vlad321 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
| vlad321 said:
Again, maybe some, if not many of the deadlier illnesses (i.e. cancer, aids, etc.) for which we don't have a cure, will have a single way of being healed. Now, as I said earlier, patent the drug and you have exclusive rights to it for 20 years to do with whatever. No one else can produce it, nothing. So... WHAT free market economy there? Please illustrate to me how your system would work under these conditions. And remember, this is a business that is the only one that can produce something that is extremely needed by many people. Do you honestly believe they will drive down their price and allow everyone use of it, cause I sure as hell don't.
Businesses and ncesseities (and I mean actual necessities) DO NOT MIX.
|
Without free market you wouldn't have a cure to begin with, as no one would take the risk without the reward. So it takes 20 years for the poor to have access to it. Better then the rich and poor never having access to it.
|
Now that's just an outright lie. Again, you can say whatever about NASA and contractors but ultimately where did the money come from? The government, and wehre did it get its money? Us, by taxing us. So it's pretty obvious when shit needs to get done it gets done so stop lying to yourself and everyone else with these fabrications.
|
Again, it's risk vs reward. The single biggest focus of the US government for 10 years was landing on the moon ahead of Russia.
AIDS killed 14,500 Americans in 2007. When that number gets to .5-1% or so of the population (1.5 to 3 million people) the US government would put the same effort into it as we did landing on the moon.
I would prefer not waiting that long.
