Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
And yet such products are still being suppressed in favor of oil. And simply claiming that an argument is dumb and based on nothing doesn't make it so.
i doubt you have any idea what I or others here "practice."
To who? The company? Are you on about capitalism or corporatist CT?
I am extreme. I'm not typical, by any measure. Don't be so Obama.
I don't claim it is the sole motivation, I claim it is sufficient motivation.
I make the case that the one shot is SO BIG that future payments become someone else's concern.
I'm glad you once again use the word 'seems'. I was not writing that 'pure' capitalism is the only reason that this conspiracy would be exposed. I was writing that profit, alone, was sufficient enough motive to expose the conspiracy. There are other reasons, as human nature is drawn to fortune, fame and long life; however, those motives can be left aside as the mere profit motive is sufficient. To deny a whistleblower in the face of the ability to cure cancer is not much different than denying a whistleblower in the case of truther or birther.
Now, we could discuss the other motives for exposing any such conspiracy. We can just leave it that profit alone puts this socialist propaganda into the CT section of the forum.
Enough nonsense. Serious, don't be a CTr.
ps. If one must play with this CT, for whatever agenda, do it with something smaller than cancer or one just looks dumb.
This doesn't make sense, CC. How does finding a cure for cancer mean people won't still continue to get cancer and therefore need the treatment?
Yes, I know, the profit motive is absolutely detestable to some, but, like it or not, it is a very effective motivator and some very good things have come about because of it.
Try to respond to what I write. I said "profit at any cost, regardless of impact". The profit motive is certainly desirable and impacts things positively. It's not the only thing, though, that is a motivator. Also, consider what I said: profit at any cost, regardless of the imact.
You may not suffer from it any longer, but that doesn't mean others won't still be afflicted and need the cure.Ummm... because the cancer would be cured. Why would you need to treat something that you no longer suffer from?
Try to respond to what I write. I said "profit at any cost, regardless of impact". The profit motive is certainly desirable and impacts things positively. It's not the only thing, though, that is a motivator. Also, consider what I said: profit at any cost, regardless of the imact.
You may not suffer from it any longer, but that doesn't mean others won't still be afflicted and need the cure.
For business which exists to make money, profit is the only motivator that matters.
And once you are cured, you no longer need the medication. There is a difference between a cure and a treatment. Treatment is ongoing. Cure is done once.
Regardless of the impact. This is very short-sighted and libertarian. Things do not exist in a vaccum.
better yet it would bankrupt many of these companies along with all it supporting institutions.Pharmaceutical companies just like any other company exist to make profits. A cancer cure would put a huge dent in their profits.
And once you are cured, you no longer need the medication. There is a difference between a cure and a treatment. Treatment is ongoing. Cure is done once.
Regardless of the impact. This is very short-sighted and libertarian. Things do not exist in a vaccum.
If people were really similar to what he described, it would be the strongest argument against libertarianism that one could make!
Good point.This supposed cure is does not create immunity and even if it did, there are people born everyday without such an immunity.
Not all cures are created equal.
This supposed cure is does not create immunity and even if it did, there are people born everyday without such an immunity.
Not all cures are created equal.
It's your narrow understanding of what profit is, that makes you believe that.
He was responding to a narrow comment about profit.
Shall we get into semantics about what "cure" means? If it cures cancer, that means once implimented, the individual no longer has cancer.
You don't but others still will. We're talking about cure not prevention. You seem to be conflating the two.And once you are cured, you no longer need the medication.
As I say, there's a difference between a drug that cures and one that prevents, although, even there people would still want the preventive, like the polio or smallpox vaccine.There is a difference between a cure and a treatment. Treatment is ongoing. Cure is done once.
Well there are incentives built into the free market system for companies to come up with things people want, such as a cancer cure. At worst, the profit motive and companies are amoral. Any notions of morality one way or the other are artificially assigned. The true check on corporations is not to try to ascribe some sort of conscience to them, but rather the potential for competition.Regardless of the impact. This is very short-sighted and libertarian. Things do not exist in a vaccum.
Profit is merely an word to describe part of the situation of the exchange of value.
When a person goes to get medical care, both parties profit, whether or not we want to admit this.
The medical business profits in monetary form and the sick person profits in better health.
It does not in any way prove that libertarianism is wrong, it's just the myopic view that people hold that they are victims of the market, rather than participants.
It depends on what type of cure it is.
That is very relevant.
This particular "cure" did not create immunity, it just allowed the immune system to defeat the cancer cells.
If people were really similar to what he described, it would be the strongest argument against libertarianism that one could make!
You don't but others still will. We're talking about cure not prevention. You seem to be conflating the two.
As I say, there's a difference between a drug that cures and one that prevents, although, even there people would still want the preventive, like the polio or smallpox vaccine.
Well there are incentives built into the free market system for companies to come up with things people want, such as a cancer cure. At worst, the profit motive and companies are amoral. Any notions of morality one way or the other are artificially assigned. The true check on corporations is not to try to ascribe some sort of conscience to them, but rather the potential for competition.
If you are going to alter the definition in THIS way, it changes the argument. We have been discussing monetary profits. Are you now discussing this alteration?
Hmmm... so, since the medical business profits, monetarily from the individual being sick and needing treatment, which would the medical business profit from more... a complete cure, or continuing treatment?
People are victims of both... if we must use the word "victim".
Profit should always be considered as such.
Speaking strictly in monetary terms when there are other forms of "profit" present is incredibly unfair and is only being used to slander my beliefs.
Continued treatment can earn a higher profit, but that doesn't mean that the cure won't be developed.
Because someone else will want to earn a profit from that.
We do not live in a 1 dimensional world, where only 1 person or corporation seeks to create treatments and cures.
There are a multitude of participants, each seeking their own profit.
People are participants of the market.
Sometimes they are victims, if there has been fraud or force, but that is largely not the case.
No, but this is how it is presented by far more dogmatic libertarians than you.
There really isn't the need for treatments if you have a cure. These are two different types of medical procedures. If there is a medication that can cure my disease, why would I want to just treat it?
I don't agree. The healthcare insurance industry is a good example. They create practices that maximize their profit, regardless of the impact that it has on their customers or society.
Then I have a question for you, CC. When doctors find a cancerous tumor, why do they seek to remove the whole tumor (if possible) then often follow up with chemotherapy to try to eradicate any remaining cancer cells? If ongoing treatment has such a larger potential for profit, wouldn't it make more sense to leave a few cancer cells behind to assure the need for future treatment?No. You get cancer. You receive the cure. You no longer have cancer. As opposed to... you get cancer, you get treatment. You still have cancer. You get treatment. You still have cancer. You get treatment. See what I'm getting at?
But there is huge profit potential in all three.See above. I get the difference. What I am saying is that there are THREE levels, not two: vaccine, cure, and treatment. Currently, cancer is under the third category.
Profit motives are amoral if they live in a vaccum and do not take into consideration the impact on larger issues. For example, it might maximize profit for a company to dump waste in a local river, rather than dumping it with the larger impact of the environment and the drinking water of the local population.
Those are step 1 libertarians, they will either move on to further steps or wash out.
More often than not, they wash out.
Of course, the market power behind the treatment wouldn't be there.
The person making the cure would, unless it's a combination treatment and cure.
That's largely because we've removed the price at point of service, in my opinion.
Instead of insurance administrators fuddling what to cover, we need individuals making those value judgments for themselves.
Insurance needs to take somewhat of a back seat to people and their wallets.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?