|Image Replies||0 ()|
|Lifetime||5d 10h 4m 33s|
Goldman-Sachs tells companies to stop curing people because it is not as profitable as chronic treatment
/2018/04/curing-disease-not-a-susta inable-business-model-goldman-sachs -analysts-say/
Duh. Stupid of them to bother putting this in writing when it's obvious to anyone over the age of twelve.
It's also why you don't want an entirely privatized medical system. The only way it can profit is through suffering and misery.
This. It's the same reason why Apple doesn't make a single, unified handheld media device that does literally everything. Biannual releases of incrementally improved phones is much more profitable in contrast to producing a one-shot innovation.
"Approximately half of the patients who could be evaluated experienced a significant increase in the number of T cells reactive to the tumor material. These "responders" tended to survive longer with no tumor progression, when compared with non-responders.
"The 2-year overall survival rate of these responder patients was 100 percent, whereas the rate for non-responders was just 25 percent."
Dr. Janos L. Tanyi
One participant — a 46-year-old — had already received five courses of chemotherapy for ovarian cancer before the pilot study began. At the start of the trial, her cancer was classed as stage 4. Ovarian cancer is notoriously difficult to treat, and at stage 4, the 5-year survival rate is just 17 percent.
In this study, the patient received 28 doses of personalized vaccine, spread over 24 months. She remained cancer-free for 5 years."
If we're to continue to have the best healthcare in the world, businesses need to be free to make profit. The more profit they make, the more they can hire the best and invest in new research. These anti capitalist liberals don't understand how the world works, don't understand the sacrifices that need to be made, don't understand how our prosperity is built on the back of the giants of industry. They would see Atlas slain and the world tumble into the abyss below.
If healthcare should be founded on the philosophy of capitalism, the doctors would want more people to be sick and less people to stay healthy. If healthcare is a governmental issue, there is a pressure to make everyone as healthy as possible.
> If we're to continue to have the best healthcare in the world, businesses need to be free to make profit.
As we can see from the article, that’s just not the case and the further implication being that Wall Street corporations would suppress cures simply to improve their bottom line.
That's because of Obamacare. If the government wasn't forcing its cock down our throats, we'd be getting a good return on our investments. Things were fine before the commies decided to fuck things up. If the Republican party had more of a spine, they'd have thrown it out when they took power. In any case, Trump's a smart guy and has found a way around the deep state. With his executive order, it'll be defunded it, and left to die on its own on the vine rather than continue to fester and clog our HealthCare.
Costs were rising out of control before Obamacare and have leveled off a bit since. The increase in premiums over the Bush years was 66%. If you start in 2010 when ACA was passed, the raise in the cost of premiums was only 22% up to 2014. Even before the Bush years, health costs have been rising every year since the 1960’s due to private insurance fuckery.
>health costs have been rising every year since the 1960’s due to private insurance fuckery.
Indeed, we have millions who can't afford health insurance because Wall Street wants those profits and ObamaCare did absolutely nothing to correct this, as now health insurance STILL costs too much but the government forces us to pay for it...
What I really like is how I paid the penalty for not having insurance because the insurance I could afford wouldn't cover me for the stuff I need, like how I just had uvetius and needed a perscription for it. Well the insurance on the lower end won't cover prescriptions until you have spend enough money out of your own pocket.
Also obviously health and eye care are two different things so going to the eye doctor still would have cost me out of pocket.
I love making only 30k a year to deal with all this bullshit.
Honestly we should just have an actual public option open to everyone. The way it's set up now is such a pain in the ass for everyone involved.
I had to get knee surgery recently and I had short term medical insurance because I can't afford full coverage at the moment. Went to go get my MRI and the MRI center said that I didn't have insurance. So I called my insurer and they were like "Oh it termed January 1st," but they had still been charging me since then because I had asked them if I could re-up it and they said that was fine. Luckily I had a health savings account with some money it, but after all that fuckery I had to negotiate myself with my surgeon, the surgery center where the operation was going to be, and the anesthesiologist. Luckily my doctor is a good guy and helped me through it, but it took multiple calls over several weeks to get it all squared away.
>If we're to continue to have the best healthcare in the world
Are you talking about the US? Because what good is the "best healthcare in the world" when vast majority of it is unaccessible to you?
>anti capitalis liberals
lmao the American use of the word "liberal" is so bizarre
Meanwhile, I have been bitching about this and no one cares. It's almost like a response to my posts. They already have a shitty cure rate and they don't even keep that as a statistic, probably because they have known and now that more people are becoming aware they pull their version of the victim card which is full of shit. Honestly, they need to be shut down and be restructured from the foundation up with the intent to actually cure the ailments with medication that does it on the first time. I'm sick and tired of seeing the same patients getting the same meds for more than years. And some still die despite the treatment. Honestly, all profits made off people who die while the medication failed should have their money taken away by the government and given to those who were immediate in their lives and those that actually cared for the sick the most money for their failures. If the person dies THE WHOLE nation would have been better if the medication never left the manufacturer. So they should be punished as an incentive to get their shit strait instead of making some half-assed med and then displaying their hubris and marketing. Instead of focusing on money, our main focus should be finding ways to cure cancer or making medications with no side effects. Money means jack shit without people. Save the people. Not the money.
I loved it when they fined me and I'm the type of person who never goes to the doctor and honestly would rather let death take me if I was ever that bad. May my sins be upon their head when I never use their services thus proving their assumptions wrong.
>one company sells chemo drugs, makes oodles of dollarydoos
>another company, lacking dollarydoos AND the patent to make and sell chemo drugs, seeks to make a better product
>they make the cure
>they begin making profit, more than they were for certain
>chemo company makes far less money
The thing you leftists fail to understand is that "big pharma" is not a monolith. It's made up of multiple companies, and, get this, they do this thing called compete! If you're a company making chemo drugs, yeah you don't want a cure. If you're any other company, you desperately want to be the one to find a cure.
>implying chemo company won't use lobbyists to make damn sure the cure won't reach the market
>implying they wouldn't resort to framing, fabricating news and outright sabotage to prevent someone from cutting their profits
>implying they won't have the creator of the cure assassinated and the cure destroyed
>implying they won't buy the patent from the creator and then shelf it for all eternity
>implying several companies won't conspire against a newcomer to protect their shares of the market
There are thousands of ways companies can protect their interests from any interloper, both legal and illegal.
Those companies may be comprised of people who may even have conscience, but as a whole, they will always acts as utter psychopaths.
If you think people will act morally just because it's the right thing to do, then you're more delusional than any libtard.
I was in meetings where it was explicitly, clearly stated as a main goal, and the month after that I fucking quit and never looked back. Working for pharmastuff right now is for greedy sociopaths and people who'll commit suicide eventually when the booze and fluoxetine aren't enough to deal with the nightmares.
>America produces more medical patents than the rest of the world combined.
That's hardly a good thing when companies file patent after patent of their flagman sniffle cure after making only minor changes.
I also fail to see how your post is supposed to refute any point in mine.
>capitalism stifles innovation because of these theoretical things
>this is clearly not true because we create more medical patents when compared to the rest of the world
>not refuting your points
This post even more clearly shows your ignorance than the last one. It's like you don't understand what a patent is. You know it needs to be different from all the other patents right? Even if they're just making near copies of existing drugs and tools, that's still useful. Do you understand that learning how to do something, even the same thing, multiple ways is valuable? Do you understand that this post effectively undermines your original argument? If companies can make identical knock offs without their competitors struggling them, how can you claim they would be able to stifle other innovation?
It's actually pretty funny that you don't see how my post contradicts what you're saying. It's extremely indicitave of the left in general. You don't think the reality (that we produce more medical innovation than the rest of the world together) contradicts your theory (that competition in a free market destroys medical innovation). This is why leftists can return to socialist theory after 100 years and 100 million corpses and likely still will after another millennia and another 100 billion corpses.
It has less to do with learning and more to do either with keeping the patented thing to themselves as long as possible, or releasing a Sniffle-B-Gone Turbo for the full price with minor alterations, and production cost increase, compared to regular Sniffle-B-Gone. I honestly can't remember which one is it right now.
I may be ignorant, but I try to at least not to be condescending.
>competition in a free market destroys medical innovation
My "theory" is "being profit-driven does not guarantee innovation". In this case innovation is more of an accidental byproduct.
>This is why leftists can return to socialist theory after 100 years and 100 million corpses and likely still will after another millennia and another 100 billion corpses.
That I can agree with. I personally have already gone one full cycle.
Anyway, my original point is that companies could care less about innovation or well-being of customers.
Most of the time they follow the path of least resistance and just wipe out the competition, rather than make better product.
The motivation doesn't matter, the result is far more medical innovation. If you honestly think that the US' massive contributions to medicine aren't real you're just a fucking moron who deserves nothing but condescension.
Your points are literally just theoretical nonsense that have not borne out in reality one bit. I'm getting off this idiot merry go round, because you're just arguing your theory and ignoring the reality. I can restate the facts, but for some reason you have this notion lodged so deeply in your deficient brain that even reality itself cannot reach inside and dislodge it.
>If you honestly think that the US' massive contributions to medicine aren't real
What on Earth gave you that idea?
>The motivation doesn't matter
On the contrary, in this context it does matter, since it shapes your actions.
For example, a profit-seeking parasite would milk sick people for years instead of curing. Case in point: the OP.
Destroying your competitor would often cost a fraction of what it would take to fund research and development of a better product. Not a whole lot of innovation here.
Only innovation for the sake of innovation, or for the sake of helping people will do any good in long term. Motivating anything by profit is an invitation for some big trouble, free market or not.
Ask anyone on the left about this topic - you will never once hear a solid counter-argument.. Simply because there isn't. Well, there is, but its hard to defend the fact that you ignore terrible socialized healthcare and the failing economies and government oppression they cause because you gotta buy the slacker and failure vote with my money, so lets just ignore the truth, and blame it on the free market or industry leaders.
Which is basically why leaving the private sector solely in charge of medicine is a bad idea. Your health is the one thing you can't afford to compromise upon.
>>Obviously the cure under-valued. Raise the price, or better yet, auction each dose off and see what people are willing to pay.
More proof for why the government needs to step in for situations like this.
page took 0.0092 seconds to execute