4 ms·

> then there wouldn't be incentive to develop these drugs in the first place. This isn't true. The incentive is to help people. There are many people who are c

> then there wouldn't be incentive to develop these drugs in the first place. This isn't true. The incentive is to help people. There are many people who are calable of doing that but can't do it afford to. We can just pay for their cost of living and research directly, cutting out the profit entirely.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Most doctors, nurses, and even scientists dont work for free. The incentive to help people is insufficient alone.
- guerrilla 2y ago
  I acknowledged that in my comment, but you missed my point. They don't work for free because they can't in our current system. We can change that.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I dont think they would want to, not to the same degree.
    - guerrilla 2y ago
      You lack any evidence for that and are ignoring the evidence to the contrary: nurses and teachers are paid shit in almost every country but do it anyway.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        They do it because they want to make money. Give them full salary even if they dont show up for work, and most wouldnt. They would rather be relaxing and having fun. Also, Nurses are a relatively well paid position, ~150% us the US median salary.
- consteval 2y ago
  Rockefeller famously opened up about 1500 libraries nationwide. Free to use public libraries, but the librarians and such were paid. Meaning, such philanthropy does not require every single soldier ant to be a philanthropist. But it does require them to not seek a "get rich" mentality. Such a mentality is inherently incompatible. And, for the rich philanthropist, he must be ready to lose money. You and I are but lowly ants, and to us losing money is bad. But consider for someone like Rockefeller, there was 0 quality of life decrease after opening those libraries. Of course, if I open even one library, I'm broke.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Surely healthcare requires many ants who want to be compensated. For this reason I think the idea that healthcare should not be contingent on profit seeking individuals to be a pretty hollow statement. It also seems that we have a shortage of Rockefellers to bankroll the US healthcare system as active charity with no profit motive. That seems inconsistent to claim that people will do the work and donate money without returns in the face of reality where very few people do that. The response seems to be that people in our current system are forced to seek compensation to survive. This seems easily testable. Cut back doctor and healthcare workers salaries to a subsistence income or even the median and you will quickly see if people flock to the profession or leave it
    - consteval 2y ago
      This doesn't align with reality, in which almost all developed nation-states have public healthcare systems. It is for the benefit of society as a whole that people be healthy. Therefore, it is in the interest of each and every person our healthcare be funded. Therefore, they should all fund it. It's not like other goods where some people want a toy, and some people don't. It's more in line with education. Everyone needs it, and if everyone has it then things improve for everyone - even those who can't get it, for one reason or another. In my eyes, healthcare as a field almost perfectly fits the description of what should be a nationalized service. We've taken the jump with other low-hanging fruit, like education. And society as a whole has benefited greatly from no longer having the majority of the population be illiterate.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Most doctors, nurses, and even scientists dont work for free. The incentive to help people is insufficient alone.

guerrilla 2y ago
I acknowledged that in my comment, but you missed my point. They don't work for free because they can't in our current system. We can change that.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont think they would want to, not to the same degree.
  - guerrilla 2y ago
    You lack any evidence for that and are ignoring the evidence to the contrary: nurses and teachers are paid shit in almost every country but do it anyway.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      They do it because they want to make money. Give them full salary even if they dont show up for work, and most wouldnt. They would rather be relaxing and having fun. Also, Nurses are a relatively well paid position, ~150% us the US median salary.
consteval 2y ago
Rockefeller famously opened up about 1500 libraries nationwide. Free to use public libraries, but the librarians and such were paid. Meaning, such philanthropy does not require every single soldier ant to be a philanthropist. But it does require them to not seek a "get rich" mentality. Such a mentality is inherently incompatible. And, for the rich philanthropist, he must be ready to lose money. You and I are but lowly ants, and to us losing money is bad. But consider for someone like Rockefeller, there was 0 quality of life decrease after opening those libraries. Of course, if I open even one library, I'm broke.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Surely healthcare requires many ants who want to be compensated. For this reason I think the idea that healthcare should not be contingent on profit seeking individuals to be a pretty hollow statement. It also seems that we have a shortage of Rockefellers to bankroll the US healthcare system as active charity with no profit motive. That seems inconsistent to claim that people will do the work and donate money without returns in the face of reality where very few people do that. The response seems to be that people in our current system are forced to seek compensation to survive. This seems easily testable. Cut back doctor and healthcare workers salaries to a subsistence income or even the median and you will quickly see if people flock to the profession or leave it
  - consteval 2y ago
    This doesn't align with reality, in which almost all developed nation-states have public healthcare systems. It is for the benefit of society as a whole that people be healthy. Therefore, it is in the interest of each and every person our healthcare be funded. Therefore, they should all fund it. It's not like other goods where some people want a toy, and some people don't. It's more in line with education. Everyone needs it, and if everyone has it then things improve for everyone - even those who can't get it, for one reason or another. In my eyes, healthcare as a field almost perfectly fits the description of what should be a nationalized service. We've taken the jump with other low-hanging fruit, like education. And society as a whole has benefited greatly from no longer having the majority of the population be illiterate.