Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen." Why? Schools are not for-profit institutions (well, not everywhere). Police don't make a profit. Nor does the fire brigade. Or the military, for that matter. Are all of these disasters waiting to happen?
You have never heard of private military companies? They are extensively used byvthe US mostly for non combat situations. They are very effective, for profit, and much less costly than the regular army.
Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
221–230 of 376 posts
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
"parasites that'll use it as money drain" sounds remarkably like shareholders.
The difference is that shareholders lose something (the value of their shares) when they drain a company of its assets. This might still be short-sighted, but there is at least a balancing force. In public services, where making a loss is o.k. this is just included in the loss, and there is essentially nothing that encourages the 'parasite' to not drain the system.
> The difference is that shareholders lose something (the value of their shares) when they drain a company of its assets.
Not if they sell before the shit hits the fan.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You are jumping from one extreme to the other. Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. You can certainly keep a 'competitive' environment which is regulated with incentives. And I do agree healthcare needs this, and shouldn't live purely by the free market.
Use the Post Office model. When profitable, it contributes to the general fund. See my other comment here.
Political hobbling and fuckery related to post office operations done to marginalize otherwise exemplary performance aside, the model has merit.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#224this is why can't have nice things. why doesn't goldman sachs just grow humans and harvest their organs?
Because apparently these humans wouldn't be a recurring revenue of organs. Unfortunately the humans have to die once you harvest their organs. So you'd have to start over. Damn!
/s
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may be ignorant on this, but don't many of those countries benefit by the r&d funding happening in the US?
R&D doesn't happen in non-profit government corporations either (atleast not largely). Most R&D comes from the manufacturers where the state (or relevant institution) buys the drugs from. However, in a single payer or similar systems, if a drug company decides to hike the price, the state (or institution) can swallow the cost and continue medical services to citizens until the situation is resolved (either by legisla…
> R&D doesn't happen in non-profit government corporations either (atleast not largely). Most R&D comes from the manufacturers where the state (or relevant institution) buys the drugs from.
IIRC, the research typically comes from state-funded academics, and the development comes from the manufacturers.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#226Sure it is. Gilead made 100 billion dollars curring Hep-C with seed research investments that were probably much less than 1 billion. So as long as this strong differential and potential for profit exists, drug companies feel competitive pressure to produce better treatments, irrespective of the fact that "milking" the pathology would yield them trillions collectively. It's effectively a "tragedy of the commons" of s…
They solve this by working on diseases whose diagnostic criteria are vague enough that they can never be fully cured. Or at least no physician will ever tell someone they're "cured." Diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, autoimmune...
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. This is the model many rich country healthcare runs on, and provides measurably better outcomes for less expenditure than the US.
I may be ignorant on this, but don't many of those countries benefit by the r&d funding happening in the US?
Like what?
Novartis? AstraZenica? Gsk? Bayer? Siemens? Hitachi? Philips? Olympus?
this works quite very much the other way as well..
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the US were to make all drug R&D a public service they'd have to basically increase the current NIH budget from ~$30B to probably $150B It may be nice in theory to have government manage drug R&D, but it is not practical. It's simply too expensive
.. 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.
Thats a false comparison. It's like saying "people spend $1,000 on iPhones. Why wouldn't they spend $1,000 on a pizza?"
Ability to pay and willingness to pay are very different concepts
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are jumping from one extreme to the other. Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. You can certainly keep a 'competitive' environment which is regulated with incentives. And I do agree healthcare needs this, and shouldn't live purely by the free market.
> Creating a public institution with no pressure to make profit is a disaster waiting to happen. This is the model many rich country healthcare runs on, and provides measurably better outcomes for less expenditure than the US.
In addition, the best healthcare system in the world, according the WHO, is in Cuba, where it certainly isn't run on a for-profit basis. Moving medicine away from the private sector allows for a stronger focus on preventative care, which is significantly less profitable.
I think that worrying about removing the profit motive entirely misses that fact that not only is the profit motive not the only motive for doing things, but oftentimes not even the determinate factor.
Re: Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model
#230And that is why healthcare should not be a for profit business.