In fairness, it's also a longer lifetime with more socially-productive time etc - obesity has a somewhat higher cost-intensity-per-year than a comparable fit ci

In fairness, it's also a longer lifetime with more socially-productive time etc - obesity has a somewhat higher cost-intensity-per-year than a comparable fit citizen, probably. But we already live in the society where very little is spent on earlier care - because the US spends very little on early care of anyone who's not an AARP voter. So is that a meaningful reduction in total spending? That is my interpretation of why the semaglutide budget effects are dire etc - well, Medicare doesn't spend anything on the fatty who dies at 50, and if they live to 80 and get cancer it's a lot more expensive for Medicare in the long-run actually. The proximal cost of the drug almost doesn't matter itself ($700/mo is w/e in terms of what we spend on seniors, and obesity is expensive both short-term and long, right?) it's more the long-run budget effects. It's already generally a shift upwards in Euro societies with more egalitarian age distribution of spending. Then you consider the US's favoritism for seniors... and the fact that ultimately Medicare foots a lot of it (minus the substantial amounts they can claw back ofc). They are the ultimate "sick pool"/adverse selection, right? Yeah, the USG's budget numbers probably look really bad if we cure obesity actually, even if it wasn't expensive. Thanks for your disarming attitude.