←back to thread

The Hollow Men of Hims

(www.alexkesin.com)
206 points quadrin | 4 comments | 25 Jun 25 22:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.554s | source
Show context
mlsu ◴[26 Jun 25 00:18 UTC] No.44383056[source]▶
The explosive growth of Hims and other side-channel healthcare businesses (using this model -- telehealth combined with compounded meds) is entirely due to the "legitimate" healthcare system's complete and total failure to serve patients' needs.

You can maybe talk about the hollow men of Novo and Lilly, who colluded with PBMs and insurers for most of a decade to push the cost of insulin analogues into the stratosphere, taking billions in profit while people died in agony rationing insulin. (in horrible agony -- blood turning into acid until brain death)

replies(2): >>44383070 #>>44389219 #
turnsout[dead post] ◴[26 Jun 25 00:22 UTC] No.44383070[source]▶
[flagged]
ggm-at-algebras ◴[26 Jun 25 00:56 UTC] No.44383242[source]▶
I am unsure why you have been down voted because fundamentally your point is correct. Health is a fully regulated space, and no entity should be supplying medical products without adherence to requirements appropriate to their role. Compounding GLP-1 seems to me to be in the higher bar space.
replies(4): >>44383262 #>>44383317 #>>44383329 #>>44383436 #
1. ch4s3 ◴[26 Jun 25 01:45 UTC] No.44383504[source]▶
Factually healthcare is more regulated than most industries in the US and the web of regulations has no design and where it does, patient safety is rarely the primary goal.
2. tomhow ◴[26 Jun 25 05:04 UTC] No.44384330[source]▶
That really isn’t what the HN audience is. That comment has a mix of upvotes, downvotes and flags, and at least some of the downvotes I can see are from HN users who routinely downvote/flag inflammatory rhetoric, no matter what ideology it’s advocating or attacking.
3. kbenson ◴[26 Jun 25 07:08 UTC] No.44384961[source]▶
More likely your initial comment was downvoted because it provides little additional context and makes a claim without support, as if it's self evident. Comments such as that rarely do well on complex topics. My own rule of thumb is that if I'm stating something as fact and I'm writing a single sentence, it's likely a low effort and low usefulness comment that is unlikely to be beneficial to the conversation.

Your comment immediately above this was likely flagged because of your inflammatory accusations and assumptions about why your were downvoted, and IMO shows a alack of introspection about possible reasons as to why you were downvoted. Much better to ask why than to throw out accusations, at least if your goal is to have a useful discussion or learn something (bot of which require some level of assuming good faith to others here).

4. throw10920 ◴[26 Jun 25 21:35 UTC] No.44391709[source]▶
You're being downvoted because you're saying something factually incorrect, and now you're being flagged for blatantly breaking the HN guidelines and degrading the discourse.