- cross-posted to:
- politics
- cross-posted to:
- politics
Even though this would be a win for all Americans – and humanity – it apparently did not outweigh the politics of making a Democrat look good. This is the definition of party over country.
I’m a doctor.So is my mother. When she got cancer, I realized how little that mattered.
Republicans have stated budget cuts need to be made with an ever-growing debt. But where was this attitude when tax cuts for the wealthy were on the table in 2017? They don’t have to look at patients in the eye and break the devastating news that they have cancer. They don’t have to treat cancers that block intestines or drown a patient’s lungs in fluid.
Do you think Big Pharma wants a cure for cancer? Me neither. That might be the real reason it was voted down.
Do you really think the CEOs of big pharma don’t know they themselves have a 20% chance to die of cancer? (Not to speak of their relatives). Would the selfish and rich big pharma company leader not do everything to prevent its early death?
It’s not like their effort would reduce that number to 0%. Id expect something more in line with a reduction from 20% to 18% at best.
And I have no problem believing that CEOs of huge corporations would give up a few percent of their chance to survive an eventual cancer to ensure that their wealth continues to grow greedily.
Yes, obviously there isn’t one cancer, but about every cancer is different. So yeah I give you that. Now, my other argument is you can make the same or more money with one time, possible curative therapies than with live prolonging one. See for example Kymriah. Sure, big and small pharma invest most in development were they can expect a high revenue. Either were there is a big patient population or a small population which have a high medical need. (And therefore are willing to pay a high price).
Yea, you have a point there. My cynical streak got the better of me there for a bit.