4 ms·
Yes, but that's still sky high price for most of the world. And if they put price order of magnitude less, won't it bring around order of magnitude more people
by aquadrop 13y ago
Yes, but that's still sky high price for most of the world. And if they put price order of magnitude less, won't it bring around order of magnitude more people who can afford it and they money outcome will be pretty much the same? Look at pharma companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_compani...
They are very profitable, maybe we should make them less profitable and more effective widespread-wise?
- dnautics 13y agoyou mean by abolishing drugs patents? check out the healthcare sector margins (notice major manufacturers, vs. generics manufacturers): http://biz.yahoo.com/p/5qpmd.html http://biz.yahoo.com/p/5qpmd.html You know those "greedy insurance companies" that the US is struggling to wrangle with complicated legislation and broken website markets? They only make 3% margin.
- ceejayoz 13y ago> You know those "greedy insurance companies" that the US is struggling to wrangle with complicated legislation and broken website markets? They only make 3% margin. Of course, that's after paying out executive salaries, including bonuses for "cost cutting".
- coffeemug 13y agoExecutive compensation is subject to market forces. You can't waive a magic wand and cut executive salaries without losing upper management talent and running the company into the ground.
- ceejayoz 13y agoYou're missing the point entirely. Executive salaries can be a magic wand for insurance companies to go "look how low our margins are!" by funneling what would've been profits into the pockets of their already highly-paid execs.
- aquadrop 13y agoI mean by all ways. Abolishing or shortening patents maybe part of it sure. There's a lot of people/scientists who want to work and help people. We just need more effective ways to let them do so.
- aquadrop 13y agoBy the way, it look even more interesting here: http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s_qpmd.html http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s_qpmd.html Healthcare is the most profitable industry, even more profitable than banks. Insane...
- refurb 13y agoI don't think you understood his point. Even though this drug costs $84K, it's still cheaper than current treatments that include prolonged hospitalization and liver transplants. It's sort of like people complaining that Lipitor costs $5K/yr. The fact it prevents a number of heart attacks, means that it's actually a cost saving treatment.
- 97s 13y agoThis is exactly right. 84K is a drop in the bucket for cancer treatment. I have been going through cancer since 2008, and GVHD since my stimcell in 2011. I had no insurance when I was diagnosed at age 23 at top physical condition of my life. The financial aid program at North Side Hospital in Atlanta and Medicaid system of the US of A has kept me alive. But I know I probably have over 3 million in debt in my name alone. 84k would be nice.
- 97s 13y agoOn a side note, this is how every single zombie movie starts. Genetic Mutations to stop cancer.
- dhughes 13y agoMost of the world has socialized medical systems.
- aquadrop 13y agoI know, I live in a country with socialized medical system. It doesn't matter. Socialized system means everybody pay collective check to those pharma companies. The issue I was talking about is more effective way of inventing and distributing drugs.