Of course they become affordable but only if there is a market to make profit at.
To bring out medicine for some rare disease there isn't really an incentive to do all the expensive research and go through the long process of developing, if the market is only driven by supply and demand.
So those kind of products won't really become affordable for a lot of the people who really need them
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's another claim with no substantiation and the opposite has been true, historically. If there is a disease, there is an incentive. A robust, privatized free market would allow anyone and everyone interested to try and provide the cure.
Individuals in a region not affected by the disease may not be as interested as someone in the same region, and this is why the violence-backed regulations (aside from being immoral, on the face) need to be removed, opening the opportunity to provide a service to parties other than the state and its select few "chosen ones."
The reason it doesn't happen now is because the market is artificially centralized and regulated. This is why folks in the US often fly out of country for medical procedures.
I don't agree with you.
If the disease is too rare and difficult to treat the incentive won't be big enough for all the research or development. Of course some companies will try to find a product to sell, but only to make money not to heal. Why should they be interested in finding the cure when it won't pay off?
That's why we have this big market with supplements. Easy to produce and no real need to back up your claim. People in need might be desperate enough to buy it because there isn't an alternative.
You don't have to agree, but the science of economics and the study of history is on my side.
You honestly think that governments try to find cures because they care about people? Is that why so many are currently without adequate healthcare, even in socialized states?
I will wait to see the substantiations of your claims.
Either way, though, the indisputable fact remains that you are arguing for slavery, essentially, in saying some people must be forced to pay for the care of others, or else.
Your also not answering my questions.
And I never said that the government, whoever this is, is interesting in curing the people. But the free market neither
In most of Europe s welfare states there is adequate welfare for almost everybody. Of course it's not perfect and by no means free
However is it slavery when you get the same service back if you need it?
Is it morally legitimate for me to come to our home and demand you pay for my child’s healthcare with a gun to your head?
Is it morally legitimate if myself and five others do this? What about ten? One hundred?
No, it is always immoral.
No it won't, but that is not the case if we are talking about health insurance
As long as you don't think I should pay for things I do not want to, then we have no real disagreement. ;)
Taxation and mandated health insurance payments (under threat of violence/punishment/force) are immoral. If you don't think force or the threat thereof should be used against individuals that don't pay, then we have no disagreement.
And as far as not answering you, I am the only one so far who has provided any data or hard numbers.
Democide: 262 million dead in about 100 years. And we are worried about what will happen if this murdering, brutal entity doesn't have a monopoly on healthcare!?!?!
Also, I provided numbers from Somalia.
So far, you have only made claims.
I worrying about other things more than that too