←back to thread

The Hollow Men of Hims

(www.alexkesin.com)
199 points quadrin | 10 comments | 25 Jun 25 22:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.328s | source | bottom
Show context
jackdeansmith ◴[26 Jun 25 00:00 UTC] No.44382963[source]▶
>The real tragedy is not that Hims exists, but that it works so perfectly. Every day, thousands of people choose their compounded weight-loss drugs over FDA-approved alternatives, their combination ED pills over established single-ingredient treatments, their algorithmic consultations over actual medical care. They make these choices not because the products are better, but because the entire experience has been optimized to feel more like shopping and less like confronting the mortality and vulnerability that define the human condition.

Strongly disagree with almost everything in this article, but specifically this. The reason people make these choices is not because of slick marketing working against them, it's because the existing process to get medical treatment is paternalistic, hard to navigate and often expensive.

If you want safe and really high quality medical care you should absolutely have a personal physician you have a personal relationship with, who understands your lifestyle, your risk factors for side effects, and your medical needs deeply. How many Americans have that? Maybe a few dozen? The market has responded to just how terrible the existing system is.

replies(10): >>44383022 #>>44383299 #>>44383303 #>>44383423 #>>44383652 #>>44383766 #>>44384593 #>>44388125 #>>44388421 #>>44390549 #
binarymax ◴[26 Jun 25 00:12 UTC] No.44383022[source]▶
It’s possible for both you and the article to be right.

The system sucks, but Hims are also terrible, and medical care should not be like Amazon prime.

replies(7): >>44383243 #>>44383273 #>>44383431 #>>44384112 #>>44384471 #>>44384774 #>>44387206 #
1. alphazard ◴[26 Jun 25 01:01 UTC] No.44383273[source]▶
> and medical care should not be like Amazon prime.

Speak for yourself; that is exactly what I want. And anyone else who wants a similar experience should be able to purchase it.

replies(5): >>44383439 #>>44383631 #>>44388583 #>>44388878 #>>44389855 #
2. bigyabai ◴[26 Jun 25 01:31 UTC] No.44383439[source]▶
I don't think it will take more than 5 teenage overdose deaths to get most Americans to disagree.
replies(3): >>44383472 #>>44383490 #>>44383576 #
3. alphazard ◴[26 Jun 25 01:38 UTC] No.44383472[source]▶
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".
4. genocidicbunny ◴[26 Jun 25 01:43 UTC] No.44383490[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>44387174 #
5. bongodongobob ◴[26 Jun 25 01:59 UTC] No.44383576[source]▶
Kind of tired of making life hard for everyone because a few stupid people might potentially make some bad decisions.
6. mannykannot ◴[26 Jun 25 02:12 UTC] No.44383631[source]▶
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.
7. potato3732842 ◴[26 Jun 25 13:22 UTC] No.44387174{3}[source]▶
>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

8. FireBeyond ◴[26 Jun 25 15:52 UTC] No.44388583[source]▶
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.

9. blactuary ◴[26 Jun 25 16:23 UTC] No.44388878[source]▶
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

10. ike2792 ◴[26 Jun 25 18:15 UTC] No.44389855[source]▶
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.