So you’re good with Medicare covering them then?
Axios: Trump admin won't let Medicare cover anti-obesity drugs
- Thread starter indolent
- Start date
Yes. Generally speaking, people contributed to Medicare in order to be able to receive it. We currently have 2nd and 3rd generation welfare recipients receiving Medicaid who can work. They just choose not to. They get more than enough for free.
So you’re not against glp1s being covered, you’re against Medicaid generally? Or Medicaid supporting anything other than the most bare bones emergency care? Just trying to get to the nub of where you’re coming from and where glp1s specifically fit into the picture.
Keeping my political opinions out of this, I do see the sense in not allowing so many people on this drug for weight loss. At $1000 a month that could easily send the cost of Medicare through the roof. Many seniors struggle to pay for Medicare as it is. If it's for diabetes then that's one thing but for weight loss you would have way too many people on it. That's why lots of insurance company's are making it so hard to get. It would send the cost that we pay skyrocketing. Blame that on the drug makers that set the price.
Last edited:
I think Medicaid is necessary so we can take care of children that need it. It’s not their fault what they are born into. I just have a problem with people who are otherwise healthy milking the system.
It seems like there are 2 debates:
Is this a "Weight Loss" issue or a "general health issue" as it pertains to societal health benefits.
Do we as a society believe that everyone should be entitled to healthcare.
Lots of opposing view points on both really.
Without getting too deep into the mud on either, I think the medications have significant benefits outside of cosmetic. There are the obvious health benefits, but I would argue there are many psychological benefits as well, that could result in folks having the desire to improve in their personal life/finance.
As for Healthcare as a right/Universal Health care/Single payer system.
I will leave that debate for another forum.
I would agree, that there is a common belief that the desire to lose weight is primarily cosmetic and many do not see the other, much more important, benefits.
I subscribe to the theory that people do better when they take control of their own lives and are responsible for their own destiny, so I am of the mind to agree we all need to play our own role in our health, and should strive to pay our own way.
That being said, if the decision has already been made that certain benefits are awarded to an individual, I do see the advantage of reducing the overhead on our system by providing meds that will help them become more healthy all around, and potentially becoming self sufficient as a result.
Is this a "Weight Loss" issue or a "general health issue" as it pertains to societal health benefits.
Do we as a society believe that everyone should be entitled to healthcare.
Lots of opposing view points on both really.
Without getting too deep into the mud on either, I think the medications have significant benefits outside of cosmetic. There are the obvious health benefits, but I would argue there are many psychological benefits as well, that could result in folks having the desire to improve in their personal life/finance.
As for Healthcare as a right/Universal Health care/Single payer system.
I will leave that debate for another forum.
I would agree, that there is a common belief that the desire to lose weight is primarily cosmetic and many do not see the other, much more important, benefits.
I subscribe to the theory that people do better when they take control of their own lives and are responsible for their own destiny, so I am of the mind to agree we all need to play our own role in our health, and should strive to pay our own way.
That being said, if the decision has already been made that certain benefits are awarded to an individual, I do see the advantage of reducing the overhead on our system by providing meds that will help them become more healthy all around, and potentially becoming self sufficient as a result.
zpped
Research Enthusiast
But you're assuming medicare would pay list price. Try looking what people pay for this drug in other countries. There is power in large bodies negotiating.
They would pay full price because they’re not allowed to negotiate, a direct result of the influence of business on legislators. While I agree with panda that people who are capable of paying for their insurance should do so, I also think that the system is so FUBAR’d that the cost is beyond the means of many more people than it should be. The solution is not less coverage, as panda is advocating and in my opinion is an unsophisticated approach to an extraordinarily complex situation, but rather enabling affordability.
Another policy direction literally changed by this administration was the ability to negotiate drug costs.
rkl123
Registered
Military aged what?
I’m referring to people who are old enough to work, but not retirement age. They should be working and paying their own way. Freeloaders don’t deserve these drugs. They can buy them just like us if they don’t have insurance to cover it.
Are you referring to the U.S. Military as a dumping ground for otherwise unemployable or marginally-employable people, a last resort for the minimally competent?
No, I’m referring to anyone who is perfectly capable (which is most people) of finding gainful employment, but I’m not against anyone serving a country rather than being one of its dependents. Who are you referring to as “unemployable or marginally unemployable.” If people are minimally competent they have bigger problems than GLP-1s.
If someone is capable of creating accounts, and engaging in discussions on forums, they are absolutely capable of finding gainful employment.
I would add that when I joined the Army at 17 I was quite incompetent. Most people are at that age. They have fought and won wars throughout human history.
Last edited:
If you are utterly incompetent and don’t want to join the military there is always the option of facilitating group buys.
I'm pretty sure the people on these forums who are advocating for Medicaid coverage of GLP-1s aren't advocating for themselves.
But maybe they're advocating for the 300 lb person who would otherwise get a job as, say, a cashier but for the fact that 300 lbs on two feet for 8 hours doesn't really work very well. Peptides to the rescue.
The good news for all of those people is that my opinion doesn’t matter.
I love my country but have no faith in politicians on either side of the aisle to make the right decisions. My responses are all based off of personal experience and emotions. If someone was going to be in a position to make life saving/changing decisions, I hope they have nowhere near my level of cynicism.Windingroads06
Less is More
I am. Actually, I am all for people getting these medications that are having positive impacts in multiple areas of health.
As a professional working in a role that witnesses the debacle of the medicaid system ( 25 years), I concur. I have many, many stories.
