4 ms·
> This might be a false notion, but I'm scared that the economics simply don't work to "cure" a major disease. It's more profitable financially to provide treat
by drdec 6y ago
> This might be a false notion, but I'm scared that the economics simply don't work to "cure" a major disease. It's more profitable financially to provide treatment to sick people.
Others have provided nice arguments as to why this isn't necessarily so, but allow me to add one more that is (I hope) more likely to appeal to a cynic.
This is one area where the corporate focus on short-term profits is actually working to the long-term benefit of humans. While it would be more profitable in the long run to sit on a cure and continue to sell therapeutics indefinitely, what CEO could resist the stock-boosting effect of a cure for a major disease? What a time to exercise your options! Long-term profitability is a problem for the next guy.
- simias 6y agoI agree, I always thought that the idea that "big pharma" would be actively suppressing miracle cure for long term profit is rather improbable. There's the reason to point out (why pass the opportunity of a huge short term profit?) but also for these types of diseases there's bound to be a high ranking officer within the company who either directly suffers from the illness or has a close family member who does. I doubt that they'd let themselves or their wives die for the sake of getting a nice +3% to benefits ten years down the line.
- gadf 6y agonow I think you're being too naive. In that case they purchase employees corporation with their evil scheme by providing them with the cure of course.
- gadf 6y agoI like that idea that's really good that is a good counter argument thank you.