> If you have a normal BMI, no diabetes, and want Ozempic for aesthetic reasons you first have to find a willing prescriber - not easy although I'm sure there are shady online services out there.
You are wildly underestimating how many doctors are willing to prescribe medicines without a strong need. Have you heard of the opiod epidemic?
> Then you have to pay for the drug out of pocket, that's a 5 figure sum annually.
Unless you can convince your insurance company to pay for it -- say, with the help of a willing doctor. And even if you can't, there are a surprising number of people who will pay that kind of money for weight loss.
> You can get a nutritionist, personal trainer, and meal prep for less in a lot of the country.
You've been able to get those things for many years. They are not the same as an easy weight loss drug.
> As another poster pointed out, 2/3 of the country are overweight or obese.
The medical definition of "overweight" is quite broad, and clinically it's based on BMI, an extremely flawed measurement at an individual level. There are certainly plenty of people with a medical need for a weight loss drug! (I am one of them!) But there are also plenty of people who think they are ugly because they are 10-15 pounds over their "ideal" weight and have one little roll of belly fat. There is a strong tendency to medicalize this kind of problem. This is a pretty big part of American culture. Have you not encountered this before?
What I'm arguing here is that when a drug is in limited supply the people with an immediate need for it (diabetics) ought to take precedence over people who are worried about potential future health problems somewhere down the line (younger, mildly obese people), and that people who are mainly worried about cosmetics ought to wait for wider availability. I don't think that's controversial?