this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
1241 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
71955 readers
4216 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is amazing news for countries with free healthcare! Even though the vaccine is expensive, it's nowhere as expensive as the care a cancer patient needs today.
Plus you can send a healthy individual back to their families and into society again.
Idk man that sounds pretty communist to me
A country, looking after its people?! Get that communism outta here!
I don't believe in welfare!
I know, right? It's almost like communism is a good idea or something.
You and the person above you are confusing communism with socialism
¿Por qué no los dos? I'm not confused.
It's not free, it's socialized. This means expenses are passed to the tax payers. But like you said, if it lowers costs long term, it's worth the short term cost increase.
True. My point is that when healthcare is socialised, the government will be the one having to budget the cost/benefit.
Meaning a cure will always be the most profitable, meaning we will see this for all citizens fast.
Not the most profitable... The least expensive, long term. The most profitable would be the cheapest option but the most possible tax is collected. The whole point is to reduce burden on the tax payers, not maximize tax revenue.
A healthy individual is more profitable, so as I said, a cure will be the best option - always.
And yes, it's profitable. No ones talking about maximising it and collecting more tax. But it's a great example on how Americans think.
So you are arguing the govt should run a profitable business?
Are you struggling with reading comprehension or just being purposely obtuse?
This is how the US will use this.
And everywhere else let's be honest....
True, except the US doesn't even do that. It's your fault for getting cancer, so you pay yourself. :))
Lol everywhere. Ever been outside your country?
United States are in the same group as China, Yemen and Syria on this one.
The shareholders of the pharma-industry will not be happy. You have to manage a disease, not heal it; that would be detrimental for the balance sheet.
And unhappy shareholders of big pharma is definitely not what we want; if they are happy, we will be happy.
Pharma employees are famously not people who themselves or whose loved ones can also be affected by cancer...
The reason your healthcare sucks in the us is the insurance industry mate...
Right, we certainly can't have more than one factor.
Worst take on Lemmy in 2024, already calling it now.
could have been an attempt at irony
They'll have to fight the shareholders of the health insurance industry, who don't want to pay for a long-term condition
I'm very anti-pharma myself (depression is not a chemical imbalance, and pills can't solve it. Changing lifestyle factors can.) but if your statement were true they wouldn't have made this vaccine in the first place.
Have you tried just going outside and NOT being depressed?
I did, and both going outside and choosing to not be depressed were important pieces to the puzzle that allowed me to move beyond depression.
A bit oversimplified but generally true for persistent bummed out. Not true for acute suicideation, which is real, a threat, and can be resolved with drugs or listening to the suicide call.
Are you saying there is proof that suicidal people have a chemical imbalance in the brain? I'm aware of instances of correlation between chemicals found in spinal taps and depression, but correlation does not equal causation and drug companies and doctors love to pretend it does in this case. I believe the the chemical imbalance is caused by the depression, no the other way around. I can't prove that, but they can't prove their claim either as far as i can tell.
Are you saying there is proof that suicidal people have a chemical imbalance in the brain? I'm aware of instances of correlation between chemicals found in spinal taps and depression, but correlation does not equal causation and drug companies and doctors love to pretend it does in this case. I believe the the chemical imbalance is caused by the depression, no the other way around. I can't prove that, but they can't prove their claim either as far as i can tell.
Are you saying there is proof that suicidal people have a chemical imbalance in the brain? I'm aware of instances of correlation between chemicals found in spinal taps and depression, but correlation does not equal causation and drug companies and doctors love to pretend it does in this case. I believe the the chemical imbalance is caused by the depression, no the other way around. I can't prove that, but they can't prove their claim either as far as i can tell.
I didn't say that at all, and I was agreeing with you. "Chemical imbalance" is of course a misnomer. What I said was that in the case of acute crisis, drugs can help.