Data guy here. You’re kinda running into the same rationale used by fascists, I mean republicans, to cut welfare. That being: there exists some number of people that game the system, so lets put rules in place to fight them. Sounds good right?
The problem is this: what’s the actual added value of these new rules? For this example, what’s the ratio of badly prescribed medicines to correctly prescribed ones? How many people that need the medication have to be denied it to validate catching one bad actor? Is it better to have a few bad actors to make sure everyone gets help, or is it more important to be punitive and make sure that only the right people get the resource?
Well, there’s a rational way to answer that. How scarce is the resource? If a solid gold bar was what was required to treat a condition, than yeah you’re gonna need to make sure no one is wasting it. But if the treatment is common as dirt, why are we getting in the way?
What’s the cost of the system as-is? People take medications they don’t need and may experience side effects of this medicine. Given that wellbutrin is hardly a party drug, it’s not as if people are seeking this out recreationally. They want to feel better. And if it isn’t doing anything, or is making them feel worse, than the discussion with one’s doctor should end up with “let’s try something else” (YMMV, doctors are sometimes bad, patients are sometimes bad, I’m talking how a typical case should go in a quasi-sensible world).
And you know what’s worse? Anyone that isn’t the patient and the doctor being involved in that conversation.
As a data guy we need to explain why 11% of Americans over the age of 12 take an antidepressant. The USA is, yet again, a world leader.
RFKjr has an alternative solution. If it’s small scale and voluntary then costs to society are minimal. If it’s large scale and compulsory then it’s very fascist.
My opinion is that the medical profession should focus on the cause of the above statistic. Not the solution.
My hypothesis is that lazy doctors are being paid to prescribe antidepressants. Whenever they can’t find a solution they identify “stress”.
With all due respect, depression and anxiety go back in my family lineage at least the three generations upwards from me, and down to the younger generation below me.
There’s a real genetic component to this, and brain chemistry is still not well understood.
Obviously we should fight the cause not the symptoms, but if the cause is genetic you can’t exactly fix it (sure there’s eugenics, but myself and lots of family members are well respected in our fields, from trades to sciences, some of the anxious traits make us excel at things).
When I started taking antidepressants last year my life changed. Colours seemed brighter, music sounds better, I can get stuff done better than ever, my relationships are better, I’m a much happier and more stable person.
I get what you’re saying, there are bad doctors, that goes both ways. I grew up with a doctor who didn’t believe in depression, so nobody in my family ever got treated or diagnosed for any mental illnesses. Imagine having an issue but because it can’t be clearly tested for, or some doctors are lazy, now you just don’t get any treatment. That’s not better.
But what leads you to believe they are being honest or will proceed in a scientific and humane way?
That is the real concern here. Conservatives describing their intentions in ways that sound good on the surface is the oldest and most practiced technique they have. That is why all the context and history around this craziness is so important.
Why is RFK Jr a reliable source for any of this? He’s hardly a reliable medical source. Dude promotes vaccine lies. He’s a lawyer by trade. He has no special medical knowledge or training. Why is he in charge of any of this in the first place?
Not trolling. My first post inb this thread acknowledges legitimate uses. I’m just pointing out the silver lining of this policy.
Reducing public dependency on badly prescribed medication doesn’t seem evil or anti science, but big pharma won’t like it.
Data guy here. You’re kinda running into the same rationale used by fascists, I mean republicans, to cut welfare. That being: there exists some number of people that game the system, so lets put rules in place to fight them. Sounds good right?
The problem is this: what’s the actual added value of these new rules? For this example, what’s the ratio of badly prescribed medicines to correctly prescribed ones? How many people that need the medication have to be denied it to validate catching one bad actor? Is it better to have a few bad actors to make sure everyone gets help, or is it more important to be punitive and make sure that only the right people get the resource?
Well, there’s a rational way to answer that. How scarce is the resource? If a solid gold bar was what was required to treat a condition, than yeah you’re gonna need to make sure no one is wasting it. But if the treatment is common as dirt, why are we getting in the way?
What’s the cost of the system as-is? People take medications they don’t need and may experience side effects of this medicine. Given that wellbutrin is hardly a party drug, it’s not as if people are seeking this out recreationally. They want to feel better. And if it isn’t doing anything, or is making them feel worse, than the discussion with one’s doctor should end up with “let’s try something else” (YMMV, doctors are sometimes bad, patients are sometimes bad, I’m talking how a typical case should go in a quasi-sensible world).
And you know what’s worse? Anyone that isn’t the patient and the doctor being involved in that conversation.
As a data guy we need to explain why 11% of Americans over the age of 12 take an antidepressant. The USA is, yet again, a world leader.
RFKjr has an alternative solution. If it’s small scale and voluntary then costs to society are minimal. If it’s large scale and compulsory then it’s very fascist.
My opinion is that the medical profession should focus on the cause of the above statistic. Not the solution.
My hypothesis is that lazy doctors are being paid to prescribe antidepressants. Whenever they can’t find a solution they identify “stress”.
With all due respect, depression and anxiety go back in my family lineage at least the three generations upwards from me, and down to the younger generation below me.
There’s a real genetic component to this, and brain chemistry is still not well understood.
Obviously we should fight the cause not the symptoms, but if the cause is genetic you can’t exactly fix it (sure there’s eugenics, but myself and lots of family members are well respected in our fields, from trades to sciences, some of the anxious traits make us excel at things).
When I started taking antidepressants last year my life changed. Colours seemed brighter, music sounds better, I can get stuff done better than ever, my relationships are better, I’m a much happier and more stable person.
I get what you’re saying, there are bad doctors, that goes both ways. I grew up with a doctor who didn’t believe in depression, so nobody in my family ever got treated or diagnosed for any mental illnesses. Imagine having an issue but because it can’t be clearly tested for, or some doctors are lazy, now you just don’t get any treatment. That’s not better.
Maybe it’s because the US is a uniquely depressing place with a semi functional health care system?
But what leads you to believe they are being honest or will proceed in a scientific and humane way?
That is the real concern here. Conservatives describing their intentions in ways that sound good on the surface is the oldest and most practiced technique they have. That is why all the context and history around this craziness is so important.
This is my issue with all these “common sense” conservative ideas.
Yes, often common sense is good, but reality has complexity and nuance and you don’t get to just pretend them out of existence.
I think this policy is pure RFKjr. It’s not in project 2025 and conservatives wouldn’t endanger their big phama paychecks.
Now. It may be hijacked and twisted in its implementation. And I don’t think an environmental lawyer should be running health policy.
I think you are right to urge caution. The upsides are minimal and the potential downsides are massive.
Why is RFK Jr a reliable source for any of this? He’s hardly a reliable medical source. Dude promotes vaccine lies. He’s a lawyer by trade. He has no special medical knowledge or training. Why is he in charge of any of this in the first place?
The same reason as most of the other cabinet positions, I’d imagine. Secret personal loyalty based ones.
Or ye olde “useful idiot”. Honestly more rhetorical to draw attention to the absurdity of relying on RFK Jr for health advice.
Because he was soaking up votes as a 3rd party candidate. 10% of Americans wanted him for president.