Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

astralcodexten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#61

Post by from-nibly »

Centigonal wrote: post #42
scarab92 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the entire US medical system runs on prices that no one actually pays. I don't really understand what all that extra complexity achieves?

The US healthcare system is a patchwork of policy, local incentives, and unchecked capitalism that barely works, some of the time. You can read intent into it, but it's really just a big mass of inscrutable complexity. That said, a lot of the time, inentionally or not, the answer is "it facilitates the transfer of money to the shareholders of the big private health insurance companies"

> unchecked capitalism

Of all the industries in the US Health Care is the MOST regulated. How on earth is that "unchecked"? The problem is the checks are (and always will be) written by the companies.

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#62

Post by alabastervlog »

timewizard wrote: post #25
alabastervlog wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Any number of ways, they don’t pay that much. Or, 2) They’re rich. Not even that rich. I mean hell we paid $1,500/month for two kids to go to preschool, for years, and that sucked but we could still save. And we had a household income of like $130k or so at the time. Doing fine, not saying we didn’t have alright income, but not that uncommon. Now imagine a two-FAANG income like many folks on here. $1,000/month, ev…

> but not that uncommon Taking in nearly double over the average household income is, by definition, uncommon.

JFC HN, I hedge and demure about as much as I reasonably can without distractingly and pointlessly (anyone can Google) turning the post into a dissertation on median household income percentiles and still someone complains. This is poor reading, and poor posting.

The first year of that, about 20% of households were around our level of income or higher. We could have covered $1,500 in daycare without much trouble at a somewhat lower level of income, so say 25% could cover $1,000/m without driving themselves into a really, really bad place financially, provided they’ve not already committed that to other things (expensive car payments, they have very young kids in daycare, whatever)

Neither 20% nor 25% are uncommon.

If you’re thinking “well that’s just coastal cities dragging the stats up” then check stats on 3rd-tier but not-notoriously-poor cities and see what they look like. In the flyover state city fitting that description we lived in at the time, the local household income percentile distribution roughly matched the national one.

That’s a TAM of people who can afford $1,000/month for something they really want of, what, 50 million or more adults in the US? And that’s at full sticker price, which few are paying.

How much more than one-in-five before a category of person is not uncommon?

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#63

Post by kcplate »

jmward01 wrote: post #34

This is actively improving health outcomes for millions of people so of course insurance won't cover it and it is being taken away from consumers. If the shortage is over, why does it cost $1k or even $500? Sounds like there is still a shortage to me. I guess vaccines are out but price gouging is still in in the US healthcare system.

My insurance covers it, but it depends on why it’s prescribed.

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#64

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

novemp wrote: post #50
yimby2001 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s a pretty average income for a couple with two children

In San Francisco, maybe.

Yeah but the OP lives there, and many people around them make similar or more, so it seems normal.

This is incredibly common in many parts of life, humans gonna human I guess.

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#65

Post by dingnuts »

novemp wrote: post #30
alabastervlog wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Any number of ways, they don’t pay that much. Or, 2) They’re rich. Not even that rich. I mean hell we paid $1,500/month for two kids to go to preschool, for years, and that sucked but we could still save. And we had a household income of like $130k or so at the time. Doing fine, not saying we didn’t have alright income, but not that uncommon. Now imagine a two-FAANG income like many folks on here. $1,000/month, ev…

> And we had a household income of like $130k or so at the time. Doing fine, not saying we didn’t have alright income, but not that uncommon. Americans with six-figure incomes seriously don't understand the rest of the country lives.

he said household, that could easily be two incomes, both way below six figures

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#67

Post by trogdor »

the_third_wave wrote: post #59
unsnap_biceps wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can afford 1k/month and will if that's what's required. My life is well over 1k/month better with a healthier weight. I preform better at work, I'm happier, and I should live longer. That's worth the money.

Or you eat less and/or healthier food to achieve the same result without the side effects. Spend part of that $1000 (but not too much) on better food which you (or someone in your family) prepares at home, keep the rest for other purposes. For some reason this suggestion, i.e. the suggestion to solve a problem by eliminating the root causes, does not seem to be popular on this forum. I'd very much like to know why th…

I don’t think anyone here disagrees with the premise that fat people can lose weight by eating fewer calories than they expend. What you are missing is that — for many people — your solution is akin to telling an alcoholic to just drink less. Yes, it would solve their problem, but for a variety of reasons it’s probably not gonna happen.

Most fat people who want to lose weight have already tried eating less food. Just like many alcoholics have tried to cut down or stop drinking. Some of those people succeed, but many others don’t. The reasons why are far more complex than commitment and willpower.

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#68

Post by JoeAltmaier »

the_third_wave wrote: post #59
unsnap_biceps wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can afford 1k/month and will if that's what's required. My life is well over 1k/month better with a healthier weight. I preform better at work, I'm happier, and I should live longer. That's worth the money.

Or you eat less and/or healthier food to achieve the same result without the side effects. Spend part of that $1000 (but not too much) on better food which you (or someone in your family) prepares at home, keep the rest for other purposes. For some reason this suggestion, i.e. the suggestion to solve a problem by eliminating the root causes, does not seem to be popular on this forum. I'd very much like to know why th…

Deliberately disingenuous? Pretending it's a diet problem, and not a psychological one.

Try this experiment: put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. You may find it hard. Your hand may shake; you will start sweating; rising panic will cloud your thinking.

But it's so easy! Just a couple pounds of pressure on the trigger. Anybody can do it.

That's me substituting a physiological problem for a psychological one.

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#69

Post by bradlys »

If you’re someone who is interested in these drugs, just know that you can get them from China for 1/10th the cost of what telehealth providers want. I’ve since supplied a few of my friends who have been interested in various peptides and it has been great overall. Some thought it would be a scam or bunk but they’re losing the weight with no side effects. It’s been great.
Post reply on HN