Stop Treating Cancer

[AngelOne]

If people know that developing world-changing drugs yields enormous cash rewards, then some people and organizations will try it because of greed or feeling safe in research investment. If this increased participation so increases the likelihood and timeliness of success as to save more cancer patients than will die for lack of money during the price war, then allowing people to freely charge for drugs is more humane than limiting drug price; vice versa.

-Duxwing

That paragraph is incomprehensible.

The first sentence seems to make sense. I think it says: if drug companies realize there's lots of money to be made by developing a "world-changing drug" (whatever that means) then they'll try to develop this drug.

But then the second sentence goes off the rails at "increased participation". The first sentence refers to individual companies so "increased participation" doesn't make sense here. Drug companies also operate independently of each other and don't collaborate.

Then there's something about people living versus dying if they have no money and that this is somehow acceptable. WTF?

I have no idea what you're talking about or what you're trying to say here. Argument by obfuscation is not only invalid, it's annoying.

 

[Duxwing]

That paragraph is incomprehensible.

The first sentence seems to make sense. I think it says: if drug companies realize there's lots of money to be made by developing a "world-changing drug" (whatever that means) then they'll try to develop this drug.

E.g., a cure for cancer.

But then the second sentence goes off the rails at "increased participation". The first sentence refers to individual companies so "increased participation" doesn't make sense here. Drug companies also operate independently of each other and don't collaborate.

More money to be had -> More people trying to get it -> More attempts to make the drug.

Then there's something about people living versus dying if they have no money and that this is somehow acceptable. WTF?

It is acceptable because they would die anyway without the drug, which is more likely to be invented and thereby save at least who can afford it.

I have no idea what you're talking about or what you're trying to say here. Argument by obfuscation is not only invalid, it's annoying.

I tried to make my argument clear.

-Duxwing

 

[Variform]

My understanding about cancer is limited to 'usual' cancer and not hormonal one. So, thank you for pointing out that there are other cancers out there even though I am sure if you'd dig deep enough, you'd find ways to deal with the core of the issue instead of supplying hormones.

You are a moron. You just admitted you know jack shit about cancer but yet find it normal to propose that maybe if you look deep into the causes of cancer you will find the 'real' mechanism that would make hormone therapy not necessary.

I spent hours researching and talking with people because for my mild problem, acne, no freakin ointments or whatever ever helped.

You have the audacity to compare acne to cancer?!!?

What I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe there are people out there who can aid you. For every serious illness there are people who found a way to treat it either by accident or sifting through old medical journals where my grandmother, a doctor and herbalist actually learned a lot of stuff that treated people.

Yes because modern scientific research is all nonsense right? Your opinion is worth precious little. The approach my partner and I had towards it was based on the combination of medical science and alternative therapy. We already had our 'miracle cure'.

And I'm not full of shit. I spend hours educating myself and then trying stuff out on myself before I speak about it to anyone. If it worked for me, it's good enough and might help other people. If you find the post offensive, then I'm sorry.

These hours didn't even bring you up to speed as to what types of cancer there can be. So I question the level of your knowledge.

Also it's a forum and I don't feel any guilt for writing about my understanding about health problems and health system. I'm not an expert and if my logic is flawed, then it's my own thoughts and not parroting of other people ideas.

Your opinion has very little value if you don't know even some basics. So please keep going to make an idiot of yourself. Your 'opinion' is offensive to anyone who dealt with cancer and has to deal with the awareness their partner, or they themselves could die, sooner than later.

BTW, the subscription metaphor applied to my grandfather who had prostate cancer and was hooked on bimonthly injections of some crap to keep him alive. It helped but then we took matters in our hands now he's cancer free and feels well. Of course, his cancer is not hormonal one and solution for you might be different. Just because doctor said you need inject hormons to keep you going, it doesn't mean there are no other ways to deal with the issue.

This is the way I see it and investigation to the past will show you that cancer was quite rare and there you can start to look for differences in our lifestyle and people from the past. And it takes time.

Cancer requires a wide approach to fight it and may include alternative therapies, but only an idiot would deny themselves the benefits of modern medical research. Like a famous actress in my country did and she died. She had breast cancer too. There is no way then to accept that cancer is a difficult medical problem to treat, and to with foresight predict future amazing therapies or going back into history to find little anecdotes of healing flies in the face of logic: we can only use what medicine has been found effective, like hormone therapy for certain types of cancer. We can daydream about the past and the future, but when you sit at a desk at an oncologist or radiotherapist or a surgeon who wants to cut off your breasts, there is only so much medical choices presented, and so much medicine. You can't take a check on the future.

You will

I am more aware of alternative treatment options than anyone here.

 

[Variform]

It is acceptable because they would die anyway without the drug, which is more likely to be invented and thereby save at least who can afford it.



I tried to make my argument clear.

-Duxwing

Well, arguing is not for all. Have you tried working with clay? Or painting? Next time, use shorter sentences. I am sure you have it all figured out in the head, but the writing skill must match the thoughts.

In any case, I resist the idea that it is okay for sick people to die because of the paradigm of capitalism and corporatism. What desperation is at the heart of that?

What self-loathing must one possess that one can deny their own frailness as a human being, denying the fact one day one will get seriously ill and dependent on medical care and medicine and yet support the unreasonable suggestion that caring for the ill people in society is best served through letting the open market impose a natural selective mechanism?

What you are saying is that a competitive market war between pharmaceutical companies is in the best interest of society despite the fact that many will die because the price for medicine is higher than they can afford.

In the same way under Clinton, Albright found it acceptable that 500.000 (fivehundredthousand) Iraqi children died because of UN sanctions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

If I would determine your nationality based on what you write I'd say you are an american. It seems to me that especially americans think like that, in doing so, shoot their own foot. Only an american will defend notions of free enterprise and laissez fair capitalism and resist government interference and things like Obamacare in defense of some glory-eyed notion of independence and 'keeping your own pants up', only to get screwed big time when they finally get their serious disease.

After a lifetime of working hard and 'making it happen' in the american dream, a man I knew mortgaged his house a second time to pay for the bypass surgery he needed. americans aren't particularly bright.

 

[AngelOne]

Thanks for clarifying your post.

More money to be had -> More people trying to get it -> More attempts to make the drug.

Every new drug class makes a boatload of money because it provides a solution to a problem, and being first to market is desirable. So yes, researchers from different drug companies will be working on the same problem at the same time. However, this statement has no connection to the next statement.

It is acceptable because they would die anyway without the drug, which is more likely to be invented and thereby save at least who can afford it.

Are you saying that it's OK if a lifesaving drug costs people a lot of money (which in turn means that not everyone can afford it) because before the drug existed everyone with that illness died, but now some will live? In other words, if not as many people die once they take the drug, the company is justified in charging more for it than most people can afford.

So you think it's OK to condemn people to death based solely on their financial situation just because they would have died before anyways?

The fact that everyone with the illness would have died before the miracle drug was developed is irrelevant once the drug exists. Before the drug exists and is known to work, people died. Afterwards, people could be saved by the drug; therefore, withholding that drug is the same as killing those people. Choosing to kill people because they're poor is as acceptable as choosing to kill them because they're black or because they're female or because they're Jewish. Which is to say that it is not at all acceptable in our society.

Basic economics says that more money will be made by selling the item to as many people as possible. There's no economic incentive to discriminate against a class of people.

I realize that the US health care system does discriminate against people who are poor. This doesn't mean that the US system is something to be admired or imitated. The US health care system is dysfunctional and serves only to provide an excellent example of what not to do.

 

[The Introvert]

americans aren't particularly bright.

Your data-set is not comprehensive.

I urge you to reconsider your generalization.

As for Duxwing, he's bright; sometimes, he bites off more than he can chew.

In response to the previous two posts:

I think what Duxwing is trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) is that for the sake of the common good, in instances where people will die regardless of whether or not they receive treatment, testing preliminary or otherwise unsanctioned medicines is at worst a win-null situation, and at best a win-win.

If the treatment doesn't work, then at least we know it doesn't work, and the patient wasn't going to live anyway. If it works, the patient is saved and we now have a cure for this disease.

However, I didn't really read too carefully and as you've already seen, Dux often obfuscates (unintentionally?) the point.

 

[Duxwing]

Thanks for clarifying your post.

You're welcome.

Every new drug class makes a boatload of money because it provides a solution to a problem, and being first to market is desirable. So yes, researchers from different drug companies will be working on the same problem at the same time.

I am glad we have agreed thus far.

However, this statement has no connection to the next statement.

Allow me to demonstrate the connection (I mean no insult by using a syllogism).

Having more people work on finding a cure makes finding it quicker and likelier.
The prospect of huge profits for finding a cure makes more people work on finding a cure. Therefore, the prospect of huge profits for finding a cure makes finding it quicker and likelier.

Are you saying that it's OK if a lifesaving drug costs people a lot of money (which in turn means that not everyone can afford it) because before the drug existed everyone with that illness died, but now some will live? In other words, if not as many people die once they take the drug, the company is justified in charging more for it than most people can afford.

If we have no better option, then yes. I think I may have upset you by unintentionally implying that I thought my solution pleasant. >_< Therefore, if you have a better option, then tell me!

So you think it's OK to condemn people to death based solely on their financial situation just because they would have died before anyways?

Whoa, whoa, Nelly!

The fact that everyone with the illness would have died before the miracle drug was developed is irrelevant once the drug exists. Before the drug exists and is known to work, people died. Afterwards, people could be saved by the drug; therefore, withholding that drug is the same as killing those people. Choosing to kill people because they're poor is as acceptable as choosing to kill them because they're black or because they're female or because they're Jewish. Which is to say that it is not at all acceptable in our society.

If the money-motivated researchers expect that they will not reap fortunes from discovering the miracle drug, then they will not work, reducing the likelihood and speed of discovering it and thereby killing many more people than would both not afford the drug and not get it free from hospitals, who never leave patients to die for want of money.

Basic economics says that more money will be made by selling the item to as many people as possible. There's no economic incentive to discriminate against a class of people.

And price wars will 'naturally' decrease the price, further limiting the price-caused deaths.

I realize that the US health care system does discriminate against people who are poor. This doesn't mean that the US system is something to be admired or imitated. The US health care system is dysfunctional and serves only to provide an excellent example of what not to do.

Let's not throw the healthcare system baby out with the discrimination bathwater: the US healthcare system invented the artificial heart.

---

@Introvert

I am saying that letting everyone charge whatever they want for drugs motivates some people to work on drug research, getting us more cures faster and thus saving lives.

---

@Variform

People are dying of diseases that could be sooner cured if we offered a reward for curing them.

-Duxwing

 

[AngelOne]

Having more people work on finding a cure makes finding it quicker and likelier.
The prospect of huge profits for finding a cure makes more people work on finding a cure. Therefore, the prospect of huge profits for finding a cure makes finding it quicker and likelier.

You must be american if you think that just adding money and incentives will make something happen. You don't seem to understand how research works. Throwing money at the problem (by way of big profit incentives) doesn't necessarily imply that the problem can or will be solved.

No amount of money can solve certain problems. There's much more to problem-solving - especially pharmaceutical problem-solving - than that.

If the money-motivated researchers expect that they will not reap fortunes from discovering the miracle drug, then they will not work, reducing the likelihood and speed of discovering it and thereby killing many more people than would both not afford the drug and not get it free from hospitals, who never leave patients to die for want of money.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Companies focus in profits while researches focus on work; your money-motivated researchers who will work harder to come up with a cure just because theyre offered more money don't exist.

Making money for their companies is part of a researcher's job because they want funding for their project - but they really just want to work on their project. You also seem to imply that these companies or researchers from different companies will work together to come up with a solution and that is completely false. Pharmaceutical companies are in a state of cold war with one another.

And price wars will 'naturally' decrease the price, further limiting the price-caused deaths.

You don't get it. There is no price war. Whoever is first out of the gate with a cure that has been verified to work gets to charge whatever they like. If one of their competitors develops another cure, they also get to market their drug and they also get to charge what they like. The prices will not change until the companies no longer have exclusivity to market - at least 10 years from when they introduced the drugs. Given the costs of developing these drugs, that time period could be longer.

You're trying to justify killing people in the name of profits and this cannot be done.

Let's not throw the healthcare system baby out with the discrimination bathwater: the US healthcare system invented the artificial heart.

WTF are you talking about? The US health care system did nothing of the sort. It was invented by a researcher in the US. Even if it
The US health care system had done this, it has nothing to do with discrimination.

The US health care system is primarily made up of for-profit medical facilities and insurance companies. Both institutions are more interested in profit than people and people die every day because these two institutions have priced care out of reach of them.

 

[Duxwing]

You must be american if you think that just adding money and incentives will make something happen. You don't seem to understand how research works. Throwing money at the problem (by way of big profit incentives) doesn't necessarily imply that the problem can or will be solved.

Monetary incentives in the form of revenue will and do motivate pro-social behavior; e.g., drug corporations make drugs to make money. They do giving people the financial resources they need for such things as research equipment and researchers' payroll.

No amount of money can solve certain problems. There's much more to problem-solving - especially pharmaceutical problem-solving - than that.

You're twisting my words: I never said that money would cure cancer. Furthermore, even if I had, you've no proof that it would not. Finally, I agree that money is not all of problem-solving: I am saying that it motivates some people who otherwise would, for example, sell bonds on Wall Street.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Are you some expert on this subject? Provide your credentials before brandishing unjustified authority.

Companies focus in profits while researches focus on work; your money-motivated researchers who will work harder to come up with a cure just because theyre offered more money don't exist.

And research companies focus on making profits by doing research. And how do you know that no researcher is motivated by money? Some people want money and consider drug research most profitable because they can freely charge; could they not, they might work elsewhere, slowing our cure search.

Making money for their companies is part of a researcher's job because they want funding for their project - but they really just want to work on their project. You also seem to imply that these companies or researchers from different companies will work together to come up with a solution and that is completely false. Pharmaceutical companies are in a state of cold war with one another.

What data support these categorical negations? Furthermore, I have never implied that the companies would work together; I said that more people and companies would work at all.

You don't get it. There is no price war. Whoever is first out of the gate with a cure that has been verified to work gets to charge whatever they like. If one of their competitors develops another cure, they also get to market their drug and they also get to charge what they like. The prices will not change until the companies no longer have exclusivity to market - at least 10 years from when they introduced the drugs. Given the costs of developing these drugs, that time period could be longer.

Throughout this debate, I have not only agreed that companies enjoy some period of exclusivity but that this exclusivity motivates many of their high-risk (low success rate) research massively rewarding success. When this period expires, generic brands compete with the original, and the price falls.

You're trying to justify killing people in the name of profits and this cannot be done.

Unhand that straw-man! I am trying to save lives just like you are: if you doubt my good faith, then stop debating.

WTF are you talking about? The US health care system did nothing of the sort. It was invented by a researcher in the US. Even if it

The US health care system had done this, it has nothing to do with discrimination.

Jarvik is part of the healthcare system and, by creating his artificial heart, fulfilled his systemic role; the healthcare system thus created the artificial heart.

The US health care system is primarily made up of for-profit medical facilities and insurance companies. Both institutions are more interested in profit than people and people die every day because these two institutions have priced care out of reach of them.

Hospitals save whomever they can whatever the cost. And even if your black-and-white description were true, my method would be better because every day people would live because profit-motivated or at least revenue-funded research saved their lives; public health insurance would keep the poor alive without demotivating the greedy.

-Duxwing

 

[Variform]

Your data-set is not comprehensive.

What a strange assumption. I think my data set is big enough.

I urge you to reconsider your generalization.

It is a generalized issue. Research american income and wealth distribution. It is a few percent of the population that owns like 90% of the wealth. They never worry about health care costs. Or the price of treatment or medicines.

Yet it is the vast majority of americans that shoot their own foot. The top 5 to 10% of americasn laugh their asses off because the 90% of the americans support their income position by beleiving in the american dream, self-reliance and all those typically american notions (or delusions) about how society ought to work.

I think what Duxwing is trying to say

I don't think he was on about just medicines that were in a test phase.

 

[Variform]

WTF are you talking about? The US health care system did nothing of the sort. It was invented by a researcher in the US. Even if it
The US health care system had done this, it has nothing to do with discrimination.

The US health care system is primarily made up of for-profit medical facilities and insurance companies. Both institutions are more interested in profit than people and people die every day because these two institutions have priced care out of reach of them.

I support and agree with everything you replied, except that the last bit seems wrong. It was a Dutch guy who invented the artifical heart. A man named Kolff.

Search wiki for Dutch medical inventions.

 

[Variform]

Monetary incentives in the form of revenue will and do motivate pro-social behavior; e.g., drug corporations make drugs to make money. They do giving people the financial resources they need for such things as research equipment and researchers' payroll.

But you do not think there are other types of motivations? You think greed is the only human motivation?

Then why do many researchers never get rich, yet feel profoundly satisfied on whatever average wage they get, to do fundamental research? The kind of research that won't win you a Nobel prize? Just going to work every day ploughing through endless permutations to find some answer to something?

You think they all have one eye on the money clock? You don't think at all that these people like their work because of other reasons than money?

You're twisting my words: I never said that money would cure cancer.

But he didn't imply that. Strawman.

Furthermore, even if I had, you've no proof that it would not. Finally, I agree that money is not all of problem-solving: I am saying that it motivates some people who otherwise would, for example, sell bonds on Wall Street.

Prove it! You ask him to prove it, yet then you go around and making a claim without backing it up.

Are you some expert on this subject? Provide your credentials before brandishing unjustified authority.

Please provide yours too.

And research companies focus on making profits by doing research. And how do you know that no researcher is motivated by money? Some people want money and consider drug research most profitable because they can freely charge; could they not, they might work elsewhere, slowing our cure search.

No one denies some people's primary motivation to become a researcher in the medical field is money. Or greed. You are misrepresenting the argument.

I think there are researchers that combine the greed with the love for the work. There are pure greed workers. And there are also idealists. I think many people just sort of roll into the field, out of school, looking for a position, with some diploma in the pocket and then a position comes up, they apply, get the job. Some will then go home at the end of the day more satisfied than others, and some will develop a passion for the finding of cures as they develop their skills at work, at a lab in some drug company.

Some will leave there, because they feel compromised on their ideals. And may start working for a non-profit organization, or do lab tests for Greenpeace.

The fact is, there is no single-minded primary orientation (like greed) to work in any field, regardless of what product is being researched.

What data support these categorical negations? Furthermore, I have never implied that the companies would work together; I said that more people and companies would work at all.

But you don't seem able to back that up. Prove it with figures. You make this claim, your responsibility to back it up.

I don't agree. If pharmaceutical research would be nationalized, there would be ample motivation to find cures. It is societies' money at work, so there will be scrutiny on how the tax payers' money is being spend. And for the motivations of those researchers, I think there are plenty of people who will be idealistic to accept a decent wage, without striving to be millionaires.

I believe that most scientists work because they are passionate about the intellectual pursuit of their interest rather than hope for Nobel Prizes or becoming millionaires.

If not, why would people go into politics? That doesn't pay much. Well, maybe in fuct up america, but in the real world... Do you know how much the Dutch Mininster-President makes a year? €180.000,- A minister in parliament €144,000,- a year. In 2014 the average wage of people is €34.500,- per year. ($47.900,-)

The CEO's of companies make a lot more.

Unhand that straw-man! I am trying to save lives just like you are: if you doubt my good faith, then stop debating.

I think you lack a clear sense of how the world works, what motivates people, how economics work and base your assumptions, that aren't backed up in any way, on a personal lack of empathy.

You just wait until you get cancer. Or a disease that has no real medicine to combat it. And then you sit there waiting for corporate medicine to rescue you. Hoping that personal greed by some brilliant researcher is going to save your life.

Hospitals save whomever they can whatever the cost. And even if your black-and-white description were true, my method would be better because every day people would live because profit-motivated or at least revenue-funded research saved their lives; public health insurance would keep the poor alive without demotivating the greedy.

-Duxwing

Bullcrap. In your worldview people are only motivated by sheer greed. I feel sorry for you, really. And I thought I had it bad. At least I can see altruism in the world too. What gloom!

I am nt even sure what you are writing here in that last sentence. Pff. Wtf are you even talking about man.

 

[Duxwing]

But you do not think there are other types of motivations? You think greed is the only human motivation?

Then why do many researchers never get rich, yet feel profoundly satisfied on whatever average wage they get, to do fundamental research? The kind of research that won't win you a Nobel prize? Just going to work every day ploughing through endless permutations to find some answer to something?

You think they all have one eye on the money clock? You don't think at all that these people like their work because of other reasons than money?

Strawman: I never suggested it was, and I was describing more than greed. I have been continuously saying "some" researchers and "more" participation and mentioning how drug investors must recoup their investment (sometimes with a tidy profit) to fund however-motivated labs.

But he didn't imply that. Strawman.

Indeed: he outright asked me if I thus believed.

Prove it! You ask him to prove it, yet then you go around and making a claim without backing it up.

It's basic economics. First, consider the institutional scale. If one wants something--e.g., a new lab--then one must pay for it. Revenue from drug sales pays for things used to research more drugs, which generate more revenue and thus onto however many cures money can buy. Next, consider the personal scale, where money at least somewhat motivates everyone's choice of career and therefore can, in great sums, motivate not only researchers but investors, venture capitalists, manufacturers, etc. to work on drugs.

Please provide yours too.

I need not: I have never argued from expertise.

No one denies some people's primary motivation to become a researcher in the medical field is money. Or greed. You are misrepresenting the argument.

I think there are researchers that combine the greed with the love for the work. There are pure greed workers. And there are also idealists. I think many people just sort of roll into the field, out of school, looking for a position, with some diploma in the pocket and then a position comes up, they apply, get the job. Some will then go home at the end of the day more satisfied than others, and some will develop a passion for the finding of cures as they develop their skills at work, at a lab in some drug company.

Some will leave there, because they feel compromised on their ideals. And may start working for a non-profit organization, or do lab tests for Greenpeace.

The fact is, there is no single-minded primary orientation (like greed) to work in any field, regardless of what product is being researched.

We seemingly agree here.

But you don't seem able to back that up. Prove it with figures. You make this claim, your responsibility to back it up.

See three points back.

I don't agree. If pharmaceutical research would be nationalized, there would be ample motivation to find cures. It is societies' money at work, so there will be scrutiny on how the tax payers' money is being spend. And for the motivations of those researchers, I think there are plenty of people who will be idealistic to accept a decent wage, without striving to be millionaires.

If this point is true, then nationalization would provide little or no benefit because spending is also scrutinized in industry and plenty of researchers just want to research; you would just save a few people unlucky enough to be desperately poor and receiving no welfare. The prospect of profits simply brings more people--especially non-researchers--into the drug-finding effort by enabling research companies to pay them to work.

I believe that most scientists work because they are passionate about the intellectual pursuit of their interest rather than hope for Nobel Prizes or becoming millionaires.

We're not only talking about scientists but about hard-nosed accountants, truck drivers, and construction workers who say, "Drug shmug. I just want money in my pocket and on the bottom line at the end of the day." Their skills and efforts are necessary whether drug research is national or private.

If not, why would people go into politics? That doesn't pay much. Well, maybe in fuct up america, but in the real world... Do you know how much the Dutch Mininster-President makes a year? €180.000,- A minister in parliament €144,000,- a year. In 2014 the average wage of people is €34.500,- per year. ($47.900,-)

The CEO's of companies make a lot more.

See previous. Some people just want power.

I think you lack a clear sense of how the world works, what motivates people, how economics work and base your assumptions, that aren't backed up in any way, on a personal lack of empathy.

My argument is from empathy and, informally stated, so is as follows. We need as many cures as we can get as fast as we can get them because every minute we deliberate another person dies of whatever disease. If people think they can make money making cures and charging whatever they want for a few years, then some will do it, getting us more cures faster. If some people cannot afford these drugs, then let's just give them enough money, and the people we miss will be too few to measure.

Furthermore, you have insinuated you have "a clear sense of how the world works, what motivates people, [and] how economics work". If you believe yourself to have these three things, then why waste your time arguing with me, whom you believe ignorant, stupid, and malevolent? Instead close the fields of sociology, politics, international relations, psychology, and economics with the towering intellect and immense knowledge you evidently believe yourself to have.

You just wait until you get cancer. Or a disease that has no real medicine to combat it. And then you sit there waiting for corporate medicine to rescue you. Hoping that personal greed by some brilliant researcher is going to save your life.

Were an uncured disease to kill me, I would die whatever my wealth and be among those people whom nationalizing drug research would kill by finding cures more slowly than the status-quo.

Bullcrap. In your worldview people are only motivated by sheer greed. I feel sorry for you, really. And I thought I had it bad. At least I can see altruism in the world too. What gloom!

First, I know first, second, third, an n-hand that hospitals do that because of the very altruism whereupon my argument stands.

I am nt even sure what you are writing here in that last sentence. Pff. Wtf are you even talking about man.

I am talking about public health insurance.

-Duxwing

 

[AngelOne]

Are you some expert on this subject? Provide your credentials before brandishing unjustified authority.

I'm not much more of an expert than most other people are. I have a number of friends who are researchers in different industries, including the pharmaceutical industry. I'm also able to read reports on the industry and the problems within it. I also know many, many people who have had cancer and who have died from it. Most of those people live in the US.

Jarvik is part of the healthcare system and, by creating his artificial heart, fulfilled his systemic role; the healthcare system thus created the artificial heart.

Oh FFS. The heart was developed at the University of Utah in a research capacity, and the research capacity is not considered part of the health care system. Similarly, drugs invented by the pharmaceutical industry, while administered in the health care system, are not considered to have been invented in the health care system.

Furthermore, you have insinuated you have "a clear sense of how the world works, what motivates people, [and] how economics work". If you believe yourself to have these three things, then why waste your time arguing with me, whom you believe ignorant, stupid, and malevolent? Instead close the fields of sociology, politics, international relations, psychology, and economics with the towering intellect and immense knowledge you evidently believe yourself to have.

I also believe that you have no idea how the world works, what motivates people, or how economics work. I'm done wasting my time talking to you.

 

[Duxwing]

I'm not much more of an expert than most other people are.

Then stop acting like you have expertise.

Oh FFS. The heart was developed at the University of Utah in a research capacity, and the research capacity is not considered part of the health care system. Similarly, drugs invented by the pharmaceutical industry, while administered in the health care system, are not considered to have been invented in the health care system.

What is the healthcare system without research and development?

-Duxwing

 

[Variform]

It is useless to discuss this further.

You want credentials? I have an education in economics. I have studied business economy, general economy, commercial economy and commercial forming, advertising and marketing. That was backed up by chemistry.

All you describe are figments of your imagination. During my studies I have never encountered anything that seems to resemble your ravings.

I think your ideas are heavily influenced by ideology. As specific type of american style corporate ideology.

 

[Duxwing]

It is useless to discuss this further.

You want credentials? I have an education in economics. I have studied business economy, general economy, commercial economy and commercial forming, advertising and marketing. That was backed up by chemistry.

All you describe are figments of your imagination. During my studies I have never encountered anything that seems to resemble your ravings.

I think your ideas are heavily influenced by ideology. As specific type of american style corporate ideology.

If my idea seems ideological to you, then you may have misunderstood it: would you please tell me what you believe my idea is?

-Duxwing

 

[Variform]

I have already mentioned it in an earlier post. Most likely you don't recognize this ideology yourself. And so you would resist it. I am uncertain if you are open to hearing about it.