Discussion
Ruxandra's Substack
tinfoilhatter: The healthcare industry, especially in the US, isn't interested in finding cures for disease. It's interested in maximizing profits, which is a goal that the bureaucracy serves.
Retric: The healthcare industry in the US in made up a huge range of individual and organizations, they don’t all have the same motives.Suggesting otherwise is projecting your own fears not representative of reality.
x3n0ph3n3: Let's just murder all of our elderly so went don't growth to sustain their retirement.
thomassmith65: As long as we do my parents last, and yours first.
gruez: /s?
bpodgursky: Did you even read the article? What does this have to do with anything?
mystraline: You know, 2nd wave Feminists really fucked up with pushing for abortion and how they did so.They kept the framing as "abortion rights", rights only for women. And that primarily guaranteed that men wouldn't care, or be hostile to it.Their chants "my body, my choice" however, was the real issue they never chose. Had they chose to campaign "Rights of Bodily Autonomy", then abortion, self-experimentation, and much more would have been permitted. And humans should have bodily autonomy rights... But we dont.That would also extend to right to end my life. Would also be over medical experimentation of myself. And someone (article) who had potentially incurable form of cancer should absolutely have both of those options.But because abortion was framed as a women's only issue pertaining medical privacy, SCOTUS reversed it. Wasn't even laws protecting rights - it was just a temporary legal fiction.
messe: I don't see how you can blame this on feminists when other people should also have been pushing for those same rights?Why are you putting more of the blame on feminists and women than any other section of society here? It just reads as unhinged misogyny.
cucumber3732842: >they don’t all have the same motivesRegardless of their motives they're all subject to the same regulatory system so they can only stray so far for so long from the net effect of the incentives and remain not bankrupt and being auctioned to pay back creditors.
mystraline: Because they were fighting for half the population, and they demonstrably lost. We now have pre-1975 law, including horrific laws like Texas creating task forces hunting out women with miscarriages and abortions in other states.They could have made the 'umbrella' of what they were fighting for cover 100% of the population. They didn't. We're all worse for it.
messe: > They could have made the 'umbrella' of what they were fighting for cover 100% of the population [...] They didn't. We're all worse for it.Other people could have stood by them and fought for those rights too. You're blaming the wrong people. Regardless of your intentions, you're not coming across well. I'd urge you to try reframing this, as you're not going to win many supporters outside of the alt-right pipeline as you're pitching it at the moment.I don't want to accuse you of being a misogynist. Nor do I want to accuse you of being alt-right. But that is how you are coming across in your comments. Textual internet discourse always hides nuances. I'd really ask that you reconsider how you frame this, whether internally or externally, because as it stands, I don't think it's great.
ACCount37: Have you ever considered that "finding cures for disease" is really fucking hard to do?Things that were easy to cure were already cured some time in the past century. What remains is the hard to crack nuts that resist simple scalable methods.There's money to be had in curing HIV - but good luck pulling that off. Maybe someone will, this century.
h2zizzle: Doesn't matter. Not all have the same level of influence. The ones with the most clearly follow GP's characterization.
endymion-light: As someone who has looked at things like Renewable energy deployments within the UK, this is a pattern that seems to be quite pervasive across all industries. The byzantine web of planning approvals, goose counting, public outcry that you have to deal with to deploy essentially a relatively small solar farm is monstrous.What that results with is that the only people capable of creating & managing these processes have the legal teams & resources necessary, stifling growth. Even once you get an approval, it may be years in order to get a grid connection.This risk averse attitude pervades into all walks of life, including medical beurocracy. This essentially locks out a ton of real innovation, as it's too expensive to square up against a mass of beurocracy attempting to stifle you at all turns.
gzread: Have you tried the "forgiveness is easier than permission" approach? What would happen if you just installed the solar panels? I know that in some countries they'd come by with a bulldozer and tear them down again - is your country one of those?
bpodgursky: This might work in parts of the US, but the UK will put you in jail for tweets, I would not risk this.
tinfoilhatter: Have you ever considered that once a disease is cured, the industry can no longer profit off of it being a disease? Treating disease rather than curing it, is a much more profitable venture.How is there money to be had in curing HIV? It seems to me like it's much more profitable to continue selling expensive HIV treatments rather than curing the disease.
iso1631: Load of bollocks, this meme is tiresome. It's the USA that fires people and jails people for a month for social media postshttps://apnews.com/article/charlie-kirk-meme-tennessee-arres...Or if you want some actual context rather than twitter outrage baithttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3WVygAM8I
bpodgursky: There are literally people in the UK in jail for tweets deemed to be incitement to violence. Maybe you think it's a good thing! I don't care! But it's ridiculous to argue over the facts on the ground.
GuB-42: Healthy people are more productive, which mean they are better paid, which mean they have more money for healthcare, which means profits for the healthcare industry.Finding cures is a good way of maximizing profits, the best way actually, and if the healthcare industry is not doing that, it means that something else is stopping them. It can be bureaucracy, it can be just because it is really hard, it can be some systemic problem linked to health insurance and government funding, but I don't see how the healthcare industry wouldn't want to cure people.It is an industry where demand is guaranteed, diseases in general are not disappearing anytime soon, let alone aging.
graemep: yes and no. Finding treatments that require long term commitments is more profitable than finding cures. Look at the history of ulcer drugs. Pharmaceutical companies spent huge amounts to develop drugs that ameliorated symptoms, a two person team found a cure for most ulcers.
graemep: I am not sure about a bulldozer, but in the UK you will be forced to demolish it yourself. I am not sure what the penalty is for failing to do so when ordered to, but it seems to be usually effective.
iso1631: No you are thinking of AMERICA as I linked
gzread: What were the tweets?
like_any_other: I don't have examples of tweets handy, but here are stickers that get you 2 years in UK jail: They reportedly contained slogans such as “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066”, “Mass immigration is white genocide”, “intolerance is a virtue” and “they seek conquest not asylum.”Sources:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867 (does not quote a single sticker that he was jailed for)https://www.gbnews.com/news/sam-melia-free-speech-activists-...
ACCount37: That's what a lot of people seemingly struggle to understand.Inaction is not a safe action. Inaction has a price. And sometimes a death toll too.
inglor_cz: Yes, but this is a clasical agent-principal problem.Theoretically, the bureaucracy works on your behalf, but only approximately so. If it makes a mistake that kills you, the decision maker does not pay any price.
inglor_cz: So you think that complicated diseases are easily curable and the entire scientific world, including very different countries like China, has just decided to hide the knowledge?If your cynical take was correct, there would be no cures ever. And yet there are new ones all the time. For example, vaccines. There are way, way more vaccines developed in the 21st century than in the 250 years before that.Vaccines against HPV have reduced incidence of cervical cancers to basically 0 in the cohorts that obtained them. How come? Shouldn't Big Cancer be interested in treating cervical cancers expensively and promoting relapses?Even in cancers, your chances of surviving, say, Hodgkin's lymphoma, are now north of 90 per cent. The treatment is expensive, but time limited. You don't have to take pills for your entire life.How does that square with your view of the medical system as a machine for prolonging diseases indefinitely?
