4 ms·

The comment you replied to is basically advocating for the productization of therapy (using psychedics), not for the drugs. You do make a great point though. K

The comment you replied to is basically advocating for the productization of therapy (using psychedics), not for the drugs. You do make a great point though. Kind of like what a Goldman Sachs analyst recently said: "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" Much better to keep them a little bit sick and dependent on your product.

i_cant_speel 8y ago
Ideally competition would result in another player coming in and producing the cure. Since the non-cure treatment is already dominated by another player, you could make some money curing people versus no money trying to develop another non-cure to compete with an established player.
- kristopolous 8y ago
  But in the real actual world that we all actually live in, such a company would quickly get snatched up and bought by the competitor before the general release of the drug or a captured government agency would get lobbied to put controls on who can produce and distribute the drug. Monopolies don't sit idly by when disrupters come to town, they buy or kill them. The competition model assumes business people act like victorians who play by the rules to be sporty. It almost never works like that. Dirty tricks and shenanigans are widely deployed.
  - drayvox_enoch 8y ago
    What will be done about this situation?
ams6110 8y ago
It's easy to be cynical and think this (and not without some good reason) but we have a lot of examples of drugs that are absolute cures. Antibiotics come to mind, as well as vaccines (preemptive cure). I'm sure there are other examples. Doctors for the most part actually do want to cure patients, not maintain them in sickness even if it would make them more money.
- 50656E6973 8y ago
  >Doctors for the most part actually do want to cure patients, not maintain them in sickness even if it would make them more money. True, but corporate executives have the primary goal of making money for stockholders, and they often have far more leverage than lowly doctors because they determine who gets the money.

i_cant_speel 8y ago

Ideally competition would result in another player coming in and producing the cure. Since the non-cure treatment is already dominated by another player, you could make some money curing people versus no money trying to develop another non-cure to compete with an established player.

kristopolous 8y ago
But in the real actual world that we all actually live in, such a company would quickly get snatched up and bought by the competitor before the general release of the drug or a captured government agency would get lobbied to put controls on who can produce and distribute the drug. Monopolies don't sit idly by when disrupters come to town, they buy or kill them. The competition model assumes business people act like victorians who play by the rules to be sporty. It almost never works like that. Dirty tricks and shenanigans are widely deployed.
- drayvox_enoch 8y ago
  What will be done about this situation?

ams6110 8y ago

It's easy to be cynical and think this (and not without some good reason) but we have a lot of examples of drugs that are absolute cures. Antibiotics come to mind, as well as vaccines (preemptive cure). I'm sure there are other examples. Doctors for the most part actually do want to cure patients, not maintain them in sickness even if it would make them more money.

50656E6973 8y ago
>Doctors for the most part actually do want to cure patients, not maintain them in sickness even if it would make them more money. True, but corporate executives have the primary goal of making money for stockholders, and they often have far more leverage than lowly doctors because they determine who gets the money.