4 ms·

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217902/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217902/ https://fee.org/articles/curing-diseases-is-sustainable-government-

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217902/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217902/ https://fee.org/articles/curing-diseases-is-sustainable-government-in-healthcare-is-not/ https://fee.org/articles/curing-diseases-is-sustainable-gove... https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4351 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4351 https://theconversation.com/amp/how-pharmaceutical-companies-profit-from-drugs-for-rare-diseases-65266 https://theconversation.com/amp/how-pharmaceutical-companies... https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/02/09/lewis-the-need-for-a-cure-incentive/ https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/02/09/lewis-the-need-for... https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/revolutionandrevelation/72407 https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/revolutionandrevelation/7... https://pnhp.org/news/eliminate-the-profit-motive-in-health-care/ https://pnhp.org/news/eliminate-the-profit-motive-in-health-...

Merman_Mike 6y ago
Many of these seem to support GP's comment.
- grawprog 6y ago
  I don't really understand the downvotes and reactions of the other commenters to the gp's post. There's a whole bunch of studies showing there's less incentive to find cures opposed to ongoing treatments under for profit health systems. On a website where products as a service are discussed regularly i'm confused as to how the parallels between that and profit driven 'healthcare as a service' are ignored or looked at with hostility.
  - Merman_Mike 6y ago
    .
    - dang 6y ago
      It was a generic ideological flamewar tangent. That includes several good reasons for downvoting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - Merman_Mike 6y ago
        . [just gonna stop commenting on this site]
        pvg 6y ago
        A comment that spawns a lengthy subthread of meta trying to parse out what the commenter actually meant, why precisely they are being downvoted, etc, is bad. As is the subthread of meta.
        dang 6y ago
        > Is the flamewar tangent part of this the comment on capitalism or "Capitalized medicine"? Doesn't really seem flamie to me but obviously others disagree. The problem is the generic ideological tangent. You can perhaps (maybe!) imagine a substantive article and thread on the economics of cures vs. treatments. But that would require different initial conditions—primarily an interesting, informative article that brought lots of relevant information. Relevant information is flame retardant. The situation is different when the topic is "FDA approves first monthly injectable to treat HIV infection" and the comment is swerving generically into "capitalized medicine". Generic tangents, especially when the impetus is snarky or unsubstantive, make threads reliable less interesting, and generic ideological tangents almost always turn into flamewars. The reason is that there's very little specific information to discuss—that's the meaning of "generic". Off-topic tangents can be great when they're unpredictable and curious, but generic tangents are the opposite of that. They're more like getting sucked into the gravitational field of a much larger body, if not a black hole, that pulls all nearby topics toward itself and renders them all the same. Avoiding repetition is the biggest problem that a forum like HN—dedicated to curiosity—actually has, so it's a big deal: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... I hope this helps explain things a bit. There are lots of past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... also, but you'll unfortunately—and ironically—have to wade through some generic repetition to find the interesting bits.

Merman_Mike 6y ago

Many of these seem to support GP's comment.

grawprog 6y ago
I don't really understand the downvotes and reactions of the other commenters to the gp's post. There's a whole bunch of studies showing there's less incentive to find cures opposed to ongoing treatments under for profit health systems. On a website where products as a service are discussed regularly i'm confused as to how the parallels between that and profit driven 'healthcare as a service' are ignored or looked at with hostility.
- Merman_Mike 6y ago
  .
  - dang 6y ago
    It was a generic ideological flamewar tangent. That includes several good reasons for downvoting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - Merman_Mike 6y ago
      . [just gonna stop commenting on this site]
      - pvg 6y ago
        A comment that spawns a lengthy subthread of meta trying to parse out what the commenter actually meant, why precisely they are being downvoted, etc, is bad. As is the subthread of meta.
      - dang 6y ago
        > Is the flamewar tangent part of this the comment on capitalism or "Capitalized medicine"? Doesn't really seem flamie to me but obviously others disagree. The problem is the generic ideological tangent. You can perhaps (maybe!) imagine a substantive article and thread on the economics of cures vs. treatments. But that would require different initial conditions—primarily an interesting, informative article that brought lots of relevant information. Relevant information is flame retardant. The situation is different when the topic is "FDA approves first monthly injectable to treat HIV infection" and the comment is swerving generically into "capitalized medicine". Generic tangents, especially when the impetus is snarky or unsubstantive, make threads reliable less interesting, and generic ideological tangents almost always turn into flamewars. The reason is that there's very little specific information to discuss—that's the meaning of "generic". Off-topic tangents can be great when they're unpredictable and curious, but generic tangents are the opposite of that. They're more like getting sucked into the gravitational field of a much larger body, if not a black hole, that pulls all nearby topics toward itself and renders them all the same. Avoiding repetition is the biggest problem that a forum like HN—dedicated to curiosity—actually has, so it's a big deal: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... I hope this helps explain things a bit. There are lots of past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... also, but you'll unfortunately—and ironically—have to wade through some generic repetition to find the interesting bits.