Live data from Hacker News

Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

arstechnica.com

211–220 of 376 posts

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#211

The 'ideal' drug from a business point of view not only not cures the patient long term, it offer a short term mitigation while increasing the risk on relapse and thus future recurring consumption of the treatment. At the same time it can be IP protected to block alternatives and has an insured third party collective payment coverage to guard against the treated running out of funds to afford the perpetual dependency…

> it offer a short term mitigation while increasing the risk on relapse and thus future recurring consumption

Alcohol? Coffee? Sugar?

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#212
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know they don't?

Is harvesting human organs a sustainable business model?

As long as you don't cure other people (with money) and they keep needing new organs, sure.

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#213
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad the medicine part of TCM is junk science

Well it's essentially eat right, drink water, get some rest, etc. Not the mumbo jumbo you see in Hollywood movie. I can't think of any scientific experiment that would conclude: burn out, eat junk and drink mostly beer.

Insistence that we should ignore the "mumbo jumbo" feels like a No True Scottsman to me. It's not as if this isn't a real thing, there's a specialist pharmacy near me selling exactly this type of snake oil to a local Chinese community, much as there's a local Polish shop selling a remarkable variety of different sausages. Except I bet the sausages actually work.

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CDC reckoned they reduce the risk by about 40-60%. curious, Do you have a link to this by any chance? According to this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693492/ After looking at "328 households with 1441 members, including 839 children," for an entire year (2011) these authors determined that there was a difference of 4/10ths of one percentage point between those who received flu vaccine and those who…

To quote your quote of my response: ---- > > Going from 8.9% to 8.5% is a 5% reduction in flu cases. If this translates to 5% fewer sick days during the flu-period and a 5% reduction in doctor visits that are due to flu symptoms (some people go to the doctor for everything), that can absolutely be a reason for the government to want people to get their flu shots. > This line of reasoning assumes that there are only p…

oh sorry. missed that line from your response.

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#215
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> administration is a single or limited event point. What about flu vaccines? Even govt runs ads urging people to get their flu shots, even though they have been shown to be useless.

Where have they been shown to be useless?

responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16828451

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#216
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. or a fifth of the military budget. "It's not practical of the US to maintain the most expensive military in the world, it's simply too expensive" said nobody in Congress ever.

Eisenhower's warning of the military-industrial complex is still very much valid, nearly 60 years later. Ike then counseled American citizens to be vigilant in monitoring the military-industrial complex. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns...

It is also worth noting that the original speech called it the military industrial congressional complex. Indeed very relevant.

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#217
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 'ideal' drug from a business point of view not only not cures the patient long term... There is another one. Vaccines. Or any preventive medicines that does not actually require people to be sick. You just need to inject massive amount of fear of diseases (Statistics is your friend here) into the populace to create a nice, ever increasing demand of your produce...

Antivaccers here? I expected better, but I see you have been rightful down voted.

Do you get flu vaccine every year?

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#218

The health industry has no reason to cure patients. On the contrary, they have reasons to create new patients. And it's across the board. I tell myself exactly that when I look at my toothbrush. A toothbrush lasts about ~3 weeks before needing replacing. I'm sure someone in the industry will tell me that it's because it's made of unobtainium unicorn hair specially designed to make my teeth whiter and all that. I also…

Your toothbrush needs replacing every 3 weeks?

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#219

The health industry has no reason to cure patients. On the contrary, they have reasons to create new patients. And it's across the board. I tell myself exactly that when I look at my toothbrush. A toothbrush lasts about ~3 weeks before needing replacing. I'm sure someone in the industry will tell me that it's because it's made of unobtainium unicorn hair specially designed to make my teeth whiter and all that. I also…

I used the same toothbrush for a year. Is this bad? How do you know when to replace it?

Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model

#220
post #54

The 'ideal' drug from a business point of view not only not cures the patient long term, it offer a short term mitigation while increasing the risk on relapse and thus future recurring consumption of the treatment. At the same time it can be IP protected to block alternatives and has an insured third party collective payment coverage to guard against the treated running out of funds to afford the perpetual dependency…

So we agree medicine cannot be managed as a business, right? It's ok if healthcare losses money, in fact it should be ok for all public sevices to operate and not being profitable.

I think it's OK too, and see those things as investments.

We all benefit from the higher availability of liquid dollars present in the majority of spenders. Demand backed by liquid dollars is a resource. Demand not backed is a cost.

It's cheaper to live overall. People can take risks, etc...

It's worth noting the Post Office does not operate on tax dollars. It's self funded, and could serve as a model for non profit public services. There are political reasons why the Post presents financial difficulty right now. They aren't rooted in any realities, just agendas seeking to marginalize it to favor for profit works.

Normally, the Post does turn some profit, which can go into the general budget. That didn't really effect the overall benefit and value to people.

This suggests we could do public works, non profit in the sense of some one or entity accumulating money somewhere, to pay down other debt, and do so in an equitable, low impact way.

Public works can be broken down into two types:

Infrastructure. These works provide new opportunity for everyone to benefit economically. The Interstate Highway Project, for example, returned many times it's initial investment. As a nation, those greater efficiencies allow us to compete better. All good, except when tolling them is discussed. That idea turns a clear benefit into a cost, and it hurts our ability to compete.

The other type is services. This is the Post Office model.

I often wonder how health care, basic banking, might be improved and actually pay us all nationally using the Post Office model.

Post reply on HN