should receive no healthcare. While the latter is both stupid and evil, it actually seems like people are assuming you lack the capacity of thought to have considered the numbers or read the report. Cruelty is too common on the internet so that one is more shocking, hence the very negative reactions. It’s easier to ignore a clear ass than someone blindingly narrowminded; even I couldn’t resist and I don’t engage with trolls or dicks.
I only wrote this to explain why your comments come off as largely nonsensical, then why they are receiving such negative response. I won’t respond if you fight me on it, I haven’t actually given my opinion (you’ll note I only went and pulled numbers from the report) so there’s nothing to discuss
A take somebody has with middle schooler's understanding of how compex system function.
I would rather take away your right to healthcare for an equally stupid reason.
Not necessarily. This is likely a good thing for patients but not a way to save money.
Ahh. Another fat phobic unempathetic asshole. Would be hilarious if you got punched in the face and when you went to the hospital they refused to treat you because obviously the solution would've been for you to not be an asshole.
In the US, the estimated net price (after rebates) of Wegovy is $809 per month. In Denmark, the price is $186 per month. A study by researchers at Yale estimated that drugs like Wegovy can be profitably manufactured for less than $5 per month.
Sounds like we already got the solution...
Novo nordisk shifted their production from insulin to ozempic because the price was capped on insulin, but not on weight loss drugs. Now there is a shortage of both: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/5/2/what-is-behind-the-insulin-shortage-in-the-us
The invisable hand pimp slaps the plebs at every chance.
This was a humorously difficult sentence to parse at first. Like, my brain wanted to see it as "the invisible hand-pimps", which baffled me
It will pimp u out tho for sure haha
The savings from not having to pay treatment costs for as many arthritis, heart disease, stroke, fatty liver, and diabetes cases should balance the costs.
Also most insurance companies refuse to cover semaglutide, so I don’t see this bankrupting anyone but the patients who pay out of pocket.
That's a bold assumption. While prevention may be the right thing to do for patients' sake, it rarely saves money. Last time I checked, very few preventive measures save money except for vaccines in children and young adults. Often, if we live longer , we develop more expensive long term diseases.
When was the last time you checked? And where? And how deep in the sand was your head when you did so?
Within the last year. This is what I do for a living, I advise patients on preventive care every day. What's in their interest differs from what saves money for the whole population though.
You seem pretty sure I'm wrong based on your insult, where did you find evidence that it saves money?
Good, burn the fecker down and start over.
Weightloss drugs should not be covered. Vegetables should be subsidized.
Why can we, the literal richest country on Earth, not do both? Also, MOST VEGETABLES are already pretty heavily subsidized - crop subsidies make up a substantial portion of a lot of farmer's earnings.
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.