Opinion What is behind the insulin shortage in the US?

[fedoriswar37]

The article quotes in the OP is a little dishonest. Ozempic isn't a weight loss drug. It's a diabetes drug. Diabetics have been complaining that they can't get Ozempic because regular people are using it for weight loss and now they are complaining that the pharma companies have switched production to more Ozempic/less insulin.

Ozempic isn't even healthy for diabetics. Its just the risk of complications faced by obesity outweighs the side effects

 

[Belaya Smert]

Stop projecting fatty! Haha

did you lift today?

 

[Osculater]

did you lift today?

 

[Madmick]

This is why healthcare should not be tied in to a profit motive.

Not all things that provide social value need to be subjected to capitalism.

List every major medical breakthrough and medication developed by a country that isn't driven by a free market economy, and pharmaceutical companies that operate with a profit margin.

I'll hold my breath.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

List every major medical breakthrough and medication developed by a country that isn't driven by a free market economy, and pharmaceutical companies that operate with a profit margin.

I'll hold my breath.

RIP

 

[lilelvis]

Have any of you watched people dry up on ozempic? This won’t end well..

 

[helltoupee]

List every major medical breakthrough and medication developed by a country that isn't driven by a free market economy, and pharmaceutical companies that operate with a profit margin.

I'll hold my breath.

And how much of the above was accomplished utilizing government subsidies, grants, or even government contracts? And you think the University system plays no role in medical breakthroughs either? A private business taking advantage of free R&D by the taxpayers is not a 'free market economy'.

Plenty of 'medications' and 'medical breakthroughs' came as a result of, or with the assistance of, socialistic government involvement. Not all, but even the existence of some makes your bold declaration that all medical breakthroughs are purely attributed to the efforts of a free market economy, as hogwash.

Somalia has more of an extreme version of a 'free market' economy than the US. They must be drowning in medical breakthroughs.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And how much of the above was accomplished utilizing government subsidies, grants, or even government contracts? And you think the University system plays no role in medical breakthroughs either? A private business taking advantage of free R&D by the taxpayers is not a 'free market economy'.

Plenty of 'medications' and 'medical breakthroughs' came as a result of, or with the assistance of, socialistic government involvement. Not all, but even the existence of some makes your bold declaration that all medical breakthroughs are purely attributed to the efforts of a free market economy, as hogwash.

Somalia has more of an extreme version of a 'free market' economy than the US. They must be drowning in medical breakthroughs.

Doesn't really refute his point. Turning scientific advances into desirable products is something that markets do well. The gov't and universities should continue to fund and conduct research, but we also need for-profit companies to make optimal use of it.

 

[Madmick]

And how much of the above was accomplished utilizing government subsidies, grants, or even government contracts? And you think the University system plays no role in medical breakthroughs either? A private business taking advantage of free R&D by the taxpayers is not a 'free market economy'.

Plenty of 'medications' and 'medical breakthroughs' came as a result of, or with the assistance of, socialistic government involvement. Not all, but even the existence of some makes your bold declaration that all medical breakthroughs are purely attributed to the efforts of a free market economy, as hogwash.

Somalia has more of an extreme version of a 'free market' economy than the US. They must be drowning in medical breakthroughs.

That's not an answer. Just a bunch of excuses for why the for-profit model is vastly superior at helping people.

 

[Samjj]

The article quotes in the OP is a little dishonest. Ozempic isn't a weight loss drug. It's a diabetes drug. Diabetics have been complaining that they can't get Ozempic because regular people are using it for weight loss and now they are complaining that the pharma companies have switched production to more Ozempic/less insulin.

Ozempic (Semaglutide) is FDA approved for weight loss under the commercial name Wegovy (Semaglutide) which is just the same drug with higher dosage configurations.

It is both a diabetes drug and a weight loss drug.

 

[Patrick Jane]

The CCP, as always.

 

[helltoupee]

That's not an answer. Just a bunch of excuses for why the for-profit model is vastly superior at helping people.

LOL at 'vastly superior at helping people'. Are you telling me that the US population is more healthy person for person than somewhere like Japan, which has more socialized healthcare?

All I was saying is that 'free markets' are not the answer to every human problem, there must be a mix between 'free markets' and socialistic intervention. What the hell is so controversial about that?

 

[Rygu]

Have any of you watched people dry up on ozempic? This won’t end well..

I know a few people taking Ozempic for weight loss, what are the risks/side effects that you're aware of I have no knowledge on it. All ive read is if/when you stop taking it youll prob gain the weight back and then some possibly.

 

[helltoupee]

Doesn't really refute his point. Turning scientific advances into desirable products is something that markets do well. The gov't and universities should continue to fund and conduct research, but we also need for-profit companies to make optimal use of it.

That's exactly what I said. Medical breakthroughs are not the sole result of a free market economy. There is public assistance with that in all kinds of ways. Or maybe you'd like to explain why Somalia, which is more of a 'free market economy' than the US, isn't leading the world in medical breakthroughs.

Laissez-faire capitalism isn't shit unless it's regulated and supported by a government funded by taxpayers, which includes University medical research and the very foundation of the scientists and doctors who are trained to do that kind of work (who will private businesses hire if not university trained professionals?). 'Free market economy' is not some absolute be-all end-all answer to everything. It's basis is the best we have when controlled and regulated. But I highly doubt new medications or medical breakthroughs would be developed so often if a private business had to sink all their capital in to R&D - instead, they are funded by taxpayers. That's not free-market. Why anyone would label a private business having their costs subsidized by the public as 'free market' is beyond me.

I would be keen on making a compromise. For every medical breakthrough or new medication that is/was developed utilizing subsidies or grants, their profit should be limited by said assistance, meaning they can't gouge people on prices. For every medical breakthrough that relies only on internal funding, they can charge whatever they want. Fair?

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's exactly what I said. Medical breakthroughs are not the sole result of a free market economy. There is public assistance with that in all kinds of ways. Or maybe you'd like to explain why Somalia, which is more of a 'free market economy' than the US, isn't leading the world in medical breakthroughs.

Laissez-faire capitalism isn't shit unless it's regulated and supported by a government funded by taxpayers, which includes University medical research and the very foundation of the scientists and doctors who are trained to do that kind of work (who will private businesses hire if not university trained professionals?). 'Free market economy' is not some absolute be-all end-all answer to everything. It's basis is the best we have when controlled and regulated. But I highly doubt new medications or medical breakthroughs would be developed so often if a private business had to sink all their capital in to R&D - instead, they are funded by taxpayers. That's not free-market. Why anyone would label a private business having their costs subsidized by the public as 'free market' is beyond me.

OK, you're arguing against a position no one besides a few right-wing libertarians that everyone knows are idiots hold.

 

[Beechwood]

There has been much written in the past few years about curing, or maybe better said, helping control type 1 and type2 diabetes by using the cheep TB vaccine.

Diabetes is a big money maker for the medical field. I don't know this but can guess many would not be all that interested in using this treatment cure. The TB vaccine costs around .06 cents.

Lots of information on this research work out there, one video by a researcher best known for this work ~

Common vaccine can reverse advanced cases of diabetes, study says​

 

[helltoupee]

OK, you're arguing against a position no one besides a few right-wing libertarians that everyone knows are idiots hold.

I was arguing against a position that was posted by someone else who I have no idea if they are a "right wing libertarian" or not, as I was responding to his post and not some pre-conceived assumption of the author's character. But thanks for the commentary, it was really helpful.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I was arguing against a position that was posted by someone else who I have no idea if they are a "right wing libertarian" or not, as I was responding to his post and not some pre-conceived assumption of the author's character. But thanks for the commentary, it was really helpful.

But you weren't actually arguing against an expressed position, was the point. The profit margin is a key component in medical improvements. Acknowledging that fact is consistent with support for gov't-funded research.

 

[helltoupee]

But you weren't actually arguing against an expressed position, was the point. The profit margin is a key component in medical improvements. Acknowledging that fact is consistent with support for gov't-funded research.

Keyword above "component".

Are politicians motivated by profit motive and 'free markets' as well? Would profit margin create the best politicians we've ever seen?

As I originally stated, there are some things that carry social value, such as healthcare or governance, that should not be subjected to a profit motive model.

 

[Madmick]

LOL at 'vastly superior at helping people'. Are you telling me that the US population is more healthy person for person than somewhere like Japan, which has more socialized healthcare?

All I was saying is that 'free markets' are not the answer to every human problem, there must be a mix between 'free markets' and socialistic intervention. What the hell is so controversial about that?

Japan has a for-profit model with its pharmaceutical companies. Great government healthcare spending isn't mutually exclusive to a for-profit model, not that healthcare spending necessarily correlates to broader or more affordable healthcare, nor does better healthcare entail a healthier population.

You said something stupid. That's what was 'controversial' about it. Think before you speak. Resist these asinine partisan platitudes. Be more precise with your language.