3
17

[–] Buff_Awesome 3 points 17 points (+20|-3) ago 

This is actually a legit question to consider from a business sense. A quick cheap cure can't keep a corporation alive for very long. They're continued existence might not be of concern to you, but bare in mind, there are diseases and other ailments out there that are expensive and need continual application, something that only big corporations can afford. So who is there to fill the quick cheap cure gap? The entrepreneur. Where is he? Stuck dealing with the FDA. It is so insanely expensive to get any kind of treatment through them that most don't bother. Just trying to get one drug approved can cost 1.2 billion dollars. No entrepreneur can afford that. Big corporations can hardly afford it. The only real solution is to do away with the FDA entirely, but as long as people still listen to "liberals" they reeeeeee to keep it alive.

0
6

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Case in point is epinephrine auto injectors. They're an extremely simple mechanism involving a needle, a spring and some plastic casing that can be built for $20 and require almost zero knowledge of biology to design. After an FDA granted monopoly, the price goes up to $600. People die because they're not allowed to buy or sell unapproved but affordable equipment that still works 99% of the time.

Another example is CPAP machines. They're a simple pump and a mask that you strap on to push air into your face while you sleep to help with apnea. You can't buy one without the say so of a team of medical consultants even though there's virtually no danger to just trying one.

The FDA is a relic from the pre-telegraph era. It has no business existing in the information age.

0
5

[–] Charlez6 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I remember when the EpiPen price hike made the news just a couple years ago. A competitor was unable to get one competing product approved because it was too similar to the EpiPen, and therefore violated its intellectual property; a later competitor was unable to get FDA approval to directly compete with it on the grounds that their product was too different to the EpiPen, and would therefore confuse patients (it was allowed to go to market, but only if the prescription specifically requested it over the EpiPen, so not really...).

Fucking government.

0
0

[–] ThorssonTrump 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

my dear goats, the amount of shilling in this sub is niggerdiculous.

sincerely, sanegoatiswear.

0
3

[–] SO_TRIGGERED 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

When corporations get as parasitic as bad forms of government, why not treat them the same way? Patients have no stake in Goldman Sachs, and any dollar that goes as profit to health care companies trying to maximize paydays off patients are taking money away from the rest of the economy. I know drugs are expensive to develop, but you can't tell me all that money is going back to reinvestment.

0
0

[–] Buff_Awesome 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Obviously not. In fact, most money they have doesn't go back into reinvestment, but that goes for all companies. If you break it down, it makes sense. First of all, the people working there do have to get paid. Bare in mind, for healthcare companies, it's not just factory workers who are getting paid, it's scientists too, and scientists aren't cheap. Then there are also compliance costs, (both US and international) which are by far the largest expense a healthcare company has to deal with. Followed by lawsuits which, thanks to US tort law, are completely out of control. Not to mention other miscellaneous costs, like travel expenses, shipping expenses, purchasing of new equipment, both for production and for research, and maintenance of infrastructure like buildings and production lines. Considering all that, it's amazing they have as much money to spend on research as they do.

0
0

[–] Womb_Raider 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Some things the FDA does are good, it's just a corrupt as fuck organization now. Certain materials are and should be banned from food preparation. We just need to dismantle and rebuild the agency, similarly to the FBI/CIA/NSA/DOJ... probably in that order

0
0

[–] Buff_Awesome 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'd rather just take the risk of the free market than "rebuild" an agency that will inevitably become corrupt again.

0
0

[–] PurpleOrc 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The easier way is to just make healthcare public. The State can ignore the bottom line to improve the quality of life of its citizens, or consider the expense as a better deal than having to pay to 'treat' people in perpetuity.
Without socialized healthcare nobody gets real healthcare (unless they own the medical labs) because it's bad for business.

0
0

[–] Buff_Awesome 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Socialized healthcare? Yeah, no. That's been debunked to death already. I'm not even going to bother with that. No offence.

0
0

[–] matthew-- 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There are pros and cons to both.

With public healthcare you have to offset the cheap price with increased waiting times. Also, it gets subject to a LOT of abuse. People will go to emergency because they "have a cough", whilst someone else with a broken arm is bleeding all over the floor. Not to mention all the sand niggers shitting out babies like I take a dump every morning.

The problem is always regulation. No one will bother with treatment if the next guy is just going to release the cure also. At that point it's better to just release the cure earlier. Also, if you were to enable hospitals where you signed away your right to sue, relying on reputation only, that they'd do a good job, you'd get VERY cheap hospitals. Quality of care would be shit, but that's a choice you have to make.

It's better than just going without.

2
9

[–] Womb_Raider 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

Yes, because you can't completely stop disease. And there are other markets to enter, you don't need profitable healthcare to turn a buck.

0
11

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

If we had a functioning market for healthcare, the answer would be, "If you don't take the relatively small profit for a cure (compared to ongoing treatments) one of your competitors will."

0
3

[–] Womb_Raider 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

In a perfect world, yep.

0
2

[–] HillBoulder 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's like saying "Nobody is buying hub caps anymore because rims last longer, so I suppose we have a crisis on our hands." Acting as if the people involved in these projects world's will stop if they can't do genome work.

0
7

[–] mememeyou 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

"Make your sons doctors, so that they may take away Christian's lives" : https://i1.wp.com/smoloko.com/wp-content/uploads/ChemorJewsSpainMeme.jpg

2
6

[–] ardvarcus 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Which is why medical research should have nothing to do with profit, and medicinal drugs should be sold at cost. There is too much incentive for the big biotech firms not to find cures but only treatments for symptoms.

1
1

[–] Pwning4Ever 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

If a cure for Acne were discovered, it would sell like hotcakes. Don't delude yourself. Sure there is an incentive to just "treat the symptoms" but how could proactiv compete against a cure

0
1

[–] Mylon 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Acne is simple to cure. Wash your goddamn sheets. And if you're too lazy to do that, buy a stack of bar towels and sleep on a different one each night and wash the stack all at once.

But THAT doesn't sell so that information doesn't get repeated.

0
1

[–] BLOODandHONOUR 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If a cure for Acne were discovered, it would sell like hotcakes.

Sure but this will not happen on the pharmeceutical level. There is no profit in curing someone once- forever. This is basic business 101. Keep them coming back.

0
1

[–] TheStapler 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

dilute

delude

0
0

[–] Schreiber 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

What we need is a miracle drug that can completely cure libtardation.

Otherwise eventually we'll be forced to use the age old treatment of bullet to the head.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] knightwarrior41 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

These assholes just sound lazy.

evil,fixed for ya

0
2

[–] Pwning4Ever 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If you come up with a "cure", you just got a monopoly in a certain disease category.

0
1

[–] bourbonexpert 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

shit. chris rock called this shit 20 years ago

0
1

[–] MelatoninDreams 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Are these the bankers that want gun stores to stop selling fully semiauto guns and automatic bullets?

load more comments ▼ (7 remaining)