• long running

Sixty Day Dispensing of More than 300 Common Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Medicines

4936
Sixty Day Dispensing of More than 300 Common Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Medicines
Go to Deal
SupeNintendoChalmers on 12/06/2023 - 22:09 health.gov.au (7939 clicks)
Last edited 13/06/2023 - 10:41 by 1 other user

From 1 September 2023, many patients living with a chronic condition will be able to buy 2 months’ worth (60-days’) of common PBS-listed medicines for the price of a single prescription, rather than the current 1 month’s supply.

This will apply to more than 300 common medicines listed on the PBS and will be implemented in three tranches over 12 months. See PDF link here for all the medicines included

When fully implemented on 1 September 2024, the changes will mean at least 6 million Australians who need regular medicines for chronic conditions will reduce their medicine costs, some by as much as half.

The list of PBS medicines recommended by the independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) as suitable includes some medicines for chronic conditions such as for:

Asthma
breast cancer
cardiovascular disease
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
constipation
chronic renal failure
Crohn’s disease
depression
diabetes
endometriosis
endometrial cancer
epilepsy
glaucoma and dry eyes
gout
heart failure
high cholesterol
hormonal replacement and modulation therapy
hypertension
osteoporosis
Parkinson disease
ulcerative colitis.

Benefits and cost savings
When a PBS medicine can be prescribed for 60 days patients can save:

up to $180 a year, per medicine for general patients
up to $43.80 a year, per medicine for concession card holders.

Health & Beauty Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

Related Stores

Department of Health, Australian Government
Department of Health, Australian Government

Comments

            • Flyerone on 13/06/2023 - 10:04
              +3

              @yht: The pharmacy OWNER doesn't like the changes, Fewer dispensary fees, less visists to the pharmacy so less opportunity to sell you additional guff, impulse buys etc. But they will face pressure to find storage for greater quantities of meds, and therefore have a lot more money tied up in shelf stock.

              • ruddiger7 on 13/06/2023 - 10:27
                +5

                @Flyerone: Yep and the pharmacy guild owner owns like 13 pharmacies with partnerships in others too. He was on the news pretending to cry when the changes were announced lol

                • Circly on 14/06/2023 - 10:28
                  +1

                  @ruddiger7: Watch the guy in interviews he gives off really dodgy vibes.

                  The crocodile tears were real.

        • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:33

          5 repeats should cost you 2.5 repeats. :)

  • Scrooge McDeal on 12/06/2023 - 22:20
    +16

    Is it confirmed? I think it's a great deal and information for some people.

    • lachlan1 on 12/06/2023 - 22:29
      -4

      Actually no it hasn't passed the senate vote which is looking less likely - especially in its current legislative form.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/06/2023 - 22:23
    +3

    See our Meds.pdf for crazy prices!

  • poormansfriedchicken on 12/06/2023 - 22:23
    +2

    can i buy pre order my medicinal cannabis with this scheme?

    • Scrooge McDeal on 12/06/2023 - 22:26

      How do I get prescribed medicinal cannabis from my GP? Is there a forum for that? I am interested.

      • LlamaLlamaLamp on 13/06/2023 - 09:40

        You can book an appointment online and get a prescription over the phone

      • jinkerjinx on 13/06/2023 - 11:14
        -1

        costs much more than buying it from bikies though.. so not really in the spirit of ozb

        • try2bhelpful on 13/06/2023 - 11:19
          +3

          The spirit of OzB would be to grow your own.

          • bio on 13/06/2023 - 11:27

            @try2bhelpful: Nonsense. I don't think many people make their own Eneloops.

            • try2bhelpful on 13/06/2023 - 11:28

              @bio: Am I missing something? Aren’t we talking about Cannabis?

    • skye89 on 12/06/2023 - 22:43
      +5

      no as medical cannabis is a non-PBS item. This benefit is for PBS only medications.

      • Thaal Sinestro on 13/06/2023 - 04:22
        +1

        In addition to pot, a lot of new big pharma medications (ones that have been made available since ~2000) aren't on the PBS, unfortunately. Examples are Stillnox (Zolpidem) and bellsorma (Suvorexant), both mainly used for insomnia.

    • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:33

      Just grow it your self. That's the ozbargain way.

    • sal78 on 14/06/2023 - 10:14

      It is not subsidised.

      You can find specialised Cannabis clinics. It's a total nightmare. Doctors put patients in a payment plan and 6mths later still owing. Majority of these patients don't pay. We are not doing it anymore.

    • Love a bargain on 12/06/2023 - 22:48
      +13

      How do you end up spending more? If you no longer reach the threshold after the change, it means you're now spending less on med than you were before.

    • opposablethumbs on 12/06/2023 - 22:54
      +11

      @Deadalready
      "…will probably find their meds cost MORE as it's now impossible to reach the Safety Net, as it now effectively takes double the amount of scripts (or time) to reach that threshold"

      How is it "impossible"? You are not halving how much you pay for meds, only halving the cut the pharmacy takes on each prescription.
      The Safety Net is based on the total amount you pay for your meds in a calendar year:
      general patient Safety Net threshold is $1,563.50
      concessional Safety Net threshold is $262.80

      Whilst you may take a very small amount of time extra to reach these thresholds because you are only paying the pharmacist their small cut of the total price half the number of times, it is in no way going to double the amount of scripts you need to reach the threshold - lucky if it delays it by 10%.

      "I wouldn't be surprised if many reduce their opening hours, reduce their staff or have to make other sacrifices."

      Absolute rubbish. On average increase in profits for pharmacists last year was 30% due to the the expansion of services that are arguably putting patients at more risk as pharmacists do not have clinical training in patient diagnosis and management. This change at most is costing them below 2% on total revenue.

      Amazing how the Pharmacy Guild has got away with the spin they are pedalling. When it comes to prescribing medications, such as for UTIs, despite them having no training in direct patient care and marked conflicts of interest in what they may prescribe, they claim it's all about the patient, but when an initiative that decreases the total cost and increases the convenience for those same patients on long-term medications, somehow the sky will fall in.

      Disinegenous much!

      • ColtNoir on 13/06/2023 - 11:07
        +1

        The quoted section is just word for word what pharmacies have put up where you get your meds from.
        Mountain out of a molehill they’re making it.

      • Tunder on 13/06/2023 - 13:35
        +2

        I just thought I would add that the safety net threshold is made up of the sum of patient contributions.

        Using Concession safety net as an example currently a patient would need to get 36 scripts filled at the pharmacy in the appropriate time interval (aka the 20 day rule - https://www.pbs.gov.au/info/general/faq#Whatmedicinescountto…). That is 36 time $7.30 the current co-pay with no discount.

        The 60 day dispensing arrangement would see a patient only pay $7.30 per two scripts so in the context of the safety net the patient would need to get 36 scripts filled but would effectively have 72 scripts worth of medication provided. I predict that given the governments previous attempts to prevent medication hoarding by introducing the 20 day rule this would be extended to 40 days meaning the time that the safety net could be reached would be delayed.

    • Joda on 12/06/2023 - 23:07

      The biggest losers will be Pharmacies, who will get half their normal traffic coming in through the doors. I wouldn't be surprised if many reduce their opening hours, reduce their staff or have to make other sacrifices.

      Is there a similar impact from online pharmacies?
      Also electronic prescribing, will community pharmacies be increasingly bypassed?

      Just wondering how community pharmacy will survive.

      • sal78 on 14/06/2023 - 10:17
        +1

        It will be a real struggle.

        Everything us just gearing up for a major recession

  • plonchi on 12/06/2023 - 22:26
    +3

    👍🏻great. all my meds are included!

  • Sweet3st on 12/06/2023 - 22:26
    +17

    Had heard about this already (pharmacists squealing), but useful information. Best bit is not having to front up at chemist every month.

  • Griffindinho on 12/06/2023 - 22:36
    +15

    Australian Labor party delivering again for the every day aussie!

    • chadleyshe on 13/06/2023 - 08:57
      -6

      bit like high inflation and a housing crisis, right?

      • StarPlatinum on 13/06/2023 - 09:24
        +11

        Im not pro labor but these problem pre date labor being in power and they've only been in power for a year.

        • ruddiger7 on 13/06/2023 - 10:28
          +1

          next he will be blaming the trillion dollar debt on labor lol

      • GrueHunter on 13/06/2023 - 09:59
        +1

        Yeah coz they both only started in April 2022 /s

      • CocaKoala on 13/06/2023 - 11:09

        Yes, the housing crisis had suddenly crept upon us since ALP taking control.

      • todayssawyer on 13/06/2023 - 11:55

        Because the housing crisis is a brand new issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with years of inaction by the previous incumbents.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/06/2023 - 15:41

        No point. You have already made up your mind and likely closed eyes and ears. I don't care about parties but progressive changes need recognition.

    • Zilch on 13/06/2023 - 11:05
      +2

      This change is recommended by the PBS Committee (https://m.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/participants/pbac.html), not politicians.

      • Griffindinho on 13/06/2023 - 13:11

        You don't think albo wanted the change as well? They could've said no to the changes.

  • waihoe on 12/06/2023 - 22:40
    -1

    Is this for everyone including non-PRs/citizens?

    • Joshbell on 12/06/2023 - 23:00
      +4

      No. Only for people eligible for PBS

    • DogGunn on 12/06/2023 - 22:52
      +26

      This change is recommended by the PBS Committee (https://m.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/participants/pbac.html) not politicians.

      Sounds like you've swollowed the Guild's advertising hook line and sinker.

        • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2023 - 23:21
          +22

          I don’t see how this affects supply. I will be using the same number of meds in a year, I will just be buying them every 2 months instead of every month.

          • cloudy on 13/06/2023 - 00:33
            +4

            @try2bhelpful: We thought the same about toilet paper, people didn’t shit more from covid, but we did have a supply issue when people stock up….

            • SmoothCactus on 13/06/2023 - 00:36
              +6

              @cloudy: Yah, only difference was toilet paper manufacturers were caught off guard.

              Pharmacies haven’t had months to prepare, manufacturers haven’t had months to prepare and adjust for this.

              What will they do? They need to make the same amount of stuff they were already making.. but maybe make adjustments here and there? How can we expect them to figure out this behemoth of a problem… hmm..

            • crzy01 on 13/06/2023 - 05:58

              @cloudy: Just FYI people did shit more from Covid. Affects your gastrointestinal system too. I get your point but there was definitely more shitting to be had.

          • stringbean402 on 13/06/2023 - 07:57
            +3

            @try2bhelpful: Exactly.. total overall consumption will not increase. There will basically be a 1 month bump in sales volumes at the start followed by a 1 month dip the following month.

          • Tunder on 13/06/2023 - 13:53
            +2

            @try2bhelpful: The truth about supply is yet to be seen but modern manufacturing practice has proven, especially during COVID times, that it is not as agile as is sometimes needed. I believe the main concern is the speed of the change and the risk that comes from unused medication e.g. your doctor changes your dose before you have had a chance to finish both boxes. This is on top of an already struggling supply chain.

            Currently there are 443 medicines with supply constraints as stated on the TGA mandatory reporting website - https://apps.tga.gov.au/Prod/msi/search?shortagetype=All

            As anyone who has been prescribed the following medication knows supply and demand is on a knifes edge with medication especially with the disparity in global markets. - semaglutide (Ozempic), liraglutide (Saxenda), cefalexin (Keflex kids suspension), diltiazem 360mg/180mg/60mg, warfarin (Coumadin 5mg).

            As a pharmacist I hope you are right that the supply shortage issue is a storm in a tea cup as already I am making 5-10 calls a day to prescribers asking to change patients medication that have supply constraints.

            • try2bhelpful on 13/06/2023 - 14:03
              +1

              @Tunder: I can see you issue but, particularly in my case, my dosages don’t change often. My doctor does get the blood tests done, regularly, but so far things are stable. If people are just starting on a medication there might be some trial end error with dosages and, perhaps, that should be month by month to start with. If we are getting shortages with some medications then it is time the pharmaceutical industry had a good look at itself in regards to the supply chain. If they can’t supply then, perhaps, there is more room for the generics to take over. Licence out production to other, well regulated, companies.

              • maverickjohn on 13/06/2023 - 14:10
                +2

                @try2bhelpful: If only. My wife's pregnant right now and has ICP, she's reliant on colestyramine to reduce the bile acid levels to prevent a still birth. There is no generic and no alternative and we are running out of stock. Our pharmacist is sourcing it from across the country just to try to keep us afloat… As a female I would imagine you know exactly how tough this is for my wife (and for myself even though it's her body)
                Anyway we are not likely to have enough to persevere and I'm trying to do something a little alternative. To see if it works as it's likely we are not going to have enough supply.

                • try2bhelpful on 13/06/2023 - 19:24
                  +1

                  @maverickjohn: I still don’t see this is a two month prescription pickup rather than one month prescription pickup issue. You just don’t pick it up as often. My issue with the generic is perhaps, if the company can’t provide stock, that pressure should be put to bear that they ramp up the creation of the product or allow it to be licensed for the production of generic products. There is something seriously wrong with the manufacturing, or supply, if we are that low on stock.

                  I do wish you all the best at this stressful time and hope mum, and bub, come through this healthy and hale. I’ve never had children but I’ve seen the stress my childbearing friends have gone through.

      • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:34

        What you talk about the Guild stays there. Watch your back my man. They are powerful.

    • DingoBlue on 12/06/2023 - 22:57
      +10

      No one is taking more medication because of this therefore net consumption will not increase. Shortages are mainly the result of poor planning and knee-jerk ordering by pharmacies that have decided to run their inventory down too low to save money.

      Refer above, net consumption has not changed and is pretty well constant, production hasn’t changed and is pretty much constant, so now guess where the problem is.

    • opposablethumbs on 12/06/2023 - 23:03
      +16

      @jonnois
      Completely debunked, including by prominent pharmacists working in academia and eminent members of the PBS committee, without the clear conflicts of those in the Pharmacy Guild.

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-26/fact-check-pharmacy-g…

      Probably also believed the crocodile tears from Pharmacy Guild representatives when they first tried to spin this in the media.

      Beware the spin and authenticity from those with vested interests i.e. $$$.

        • opposablethumbs on 12/06/2023 - 23:10
          +5

          @jonnois
          In no way supported by the evidence.

          See above Fact Check link.

        • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2023 - 23:22

          You are assuming everyone buys two months supply in the same month. When people buy the medication will even put because people aren’t buying double every month.

          • opposablethumbs on 12/06/2023 - 23:38
            +2

            @try2bhelpful: I'm not assuming anything.

            If you want to buy a month's supply at a time, go for it, it will not change anything for you.

            If you want to save a bit on a medicine you take for a chronic condition that is on the list, then you have the option of saving a bit on the pharmacist's dispensing/copayment fee and a bit of time by getting two months supply at a time.

            Been operating this way in many other countries for years and has been sitting as a safe and sensible recommendation from the PBS Committee for some time. The government just decided to actually act on that recommendation from an expert advisory group made up of a wide range of eminently qualified representatives.

            Can't make any sense of your second sentence.

            • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2023 - 23:41
              +2

              @opposablethumbs: Sorry I was replying to Jonnois. I, totally, agree with what you are saying, My second sentence was trying to point out that we shouldn’t have shortages because not everyone will buy at the same time. This won’t mean that twice the medication is being purchased. Sorry for the mix up.

            • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2023 - 23:59
              +4

              @jonnois: So we might have an issue for one month? In which case some people will get one month and then start there every two months the next month. Are you telling us the suppliers in Australia have cut us that far to the bone with supplying these drugs? Maybe we need to look at the suppliers and why they can’t deal with a one month surge?

                • SmoothCactus on 13/06/2023 - 00:41
                  +2

                  @jonnois: See the biggest difference between all of the potential reasons for disruptions and delays everyone has been touting and this.. is that manufacturers, suppliers, pharmacists and everyone involved has had months to prepare for this.

                  If ANY industry, healthcare or otherwise can’t adapt to something planned this far out, it deserves to collapse so better things can be built from its ashes.

      • Circly on 13/06/2023 - 09:35
        +1

        The crocodile tears were very cringe.

      • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:35

        Dude, Pls don't mention the guild. They will get you.

    • makeyouryear on 12/06/2023 - 23:30
      +4

      Nope, this has been fairly thoroughly debunked

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-26/fact-check-pharmacy-g…

  • Phoebus on 12/06/2023 - 22:41
    +1

    My mom is always hiding her pain killers from me. This is a great deal

    • skye89 on 12/06/2023 - 22:47
      +3

      Opioid analgesics are not covered under this deal

      • lost in transit on 13/06/2023 - 10:39

        So what would you call Methadone then ?????

      • movieman on 16/06/2023 - 01:08

        Panodein forte is there….

  • DASHCAM NOW DUDE on 12/06/2023 - 22:45
    +7

    Sildenafil is not covered. Disappointing. Making it hard for some.

    • Domingo on 12/06/2023 - 23:31
      +1

      Given the is no change, wouldn't it be just as hard as it previously was?

      It's a bit premature to say the new rule is dysfunctional for meds that aren't changing.

    • skye89 on 12/06/2023 - 23:33
      +1

      And soft for others…

    • Naigrabzo on 13/06/2023 - 10:35

      Soft argument.

  • Milkywayss on 12/06/2023 - 22:49
    +10

    Great change! Now wait for the pharmacies to double down on how many snake oil vitamins and salt lamps they try to sell you to keep their profits rising

      • Circly on 13/06/2023 - 09:37
        +3

        Boohoo poor pharmacy owners.

        • Milkywayss on 13/06/2023 - 10:25

          Unfortunately the Seventh Community Pharmacy Agreement protects them from reduced prescription sales and the government pays them the lost portion anyway. Hopefully they’ll lose income in snake oil sales though

        • kb0703 on 13/06/2023 - 12:35

          Far out man, you could have a BIT of empathy… what about the small, rural pharmacy that has to close down due to halved profits, and the ageing townspeople having to travel an extra hour to the nearest pharmacy just to get their medications? It's people's livelihood, man

          • Sweet3st on 13/06/2023 - 12:53
            +2

            @kb0703: I think there's an oversupply of pharmacies in many areas. In Kings Cross there's at least 7 in one small stretch…

            • kb0703 on 13/06/2023 - 21:13

              @Sweet3st: Ok then legislate that. Don't haphazardly halve the profits of small businesses with no consideration of other effects. 60 day prescriptions is a great idea but there's a right way to execute it

              • Milkywayss on 14/06/2023 - 07:13
                +1

                @kb0703: So we continue to require the sickest of Australians to find the time and transport to go to a pharmacy every month so they can stay financially viable? And again, the practice income is protected under 7CPA.

              • dangerdanger on 19/06/2023 - 23:51
                +1

                @kb0703:

                Don't haphazardly halve the profits of small businesses with no consideration of other effects

                Like how the Govt failed (and continues to fail) Medicare indexing, and now all my GP clinics in my area can no longer bulk bill, all charge a gap to cover the true cost of medical care? With knock on effects of smaller GP clinics closing, less medical students wanting to do GP training (we're all in deep crap soon), public hospitals being swamped because no one can get in to their GP?

                I don't think any Govt thinks of the ramifications of their decisions.

  • Dandaman21 on 12/06/2023 - 23:09
    +8

    Pharmacists hate this one simple trick!

  • scepticpsych on 12/06/2023 - 23:11
    +17

    It's not by choice that people have these conditions. This is a win for the people.

    • muwu on 12/06/2023 - 23:41
      +2

      I'd argue some people have made some choices that have attributed to these ones:

      cardiovascular disease
      chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
      chronic renal failure
      diabetes
      gout
      high cholesterol
      hypertension

      • opposablethumbs on 12/06/2023 - 23:45
        +11

        @muwu
        "I'd argue some people have made some choices that have attributed to these ones:"

        And some have lived an impeccably healthy life, but didn't win the genetic lottery.

        • muwu on 12/06/2023 - 23:48

          Fewer than my subset

          • opposablethumbs on 12/06/2023 - 23:49
            +2

            @muwu: "Fewer than my subset"

            Evidence?

            • muwu on 12/06/2023 - 23:52
              -4

              @opposablethumbs: 11 years of medical practice, 7 years of uni. 10,000s of patients.

              Some epidemiology of vasculopathic risk factors and vascular diseases will lead you to the same conclusion.

              • opposablethumbs on 12/06/2023 - 23:53
                +4

                @muwu: I asked for evidence, not your qualifications and a vague statement about epidemiology.

              • SmoothCactus on 13/06/2023 - 00:19
                +10

                @muwu: If you really have gas 11 years of practice, 7 years of uni and tens of thousands of patients, and your outlook is still that you need to argue with someone saying that this is overall a win for patients and that you haven’t seen enough patients who have tried their best with the circumstances they had for their chronic conditions then I’m very concerned..

                • maverickjohn on 13/06/2023 - 00:58
                  +4

                  @SmoothCactus: As someone who also worked in cardiology for many years. Alot of these conditions are preventable. So muwu is technically correct.
                  You don't see how much is self inflicted.
                  Dietary and lifestyle choices are modifiable but many still don't change. Despite being at risk.

        • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2023 - 23:53
          +2

          Opposablethumbs Absolutely true. The people I know with diabetes are rail thin. My other half’s family have a genetic predisposition to heart issues. Then you will find people who are overweight, smoke, drink and live well into their nineties with almost no health issues. I’ve always had high cholesterol, both bad annd good, even when I was incredibly fit. It is only now that I’ve got to menopause that I'm losing my estrogen protection that my doctor is prescribing this as a precaution. The trouble is the human body is a lot more complex than the “crank the handle” approach to medicine.

          • maverickjohn on 13/06/2023 - 01:02

            @try2bhelpful: Genetics do play a part but that's not for everyone. You can't protect all society from their ignorance with a small percentage of population who have genetic issues.
            My wife is in the same boat as you and both her parents passed away before she turned 18. So I can see it from both sides. I also just know that there are many who also take it for granted.

            • opposablethumbs on 13/06/2023 - 02:29
              +6

              @maverickjohn: I suggest that you and @muwu have a look at the increasing utility of polygenic risk scores (PRS) in cardiovascular disease.

              e.g. see https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.00000000000…

              Genetics is taught very badly at medical school and understanding of the implications of the interplay of your many genes to all aspects of medicine in this dynamic field remains very poor amongst the majority of specialists, let alone GPs.

              Whilst classical genetics outlook based on monogenic causes only represents a relatively small percentage for these conditions at a population level, strong familial predisposition evidence and large cohort GWAS studies suggest that for the majority, risk factors are not as simple as lifestyle only without the polygenic background that makes them a greater risk.

              This does not imply that lifestyle factors should be ignored, rather the higher your polygenic risk, the more important that lifestyle and pharmacological interventions are likely to be in managing these chronic conditions. If it was simply lifestyle factors though, then like lung cancer risk from smoking, it should return to close to baseline after say 10 years once the lifestyle factor was changed. It seldom does though, even in young cohorts and pharmacological interventions usually become life-long.

              I agree that a lot are preventable, but I continue to refute the assertion that the largest subset is recalcitrant patients that do not attempt to adapt their lifestyle factors (implying therefore that they are somehow lazy or to blame for their own condition) or in your words that it is "self-inflicted". @muwu's words were "some people have made some choices that have attributed to these ones". Therefore, I do not agree that he is technically correct, even if he actually meant to use "contributed", and it is not a position any clinician should be taking without a solid evidence base (of which @muwu has proffered none).

              Guidelines are useful, but the art of medicine is to apply population-based evidence to the individual patient in front of you, not make generalisations about most, as them being the cause of their own disease. Medicine can only continue to improve for patients if it moves away from the old paternalistic model to a more narrative one, even for chronic conditions with modifiable lifestyle risk factors.

              Understanding of complex genetics is currently a very dynamic field, that is likely to continue to change the rudimentary temporal-based risk calculations that current medical management guidelines use and hopefully modify the rather simplistic attitudes taken by clinicians such as @muwu.

              • BarginGrabber on 13/06/2023 - 04:25
                +1

                @opposablethumbs: Genetics are taught well enough in medical school. Could be taught better? Sure but can say the same for many different things

                They understand that some are more genetically predisposed to getting these conditions but vast majority of these people can prevent that but choose not to.

                "The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimate that over 75% of premature CVD is preventable"

                CDC: "80% of premature heart disease and strokes are preventable"

                The most major health organizations all agree that these conditions are easily preventable.

                You're talking about a very small minority of the population that can't prevent these conditions due to genetic factors and other factors.

                However, for the majority it is preventable so Muwus outlook isn't incorrect at all

                Let's go back to the original statement that Muwu disagreed with.

                "It's not by choice that people have these conditions"

                Ridiculous statement and gives no accountability to the individual.

                hypothetical example: I could say I didn't choose to get CTE but at the same time I understand I boxed for 20+ years. I'm sure some boxers are more genetically predisposed to getting CTE vs others but maybe not boxing to begin with or if I retired 10 years earlier would have prevented that

                • jinkerjinx on 13/06/2023 - 07:43

                  @BarginGrabber: yeah we could talk about genetics.. lead-crime hypothesis.. hygiene hypothesis.. microplastics infiltration.. three-eyed fish..

                  but it's blatantly obvious that "some people have made some choices that have attributed.."

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join