4 ms·

I've never understood this take. So you seriously think that if you developed a cure for cancer there isn't economic value there? If you ever find one i'll pay

I've never understood this take. So you seriously think that if you developed a cure for cancer there isn't economic value there? If you ever find one i'll pay you a million dollars to be nice and take it off your hands

greenavocado 2y ago
Under the current medical system a cure for cancer will mean financial problems for hospital systems, doctors, nurses, and the entire medical establishment.
- tekla 2y ago
  Under the current medical system a cure for cancer would safe the medical industry billions of dollars a year. If you can make random assertions, I can too.
  - greenavocado 2y ago
    Saving money doesn't put food on the table for hospital execs and doctors and medical staff. BILLABLES DO. Surgeries, pills, in-person care. What don't you understand?
    - tekla 2y ago
      You can make shit up all your want to justify your own position. Its made up.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      It puts food on the table for pharmaceutical execs, and any hospital execs who offer a cure when their competitors dont
- snapcaster 2y ago
  So i don't disagree with that, but i think you're way off on how a cure would play out. a). it wouldn't be developed by "the medical community" but by a specific group of profit seeking people. They don't and won't care if they put other people out of work b). I can't think of a single example where what you're talking about has been true. Every huge economic shift has had winners and losers but don't seem to be suppressed successfully right? maybe i'm missing some cases but just doesn't seem realistic
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  yes, but It would be a trillion dollar invention for whomever created it. Inventors and researchers are motivated by their potential rewards, not second order consequences for other parties. Hundreds of billions of dollars flow into oncology research trying to make improvements.
- Veserv 2y ago
  That did not seem to bother Gilead when they cured Hepatitis C and stole business from their competitors, who were only making ongoing treatments, by ruthlessly undercutting them so that Gilead would get tens to hundreds of billions of dollars for themselves and their shareholders instead of the executives and shareholders of their competitors.

greenavocado 2y ago

Under the current medical system a cure for cancer will mean financial problems for hospital systems, doctors, nurses, and the entire medical establishment.

tekla 2y ago
Under the current medical system a cure for cancer would safe the medical industry billions of dollars a year. If you can make random assertions, I can too.
- greenavocado 2y ago
  Saving money doesn't put food on the table for hospital execs and doctors and medical staff. BILLABLES DO. Surgeries, pills, in-person care. What don't you understand?
  - tekla 2y ago
    You can make shit up all your want to justify your own position. Its made up.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    It puts food on the table for pharmaceutical execs, and any hospital execs who offer a cure when their competitors dont
snapcaster 2y ago
So i don't disagree with that, but i think you're way off on how a cure would play out. a). it wouldn't be developed by "the medical community" but by a specific group of profit seeking people. They don't and won't care if they put other people out of work b). I can't think of a single example where what you're talking about has been true. Every huge economic shift has had winners and losers but don't seem to be suppressed successfully right? maybe i'm missing some cases but just doesn't seem realistic
s1artibartfast 2y ago
yes, but It would be a trillion dollar invention for whomever created it. Inventors and researchers are motivated by their potential rewards, not second order consequences for other parties. Hundreds of billions of dollars flow into oncology research trying to make improvements.
Veserv 2y ago
That did not seem to bother Gilead when they cured Hepatitis C and stole business from their competitors, who were only making ongoing treatments, by ruthlessly undercutting them so that Gilead would get tens to hundreds of billions of dollars for themselves and their shareholders instead of the executives and shareholders of their competitors.