If someone were to invent a cure for cancer...

[nclib]

Vote and discuss. I say no.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No (R)

[John Dibble]

Sure, but they'd be rather stupid to overcharge. While there's currently no cure, there are a number of viable treatments. Sure, a cure is superior, but if people can't afford it they'll opt for what they can afford. I would imagine for that reason the price would be around the same as the price of the treatments, if not less due to the simple fact that in other countries there are going to be those who aren't going to respect intellectual property laws and will sell it cheaper if you make it too expensive.

[7,052,770]

Morality dictates that health care should not be run for a profit

[Sensei]

Morality dictates that health care should not be run for a profit

Precisely. No (D)

[Хahar 🤔]

Morality dictates that health care should not be run for a profit

Precisely. No (D)

Agree, though the state should pay all involved a fair amount, of course.

[opebo]

Inventing a cure for cancer is only one part of the money-extraction process in this situation.  As in all other exactions of payment for 'private property', intellectual or otherwise, the State's role is absolutely essential and integral.  Thus, the State apportions the wealth of owners as well as the pay of workers, and all such decisions are political.  So much for 'laissez faire capitalism'.

[12th Doctor]

Morality dictates that health care should not be run for a profit

Great... when there is no money for R&D I hope you stick to your guns on that one.  If no company in the last two centuries ever did medicine for profit then people would still be dying of polio and bleeding would be in fashion.

I vote "yes" simply because a company can be expected, as all companies do, to charge what they have to to create the highest availability at the best profit to themselves.  After ten years at the most, they will have paid off the money they put into it, which likely will be hundreds of millions of dollars and then the price would drop drastically.

And of course, naturally, there will be groups who put forward the money to help pay for the cure for people who can't afford it when it first comes out.

Of course, we will have to pay more in the U.S. longer, because our wonderful European friends have put so many restrictions on medical costs, that the companies will have to pass the costs off to someone, and thus, we will suffer... but its better than having no base of funding from which to pull, which would be the case if the whole world went to socialized medicine.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Invents a cure for cancer?  Unlikely.  Discovers one?  Sure.

It is immoral to deny somebody treatment of cancer if it is available.  Cancer is a disease that can affect anybody.  Why should only the rich be cured?

[Person Man]

Yes, but that doesn't mean the government shouldn't be able to pay for it through medicare or neogotiate the price to be lower. The price can't be too high because there are those that will "beat the system" and offer it at a lower price in a poorer country.

[JSojourner]

No. (Normal)

[dead0man]

There will never be a single cure for all cancers, but yes, people that invent or discover new medical procedures, drugs or whatever should be able to get as much money out of it as he or she can, just like any other industry.  We do want medical advances to keep coming at the same speed right?  If you limit the funds these people can make from their labor in time you will see less capital investment, fewer smart people doing the work and fewer new technologies. 

If it means more to you to give everybody decent medical care than it is to advance medical science further for everybody, well, I guess that's your choice.  It's an awfully shortsighted one, but a lot of left wing/statist positions are.

[Ban my account ffs!]

There will never be a single cure for all cancers, but yes, people that invent or discover new medical procedures, drugs or whatever should be able to get as much money out of it as he or she can, just like any other industry.  We do want medical advances to keep coming at the same speed right?  If you limit the funds these people can make from their labor in time you will see less capital investment, fewer smart people doing the work and fewer new technologies. 

If it means more to you to give everybody decent medical care than it is to advance medical science further for everybody, well, I guess that's your choice.  It's an awfully shortsighted one, but a lot of left wing/statist positions are.

Except you aren't advancing medical science for everybody.  You're advancing for the person that discovers it and the group of people that can afford it.  You are no longer curing cancer.. you are simply allowing those that can afford it to live without it.

[King]

No.  AIDS and Cancer cures should be treated like the Smallpox vaccine. 

[Jake]

Hypothetically, yes. It certainly wouldn't do them good economically, which is why they wouldn't charge an extortionate amount.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Yes, they have that right, but if they have a soul they won't.

[dead0man]

There will never be a single cure for all cancers, but yes, people that invent or discover new medical procedures, drugs or whatever should be able to get as much money out of it as he or she can, just like any other industry.  We do want medical advances to keep coming at the same speed right?  If you limit the funds these people can make from their labor in time you will see less capital investment, fewer smart people doing the work and fewer new technologies. 

If it means more to you to give everybody decent medical care than it is to advance medical science further for everybody, well, I guess that's your choice.  It's an awfully shortsighted one, but a lot of left wing/statist positions are.

Except you aren't advancing medical science for everybody.  You're advancing for the person that discovers it and the group of people that can afford it.  You are no longer curing cancer.. you are simply allowing those that can afford it to live without it.

Only in the same way that DVD's and VCR's and Laser Disc players are "only for the rich".  Eventually that sh**t trickles down.  I'd rather have a cheap cure for cancer in 10 or 20 years and an expensive one in the mean time than no cure at all, ever.

[King]

Although, any money these people would have to spend for a cancer cure they'd probably have to spend on chemotherapy anyway.

[Bono]

Morality dictates that health care should not be run for a profit

Does morality dictate that housing should not be run for a profit? How about food production?
When the left gets up with this sort of talk, they lose any kind of credibility.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Of course they should, however, as pointed out before they would be stupid to charge absurd amounts.  Obviously they will discover one quicker if they are motivated to do so by making money

[Bono]

While the patent would last, they would charge a monopoly price. This isn't "as much as they want", it's simply equaling marginal revenue to price.
Of course, the reason the prices would have to be high at the start is because of the FDA regulations which liberals imposed in the first place. This is one of the examples of the feedback loop of government intervention, when government creates a problem and the left demands more government to solve that problem.

[Јas]

Obviously they will discover one quicker if they are motivated to do so by making money

How is that obvious?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Obviously they will discover one quicker if they are motivated to do so by making money

How is that obvious?

I don't think it takes much to realize that people need some kind of motivation to drive them

[Ban my account ffs!]

Obviously they will discover one quicker if they are motivated to do so by making money

How is that obvious?

I don't think it takes much to realize that people need some kind of motivation to drive them

Like perhaps being known eternally as the Joe who cured cancer?

I'm sure you could become plenty rich while still providing care to everybody that needs it,  especially if the cure for cancer comes from the sources that they're currently studying.  (hint, the tree in your back yard)

[Јas]

Obviously they will discover one quicker if they are motivated to do so by making money

How is that obvious?

I don't think it takes much to realize that people need some kind of motivation to drive them

Of course, but to suggest that money is necessarily the primary motivation for people involved in trying to cure disease isn't necessarily true at all.