Nobody has addressed the central point of this thread, so I will. These companies have every reason in the world to cure disease rather than treat them. Let's say the XYZ Drug Co announces they have a cure for HIV. Their stock price goes through the roof. Who are corporations beholden to? Shareholders. What do shareholders want? Massive gains and yesterday would be just fine. Who makes the decisions? The CEO. What makes up a large portion of CEO compensation? Stock and stock options. Stockholders and CEOs have every motivation in the world to have breakthroughs. They don't want the little chunks of gain that can be obtained from a treatment when they can have the whole enchilada NOW and retire wealthy.
Not sure if what dc sports posted is all that different from what you are saying. But your explanation makes sense.
It's not just market forces. It's just some people's jobs. They may be university researchers...they want to cure people, they want the prestige, they want a better academic position, whatever. They NEVER calculate Revenue w/ Cure v. Revenue w/ No Cure.
Okay I'll delete this one, but you're right, I didn't read your whole post. The only reason I take up for RR is because you jump all over his posts unfairly. I think he brought up a good topic, although unfortunately, I have to agree with TJ. There is a whole industry devoted to curing disease. Doctors don't cure disease they treat it.
What a total joke. I have never *ever* claimed that the 'white man' is oppressed. EVER. It's hard to argue that a group that has demonstrated such success could be oppressed. If they were oppressed and demonstrated that level of success, what does that say about the other groups? You are once again arguing against yourself, pgabriel. The mere fact that you evoke the racially-charged term "white man" is further evidence that you are obsessed with race. The observation that you only notice my affirmative action opinions is further evidence of this charge. The fact that you view any anti-affirmative action opinion as racist and oppressive is even FURTHER evidence of the charge that you are obsessed with race. Unlike Haiku River, I have a *wide* variety of topics on which I opine. Your accusation is baseless. EXPOSED
Woah, no poetry/haiku/whatever.... I think we should all just calm down. This is supposed to be about Medicine and Capitalism.
I don't really believe that capitalism would keep companies coming up with cures. The company that comes up with a cure is going to hit a jackpot and blow all the other companies' treatments out of the water. In my opinion, I would think it would actually make it worth it to come up with a cure. I think the reason that you see treatments other than cures is that many times (especially virus caused sickness) can not be cured easily, yet can much more easily be kept in check with treatment. Whether people believe it or not, many times people do things because they are "right" or "good." Even these "evil" corporations do good things, so I would think that finding a cure would not only be the "right or good" thing, but also the most fiscally benefitial. Everybody wins (except the companies that got beat). For instance: I was in Gallery furniture over the weekend buying some cheapo recliners for my media room. When I was checking otu, I looked on the wall right next to me and there was a letter from some cancer research center thanking Mack for a $3 million dollar gift. I know the dude makes a lot of money, but he didn't HAVE to give that money for cancer research...he didn't have any financial gain in doing that (except maybe for some tax savings). But with people doing things like that, I think we'll see some great strides in the near future.
The insider trading case involving Martha Stewart and Imclone is an example of why it is in pharmaceutical companies' best interests to try and cure disease. The sad thing about the Imclone case, is what gets lost in the news headlines, is that the drug Erbitux was a significant breakthrough in cancer treatment, and the start to finding a drug that might eventually replace chemotherapy. I'm just completely guessing but I would say that chemotherapy would be significantly more exepensive than drugs, and B, Martha Stewart had $250M riding on the FDA approving this drug on information from the C.E.O., Sam Waskal. Clearly, he wanted the drug to be improved, becaucse it would only increase his net worth.
First off, it's Waksal, secondly the word you were looking for was 'approved', not improved. With that out of the way: How was the isolated reference, mentioned above, not consistent with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry being aligned properly with those of its patients? Waksal wants to create a drug that benefits others. He receives a financial award from doing so. Insider trading aside, how is this not the proper incentive structure?
Hey dumbass, I'm agreeing with you. I meant to say approved, if you caught that, then you should understand that my point is that it was in Imclone's best interest to have the drug approved which would be almost revolutionary in cancer treatment. If I didn't own you, you probably would have realized that.
Let us please try to keep this civil. I know that you have been overcome by your emotions once again, but please make an attempt to maintain your civility. Also, I ask that you refrain from calling people 'r****ds' as this is very insensitive. I do volunteer work with mentally challenged youth and you are insulting them when you use this very cruel word.
Out of the last few posts by pgabriel... "again for the r****ds" "hey dumbass" "get over yourself" Good to see someone has really taken that sticky to heart.
