6 ms·

I would assume that somewhere on the bottom line there is an analysis of what the drug itself is doing. For instance, does the drug cure something or does it tr

I would assume that somewhere on the bottom line there is an analysis of what the drug itself is doing. For instance, does the drug cure something or does it treat the symptoms of something? I imagine most of former are thrown out right off the bat. What we need is a system for testing, developing and selling medications that is less effected by the human condition. Perhaps, we should close the private sector and hand this off to the government or at least breakup the process by allowing the private sector to sell without the burden of testing and development? Perhaps, we as taxpayers, should be handling the burden of cost for testing and development?

jonlucc 7y ago
> I imagine most of former are thrown out right off the bat. Why? You don't think cures have monetary value?
bluGill 7y ago
The problem is as a taxplayer I have a cost/benefit that is different depending on if I know someone with the condition in question. Have same cancer as my mom: throw a ton of money at it. Have some other cancer not in my family: waste of money, people die all the time. Of course that is a strawman, nobody is that bad, but the point is eventually we have to decide how much to put into trying to find a cure. However the point still stands, whoever is going to pay for this needs to decide how much is worth spending and that will be argued.