by Tdarcos » Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:53 am
Even if we ignore all the people with poor impulse control (like myself), there are a lot of people who have weight loss problems which are outside of their control. People with damaged thyroid (like me), possibly due to drinking or prior (illicit) drug use. People like myself who have lost the capacity to exercise (like myself), possibly because of poor life choices (like me). People who live in 'food deserts': areas where access to high-quality food like fresh fruit and vegetables is limited or even unavailable, and mostly only highly processed, fat- and sugar-heavy products are available within a reasonable traveling distance, like in low-income regions in the United States.
Further, the guy doesn't mention if this weight-loss injection is a currently available drug or one being tested. In the caase of a drug being considered for coverage for NHS, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't trial programs to see if the new drug is worthwhile to be offered and to deteemine how much they are willing tp pay for it.
Is he pushing any obligation to take responsibility by processed food manufacturers to be open about what is in their foods in order to understand if it is highly processed? Food makers in the US were going to be required to differentiate how much sugar is added to their food products (as opposed to natural sugars already present). Where there was pushback by manufacturers waw where it was recommended sugar levels be required to be reported in teaspoons instead of grams. Manufacturers know people will understand how much sugar is 4 teaspoons, but not realize that is the same as 16 grams.
A lot of people get medical treatment as a result of bad choices in the past. Should we deny medical care or portable oxygen for poor people who formerly smoked? How about pain killrs and crutches for people breaking legs skiing? Medical attention to the drunk driver injured involved in the accident they caused? Shold the perpetrator of an armed robbery shot by the proprietor be denied medical attention to stop the bleeding? Or how about the person who gets an STI from unprotected sex? What about Narcan for someone suffering a drug overdose?
I am referring here to people getting publicly funded treatment such as his objection to people using NHS (Englands public-funded socialized health care system). But it could apply for people in the US who get treatment from the same health insurance company.
We treat everybody who is sick or injured more-or-less the same because we don't consider whether the person's bad choices contributed to the cause(s) of the injuey, disease, or infection.
Even if we ignore all the people with poor impulse control (like myself), there are a lot of people who have weight loss problems which are outside of their control. People with damaged thyroid (like me), possibly due to drinking or prior (illicit) drug use. People like myself who have lost the capacity to exercise (like myself), possibly because of poor life choices (like me). People who live in 'food deserts': areas where access to high-quality food like fresh fruit and vegetables is limited or even unavailable, and mostly only highly processed, fat- and sugar-heavy products are available within a reasonable traveling distance, like in low-income regions in the United States.
Further, the guy doesn't mention if this weight-loss injection is a currently available drug or one being tested. In the caase of a drug being considered for coverage for NHS, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't trial programs to see if the new drug is worthwhile to be offered and to deteemine how much they are willing tp pay for it.
Is he pushing any obligation to take responsibility by processed food manufacturers to be open about what is in their foods in order to understand if it is highly processed? Food makers in the US were going to be required to differentiate how much sugar is added to their food products (as opposed to natural sugars already present). Where there was pushback by manufacturers waw where it was recommended sugar levels be required to be reported in teaspoons instead of grams. Manufacturers know people will understand how much sugar is 4 teaspoons, but not realize that is the same as 16 grams.
A lot of people get medical treatment as a result of bad choices in the past. Should we deny medical care or portable oxygen for poor people who formerly smoked? How about pain killrs and crutches for people breaking legs skiing? Medical attention to the drunk driver injured involved in the accident they caused? Shold the perpetrator of an armed robbery shot by the proprietor be denied medical attention to stop the bleeding? Or how about the person who gets an STI from unprotected sex? What about Narcan for someone suffering a drug overdose?
I am referring here to people getting publicly funded treatment such as his objection to people using NHS (Englands public-funded socialized health care system). But it could apply for people in the US who get treatment from the same health insurance company.
We treat everybody who is sick or injured more-or-less the same because we don't consider whether the person's bad choices contributed to the cause(s) of the injuey, disease, or infection.