You're viewing a single thread.
I can already hear the arguments ringing in my head. This is a matter that is near and dear to my heart. As a disclaimer, I'm Canadian, if the USA doesn't want cheap insulin, I can't really do anything to stop that.
With all that being said, I have a family member who is a type 1 diabetic. I have experienced the following, ignorant, argument from enough people that I'm pretty sure those that voted against this, at least in part, believe. Diabetes is a self inflicted condition that you can cure with proper diet and exercise. While that argument could be true for some portion of type 2 diabetes, it is wholly untrue for T1D. I won't speculate on how many people are in that scenario with type 2, so I'll focus on my main argument.
Type 1 diabetes, sometimes also referred to as juvenile diabetes, isn't exclusive to young people. It's diagnosed young, which gives it the "juvenile" title. Type 2 is generally a problem that comes with age (and sometimes obesity), so it's referred to as "adult" diabetes. I'll point out these "titles" only apply to when you are likely to be diagnosed with it and have nothing to do with how long you'll have it. Type 1 is typically caused by the pancreas being unable to function. Sometimes there's a little function, but in general, it's an issue with the pancreas itself, which will not heal. The cause of the dysfunction is varied and not relevant to the point, but genetics, disease, injury, etc, can all play a role in it. The fact is, the pancreas does not, and will never, operate correctly. For a T1D, the only "diet" that can keep their condition in check is essentially starvation, resulting in death, which would arguably cure the disease. You can't be unwell if you're dead.
People with T1D didn't ask for it, they didn't do anything that gave them the condition. They can't do anything that relieves the condition. They are obligated to take insulin, or die. Shit choice if you ask me. Forcing diabetics to essentially pay to live is cruel, at the same time, producing a medical/pharmaceutical grade substance costs money and someone has to pay for it. Limiting the cost of insulin to a reasonable amount that can adequately cover the costs of production is the compromise. So those who are unemployed and/or underpaid can still afford to live.
Insulin for type 2 diabetics, which usually comes as a pill, whereas type 1 generally needs an injection, can be the exception if you're hellbent on "punishing" those that "do it to themselves", but even for that, you'll get an argument from me. There's a gap in knowledge for what is proper nutrition, and how to take care of yourself in such a way that you won't end up obese. Many people who can take care of themselves, learned these traits at home. A nontrivial amount of the population didn't get this same education and think that fast food is good food, or at least adequate; or that frozen is a good alternative to fresh, since fresh doesn't really keep very long, which can be true for some things, but I assure you that buying a 1KG frozen lasagna that feeds 4, isn't a good, singular meal for one person.
I'm not here to lecture anyone on diet and nutrition, I'm only trying to point out that the misconceptions about what is good or healthy for you to eat, are very common. The education system hasn't done anything to fix this. Not really. I was taught the food pyramid, which, I believe, at the time, it was not considered a good guide on nutrition, at the very least. It's basically speculation from the 70s that's essentially pseudo science. Learning and having good nutrition is kind of a joke at this point, at least when it comes to public education. Add that to the fact that almost everything that's made is laced, injected, or otherwise coated in sugars, and you get a recipe for obesity and eventually type 2 diabetes. I'm certain a nontrivial number of type 2 diabetics didn't learn about proper nutrition until they became diabetic. At that point, changing your eating habits for the better, isn't an easy task.
So, I would argue that for many type 2 sufferers, they're simply a product of a system (that we designed) which failed them. They were not taught, nor given the required knowledge to adequately avoid contracting the disorder.
IMO, anyone against a cap on insulin is either poorly informed, or cruel. If you know how and why both types of diabetes exists, then you're cruel if you don't want a cap on the prices. If you don't, you need education to learn about it and why, for many, it's not really a choice.
I'll add the disclaimer that I'm sure there are those out there that are type 2 diabetics who knew all along and essentially did it to themselves. I will only say this about it: there's no reasonable way to have them monetarily pay for their choices, without significantly and negatively impacting those who did not have a choice in the matter.
And even to those that did it to themselves. Why would you want to financially ruin or straight up killing people for making mistakes? That,is simply sadistic and very much unchristian of the so outspoken Christians of the GOP
Didn't someone once say that they "liked" Christ, but didn't like Christians because they were so "un-christ-like" or something?
I seem to recall that, and I've always regarded it as the most apt description of most Western religious beliefs.
You could raise a tax on sweets and sugary beverages and use it to subsidize insulin production. That way the ones that ate themselves to diabetes at least disproportionately pay for it.
That is a good idea, but frankly speaking the reason for the high price is neither demand nor supply. It's medical companies purposely demanding a high price because of a lack of necessity to lower it. Not that there's no competition, though it is small, they simply cartellized and no one actually cares. It is the epitome of what capitalism needs to control for it to continue working. There's no place in the world where insurances pay as much for insulin. (I mean insurances don't pay as much for any medication as IS citizens do, but that's because they can flatly deny companies any sales and leverage them to lower their prices. ) US citizens are getting fucked over royally by pharmaceutical companies simply because the spokespeople, the elected attorneys of the people, refuse to cover the backs of the people. They'd rather profit from exploiting the basic needs of the people. It could also be a way to control them - but that would be a dangerous assumption
Right. The fucked up US healthcare system is a whole other can of worms. My suggestion was meant to be after insulin has been priced fairly.
Oh that should be a thing regardless. I hope our health minister will manage to pass such a law in Germany. Whatever that tax is used on, it's an incentive for companies to put less or no sugar in products and for consumers to consume less sugar heavy products. In our case putting that tax revenue in to pensions or into defense would also be a viable option
Me here buying entire month worth of insulin for 10$ in India without arguing over morality and ethics.
I don't know why Americans have made it so complicated. Large number of people need it, make it first priority to set cost as low as possible. Profiting over starving people of medical supplies is completely ignored and instead other ethical points are brought up.
The arguments I hear most around this kind of stuff is something along the lines of, "the innovators have a right to charge however much the market will bear" and, "if we take away the incentive to innovate, these drugs will not exist."
My thoughts against these lines is that patents cause monopolies, so they are not "free markets," and there would still be an incentive to innovate because of things like the first-mover advantage, and that reducing costs is also a form of innovation.
My thoughts against "punishment" arguments, are that punishment just for punishment's sake is cruel, useless, and often counter-productive. I don't think people have as much agency as we'd like to think. In the case of type-2 diabetes, insulin is part of the rehabilitation.
I'm sure we could go deep into rehab and how it's a net-good for society, but given your comments so far, I feel it would be a lot like preaching to the choir.
Rehab in all forms is good, whether physical rehabilitation, mental, or medical/drug related.
More healthy people in society means a more productive society. Period. Charging people out the ass to simply live and exist without constant discomfort is detrimental to the productivity of our society at large. Rehab is one tool to help society obtain and maintain a high level of productivity continually.
There's obviously more to the discussion of productivity but it kind of falls outside the context of the discussion.
“the innovators have a right to charge however much the market will bear”
ie "it hasn't affected me negatively yet so I don't care."