3 ms·

A bottle of 360 5,000 IU Vitamin D pills is $16 on Amazon. Each pill is 4.5 cents, so you’re looking at 45 cents a week for 50k IU. I don’t think you can get be

A bottle of 360 5,000 IU Vitamin D pills is $16 on Amazon. Each pill is 4.5 cents, so you’re looking at 45 cents a week for 50k IU. I don’t think you can get better insurance for $2/month.

zenexer 6y ago
I suppose if you're buying it online instead of locally, that's an option. If I were to buy it from a local store, though, it's a lot more expensive than that--$16 will get you 14-30 doses, even with a cheap brand. And that's assuming you can find the cheap brands in stock, which is often difficult. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that people in financially difficult situations are able to order online. These are often people who can only pay with cash, food stamps, or other methods that Amazon won't accept. If you're shopping on Amazon, you're probably in a position whereby you have a bit more flexibility in your life. I know that in Massachusetts (United States), you can see a PCP, get blood work, and get a Vitamin D prescription for free if you don't have sufficient income or insurance. I have friends and neighbors who don't have jobs right now; that's how they get their healthcare. Of course, they're lucky: from what I hear, it's certainly not like that in most of the US, let alone the rest of the world. Regardless, I don't think it's constructive to insist that self-medicating with Vitamin D should be a priority for people in such a financial position. There are other priorities. If your life is comfortable enough that you can worry about supplements, you probably have enough money to get better insurance or get proper blood tests. Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. There are an awful lot of people for whom buying medications on Amazon just isn't an option. They don't have and can't get credit cards or bank accounts. They don't have a stable place to live or a way to receive packages. "I don't understand why these people can't afford X; I can order it online for just Y cents" is entitled and dismissive: that's not the reality for many people, especially in the US. Meanwhile, a not-insignificant percentage of these people live in places where they can, in fact, see a doctor, get blood tests, and get basic prescriptions for free (money). They often can't take advantage of these benefits--not because of the costs, but because of the time (taking a day off from work? Not an option.), bureaucratic red tape (paperwork, call random people and wait on hold for hours), and lack of awareness (how do you know these services exist, especially if you don't speak English or even know to look for them?).
- alwillis 6y ago
  I hear you. Gentle reminder: every CVS and Walgreens I've ever gone into has Amazon gift cards someone can buy with cash and use them to pay for stuff on Amazon.
  - zenexer 6y ago
    I can only speak for people I know, but I think the logistics of that are right up there with "take advantage of free healthcare that's available at your income level." They have to: 1. Know that the option is available 2. Have a stable home--Amazon doesn't work well if you're homeless or couch-surfing 3. Speak English, assuming you're in the US (this is a big one) 4. Have consistent access to a computer or a cell phone 5. Have consistent access to the internet--not a given when you keep defaulting on your cell phone payments 6. Have the time, energy, and intelligence to figure out how to get an Amazon account working via non-traditional methods--it sounds silly, but this is a real problem if you're juggling just as many jobs as kids. #1, #2, #3 are really difficult for a lot of people. Even in places where people would be eligible for some minimal level of free healthcare, they're still significant hurdles.
    - DoreenMichele 6y ago
      I ordered off Amazon while homeless and sleeping in a tent. Yes, there are people who absolutely cannot readily make their lives work. I still struggle to make ends meet, though it's better than it used to be and I'm at least no longer homeless. But you seem to be pointlessly beating a dead horse here. There may be a good argument for "We should just give away help for the most vulnerable during the pandemic because protecting them protects others." but beyond that I don't know what your point is.
      - zenexer 6y ago
        > but beyond that I don't know what your point is. The ancestor to which I'm responding was suggesting that self-medicating at prescription-level doses was a viable option. It's not: 1. If you can get the tests to show that you actually need prescription-level dosing (rather than OTC dosing), then you can get the prescription far cheaper than the OTC medication anyway. 2. If you can't get the tests, then you shouldn't be taking a higher-than-OTC dose without a damn good reason, and we sure as heck shouldn't be encouraging that here or treating it as a priority--although I think the ancestor was half-joking. This particular branch of the discussion isn't about OTC dosing. If you want to just take normal supplements at normal doses, go right ahead. Don't think you need to allocate money to go higher than that, especially when there isn't really a guarantee that it will even be safe, much less necessary.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
oarsinsync 6y ago
Have you considered the risk of receiving counterfeit goods in this suggestion? There are numerous threads on this board, and numerous articles on the internet, detailing the dubious quality of goods coming out of Amazon these days. With co-mingling of stock, it’s not even possible to pick a “reputable” seller to avoid this risk. How does an ordinary person test that we’ve actually received the supplement that was ordered, and not something else entirely? Amazon is the Wild West compared to a drug store.
- travisjungroth 6y ago
  At least personally, I don’t worry about it. Fraud seems more common with supplements with high material cost and low manufacturing, like a bulk powder of something exotic.
- zenexer 6y ago
  If I were on a tight budget and didn't have a prescription, I'd definitely get mine from Amazon. It's a relatively cheap, generic product. I'd be a little worried about other unexpected chemicals being mixed in, but food is probably even more of a concern in that regard. On the scale of things to fret over if you're short on cash, vitamin D sourcing is probably pretty low. Besides, what are the chances that a local store's vitamin D is actually higher-quality? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they both ended up coming from the same place.

A bottle of 360 5,000 IU Vitamin D pills is $16 on Amazon. Each pill is 4.5 cents, so you’re looking at 45 cents a week for 50k IU. I don’t think you can get better insurance for $2/month.

zenexer 6y ago

I suppose if you're buying it online instead of locally, that's an option. If I were to buy it from a local store, though, it's a lot more expensive than that--$16 will get you 14-30 doses, even with a cheap brand. And that's assuming you can find the cheap brands in stock, which is often difficult. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that people in financially difficult situations are able to order online. These are often people who can only pay with cash, food stamps, or other methods that Amazon won't accept. If you're shopping on Amazon, you're probably in a position whereby you have a bit more flexibility in your life. I know that in Massachusetts (United States), you can see a PCP, get blood work, and get a Vitamin D prescription for free if you don't have sufficient income or insurance. I have friends and neighbors who don't have jobs right now; that's how they get their healthcare. Of course, they're lucky: from what I hear, it's certainly not like that in most of the US, let alone the rest of the world. Regardless, I don't think it's constructive to insist that self-medicating with Vitamin D should be a priority for people in such a financial position. There are other priorities. If your life is comfortable enough that you can worry about supplements, you probably have enough money to get better insurance or get proper blood tests. Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. There are an awful lot of people for whom buying medications on Amazon just isn't an option. They don't have and can't get credit cards or bank accounts. They don't have a stable place to live or a way to receive packages. "I don't understand why these people can't afford X; I can order it online for just Y cents" is entitled and dismissive: that's not the reality for many people, especially in the US. Meanwhile, a not-insignificant percentage of these people live in places where they can, in fact, see a doctor, get blood tests, and get basic prescriptions for free (money). They often can't take advantage of these benefits--not because of the costs, but because of the time (taking a day off from work? Not an option.), bureaucratic red tape (paperwork, call random people and wait on hold for hours), and lack of awareness (how do you know these services exist, especially if you don't speak English or even know to look for them?).

alwillis 6y ago
I hear you. Gentle reminder: every CVS and Walgreens I've ever gone into has Amazon gift cards someone can buy with cash and use them to pay for stuff on Amazon.
- zenexer 6y ago
  I can only speak for people I know, but I think the logistics of that are right up there with "take advantage of free healthcare that's available at your income level." They have to: 1. Know that the option is available 2. Have a stable home--Amazon doesn't work well if you're homeless or couch-surfing 3. Speak English, assuming you're in the US (this is a big one) 4. Have consistent access to a computer or a cell phone 5. Have consistent access to the internet--not a given when you keep defaulting on your cell phone payments 6. Have the time, energy, and intelligence to figure out how to get an Amazon account working via non-traditional methods--it sounds silly, but this is a real problem if you're juggling just as many jobs as kids. #1, #2, #3 are really difficult for a lot of people. Even in places where people would be eligible for some minimal level of free healthcare, they're still significant hurdles.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    I ordered off Amazon while homeless and sleeping in a tent. Yes, there are people who absolutely cannot readily make their lives work. I still struggle to make ends meet, though it's better than it used to be and I'm at least no longer homeless. But you seem to be pointlessly beating a dead horse here. There may be a good argument for "We should just give away help for the most vulnerable during the pandemic because protecting them protects others." but beyond that I don't know what your point is.
    - zenexer 6y ago
      > but beyond that I don't know what your point is. The ancestor to which I'm responding was suggesting that self-medicating at prescription-level doses was a viable option. It's not: 1. If you can get the tests to show that you actually need prescription-level dosing (rather than OTC dosing), then you can get the prescription far cheaper than the OTC medication anyway. 2. If you can't get the tests, then you shouldn't be taking a higher-than-OTC dose without a damn good reason, and we sure as heck shouldn't be encouraging that here or treating it as a priority--although I think the ancestor was half-joking. This particular branch of the discussion isn't about OTC dosing. If you want to just take normal supplements at normal doses, go right ahead. Don't think you need to allocate money to go higher than that, especially when there isn't really a guarantee that it will even be safe, much less necessary.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

oarsinsync 6y ago

Have you considered the risk of receiving counterfeit goods in this suggestion? There are numerous threads on this board, and numerous articles on the internet, detailing the dubious quality of goods coming out of Amazon these days. With co-mingling of stock, it’s not even possible to pick a “reputable” seller to avoid this risk. How does an ordinary person test that we’ve actually received the supplement that was ordered, and not something else entirely? Amazon is the Wild West compared to a drug store.

travisjungroth 6y ago
At least personally, I don’t worry about it. Fraud seems more common with supplements with high material cost and low manufacturing, like a bulk powder of something exotic.
zenexer 6y ago
If I were on a tight budget and didn't have a prescription, I'd definitely get mine from Amazon. It's a relatively cheap, generic product. I'd be a little worried about other unexpected chemicals being mixed in, but food is probably even more of a concern in that regard. On the scale of things to fret over if you're short on cash, vitamin D sourcing is probably pretty low. Besides, what are the chances that a local store's vitamin D is actually higher-quality? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they both ended up coming from the same place.