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
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.
deleted by creator