I admit I went to Hims a while ago. I filled out the questionnaire and had a "physican interview" where I was literally told "You need to change this answer from this to that, and this answer to this" if I wanted to get medicine, and "would [I] like a chance to review my questionnaires and we could discuss again in a few minutes?"

That's not medical care.

That's what you want until you have a serious and expensive health care problem. Segmenting off the healthy people like this simply means the people with chronic conditions or acute catastrophes are bearing more of the cost rather than pooling the risk.

Everyone wants to be the sickest person in whatever health care pool they are in, but that's not sustainable

Personally, I am thankful that I have better options than going through hundreds of options with scant and unreliable information about which is actually effective and will be supplied as as claimed. If, however, that is your preference, you can certainly get it in the US, at almost any price point.

Same. For relatively safe medications, people should have the freedom to get medications that will resolve their issues without jumping through a bunch of hoops. As long as companies are providing full disclosure on the medications they are providing and side effects, I don't see any issue with it.

I don't think it will take more than 5 teenage overdose deaths to get most Americans to disagree.

Opposite those ODs you have thousands of people spending an arm and a leg on medicine that truly improves their lives, with no ill effect to them.

The way I see it, services like Hims are forcing a discussion that needs to have happened a long time ago. If people are willing to rely on them for medicines that can have some pretty serious side effects, what does that say about our existing system that people are eschewing? When you're asking people to choose between being able to afford to eat, and being able to afford something like insulin, why the fuck would you expect the decision making process to be anything otherwise?

Maybe many americans would disagree, right until the moment when they're nearly vomiting their guts out at the pharmacy, waiting for their zofran, which is going to cost them several hundred dollars, just because they're getting a version with a little glucose added so it doesn't taste as bad when you take it.

>what does that say about our existing system that people are eschewing?

"clearly we need to spend more on lobbying to get our ability to extract out pound of flesh more thoroughly written into the law"

-the system

It would only take that many for lobbyists to misrepresent the size of the problem and convince the public that it was a huge issue. Then they would enact regulations to widen the moat of legacy health care companies under the guise of "protecting the children".