It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Sonya610
Well in all fairness the companies that do this research have salaries to pay and overhead. They probably spend TONS of money on research before they come across one discovery that will pay their bills.
I do not know what their profit margin is, but if we expect these companies to "give it away" the moment they discover it to save the worlds poor and dying then we can forget about new inventions or research. If you want it to be non-profit driven then have the government do all the research and see how well that works out.
I don't know about YOU people but I work for money. I am not about to go work at a company that can't pay me so we can provide "free" services. Most people can't work for free. That is reality.
[edit on 3-12-2008 by Sonya610]
Originally posted by Sonya610
I don't know about YOU people but I work for money. I am not about to go work at a company that can't pay me so we can provide "free" services. Most people can't work for free. That is reality.
Originally posted by scientist
thats a bad analogy. For example, if you make sandwiches, it would be like suing anyone else that was starving and tried to make a sandwich for patent infringement.
It has nothing to do with giving anything away for free. Im actually quite interested at how you came to that conclusion. Please explain.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Maxmars
The second point is that no human system can bear making choices about who is worth saving and who isnt. That is why we use a free market system on healthcare.
I believe that no man, and no man made system can make that call. That is the reason for leaving the "decision" to the markets.
[edit on 3-12-2008 by 44soulslayer]
Originally posted by Sonya610
It would be as if you hired hundreds of people and invested years developing a NEW revolutionary lightbulb.
Originally posted by scientistagain, poor analogy. Trust me, I understand the point you are trying to make, but your comparisons just don't hold up - we are talking about life or death vs lightbulbs here.
Originally posted by Sonya610
Go ahead and do it. Then sit around wondering why medical breakthroughs slow to a crawl, and there are hardly any "new lifesaving breakthroughs" when the research companies can't get, or don't have the money to keep doing MORE research.
Might cause a lot more deaths in the future when medical advancement slows dramatically, but hey for TODAY it would make everyone feel really good!
Originally posted by Sonya610
I realize now you simply wanted people to agree with YOUR take on the article, and it is not appropriate to point out differing opinions.
My apologies, I won't post in contradictory opinions in YOUR thread again.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Maxmars
Lets not go overboard here.
There are some vital aspects of medical innovation that have effectively come out of profit seeking and patent protection. Some people see this profit as immoral, but they never consider where innovation would be without it.
Im involved in medical research. My primary motivation is not solely to help people... its also to make a profit. Frankly I just wouldn't bother innovating if I couldn't make a living out of it; or if my inventions could simply be taken and used by others.
Profit in healthcare is not bad; it motivates and drives healthcare providers to greater heights.