• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice

And yet such products are still being suppressed in favor of oil. And simply claiming that an argument is dumb and based on nothing doesn't make it so.

Oil is the most economically feasible energy source for transportation.
Alternatives can't match up.

i doubt you have any idea what I or others here "practice."

Riiiight. :lol:
 
To who? The company? Are you on about capitalism or corporatist CT?

The CT is yours if you actually believe that a company is not all about profit and the value of prolonged treatment. Or, perhaps naivate is a better word.


I am extreme. I'm not typical, by any measure. Don't be so Obama.

Of course you are. Don't be so extreme.

I don't claim it is the sole motivation, I claim it is sufficient motivation.

Then describe what other motivations would be there.

I make the case that the one shot is SO BIG that future payments become someone else's concern.

And you make it poorly.

I'm glad you once again use the word 'seems'. I was not writing that 'pure' capitalism is the only reason that this conspiracy would be exposed. I was writing that profit, alone, was sufficient enough motive to expose the conspiracy. There are other reasons, as human nature is drawn to fortune, fame and long life; however, those motives can be left aside as the mere profit motive is sufficient. To deny a whistleblower in the face of the ability to cure cancer is not much different than denying a whistleblower in the case of truther or birther.

Now, we could discuss the other motives for exposing any such conspiracy. We can just leave it that profit alone puts this socialist propaganda into the CT section of the forum.

Enough nonsense. Serious, don't be a CTr.

ps. If one must play with this CT, for whatever agenda, do it with something smaller than cancer or one just looks dumb.

And all I see is the typical naivate and inability to see the big picture of a libertarian. One issue affects many other issues. Isolating one thing from everything else is neither how society operates or how people operate... even capitalists. It's something very basic that extreme libertarians never seem to understand. The belief that things like this live in a vacuum, as you seem to be suggesting is far more like a conspiracy theory than anyting that I am saying.

Now, if you want to discuss this seriously, I'm around. If you just want to spew silly extreme libertarianism that has no basis in reality... I'll just dismiss it.
 
This doesn't make sense, CC. How does finding a cure for cancer mean people won't still continue to get cancer and therefore need the treatment?

Ummm... because the cancer would be cured. Why would you need to treat something that you no longer suffer from?

Yes, I know, the profit motive is absolutely detestable to some, but, like it or not, it is a very effective motivator and some very good things have come about because of it.

Try to respond to what I write. I said "profit at any cost, regardless of impact". The profit motive is certainly desirable and impacts things positively. It's not the only thing, though, that is a motivator. Also, consider what I said: profit at any cost, regardless of the imact.
 
Try to respond to what I write. I said "profit at any cost, regardless of impact". The profit motive is certainly desirable and impacts things positively. It's not the only thing, though, that is a motivator. Also, consider what I said: profit at any cost, regardless of the imact.

wouldn't that actually presuppose someone taking the quick payout, as opposed to holding out for entities they likely have no relationship with?
 
Ummm... because the cancer would be cured. Why would you need to treat something that you no longer suffer from?
You may not suffer from it any longer, but that doesn't mean others won't still be afflicted and need the cure.

Try to respond to what I write. I said "profit at any cost, regardless of impact". The profit motive is certainly desirable and impacts things positively. It's not the only thing, though, that is a motivator. Also, consider what I said: profit at any cost, regardless of the imact.

For business which exists to make money, profit is the only motivator that matters.
 
You may not suffer from it any longer, but that doesn't mean others won't still be afflicted and need the cure.

And once you are cured, you no longer need the medication. There is a difference between a cure and a treatment. Treatment is ongoing. Cure is done once.

For business which exists to make money, profit is the only motivator that matters.

Regardless of the impact. This is very short-sighted and libertarian. Things do not exist in a vaccum.
 
And once you are cured, you no longer need the medication. There is a difference between a cure and a treatment. Treatment is ongoing. Cure is done once.



Regardless of the impact. This is very short-sighted and libertarian. Things do not exist in a vaccum.

If people were really similar to what he described, it would be the strongest argument against libertarianism that one could make!
 
Pharmaceutical companies just like any other company exist to make profits. A cancer cure would put a huge dent in their profits.
better yet it would bankrupt many of these companies along with all it supporting institutions.
 
And once you are cured, you no longer need the medication. There is a difference between a cure and a treatment. Treatment is ongoing. Cure is done once.



Regardless of the impact. This is very short-sighted and libertarian. Things do not exist in a vaccum.

This supposed cure is does not create immunity and even if it did, there are people born everyday without such an immunity.

Not all cures are created equal.
 
This supposed cure is does not create immunity and even if it did, there are people born everyday without such an immunity.

Not all cures are created equal.
Good point.
 
This supposed cure is does not create immunity and even if it did, there are people born everyday without such an immunity.

Not all cures are created equal.

Shall we get into semantics about what "cure" means? If it cures cancer, that means once implimented, the individual no longer has cancer.
 
He was responding to a narrow comment about profit.

Profit is merely an word to describe part of the situation of the exchange of value.

When a person goes to get medical care, both parties profit, whether or not we want to admit this.
The medical business profits in monetary form and the sick person profits in better health.

It does not in any way prove that libertarianism is wrong, it's just the myopic view that people hold that they are victims of the market, rather than participants.
 
Shall we get into semantics about what "cure" means? If it cures cancer, that means once implimented, the individual no longer has cancer.

It depends on what type of cure it is.
That is very relevant.

This particular "cure" did not create immunity, it just allowed the immune system to defeat the cancer cells.
 
And once you are cured, you no longer need the medication.
You don't but others still will. We're talking about cure not prevention. You seem to be conflating the two.

There is a difference between a cure and a treatment. Treatment is ongoing. Cure is done once.
As I say, there's a difference between a drug that cures and one that prevents, although, even there people would still want the preventive, like the polio or smallpox vaccine.


Regardless of the impact. This is very short-sighted and libertarian. Things do not exist in a vaccum.
Well there are incentives built into the free market system for companies to come up with things people want, such as a cancer cure. At worst, the profit motive and companies are amoral. Any notions of morality one way or the other are artificially assigned. The true check on corporations is not to try to ascribe some sort of conscience to them, but rather the potential for competition.
 
Profit is merely an word to describe part of the situation of the exchange of value.

If you are going to alter the definition in THIS way, it changes the argument. We have been discussing monetary profits. Are you now discussing this alteration?

When a person goes to get medical care, both parties profit, whether or not we want to admit this.
The medical business profits in monetary form and the sick person profits in better health.

Hmmm... so, since the medical business profits, monetarily from the individual being sick and needing treatment, which would the medical business profit from more... a complete cure, or continuing treatment?

It does not in any way prove that libertarianism is wrong, it's just the myopic view that people hold that they are victims of the market, rather than participants.

People are victims of both... if we must use the word "victim".
 
It depends on what type of cure it is.
That is very relevant.

This particular "cure" did not create immunity, it just allowed the immune system to defeat the cancer cells.

I understand what you are saying, but we are still talking about a one shot treatment, rather than ongoing treament.
 
If people were really similar to what he described, it would be the strongest argument against libertarianism that one could make!

Wait, what? How have I described anyone (I assume you mean me)? Alls I've said is that profit is an excellent motivator. Does that seem somehow wrong to you?
 
You don't but others still will. We're talking about cure not prevention. You seem to be conflating the two.

No. You get cancer. You receive the cure. You no longer have cancer. As opposed to... you get cancer, you get treatment. You still have cancer. You get treatment. You still have cancer. You get treatment. See what I'm getting at?

As I say, there's a difference between a drug that cures and one that prevents, although, even there people would still want the preventive, like the polio or smallpox vaccine.

See above. I get the difference. What I am saying is that there are THREE levels, not two: vaccine, cure, and treatment. Currently, cancer is under the third category.


Well there are incentives built into the free market system for companies to come up with things people want, such as a cancer cure. At worst, the profit motive and companies are amoral. Any notions of morality one way or the other are artificially assigned. The true check on corporations is not to try to ascribe some sort of conscience to them, but rather the potential for competition.

Profit motives are amoral if they live in a vaccum and do not take into consideration the impact on larger issues. For example, it might maximize profit for a company to dump waste in a local river, rather than dumping it with the larger impact of the environment and the drinking water of the local population.
 
If you are going to alter the definition in THIS way, it changes the argument. We have been discussing monetary profits. Are you now discussing this alteration?

Profit should always be considered as such.
Speaking strictly in monetary terms when there are other forms of "profit" present is incredibly unfair and is only being used to slander my beliefs.

Hmmm... so, since the medical business profits, monetarily from the individual being sick and needing treatment, which would the medical business profit from more... a complete cure, or continuing treatment?

Continued treatment can earn a higher profit, but that doesn't mean that the cure won't be developed.
Because someone else will want to earn a profit from that.
We do not live in a 1 dimensional world, where only 1 person or corporation seeks to create treatments and cures.

There are a multitude of participants, each seeking their own profit.

People are victims of both... if we must use the word "victim".

People are participants of the market.
Sometimes they are victims, if there has been fraud or force, but that is largely not the case.
 
Profit should always be considered as such.
Speaking strictly in monetary terms when there are other forms of "profit" present is incredibly unfair and is only being used to slander my beliefs.

No, but this is how it is presented by far more dogmatic libertarians than you.



Continued treatment can earn a higher profit, but that doesn't mean that the cure won't be developed.
Because someone else will want to earn a profit from that.
We do not live in a 1 dimensional world, where only 1 person or corporation seeks to create treatments and cures.

There are a multitude of participants, each seeking their own profit.

There really isn't the need for treatments if you have a cure. These are two different types of medical procedures. If there is a medication that can cure my disease, why would I want to just treat it?

People are participants of the market.
Sometimes they are victims, if there has been fraud or force, but that is largely not the case.

I don't agree. The healthcare insurance industry is a good example. They create practices that maximize their profit, regardless of the impact that it has on their customers or society.
 
No, but this is how it is presented by far more dogmatic libertarians than you.

Those are step 1 libertarians, they will either move on to further steps or wash out.
More often than not, they wash out.


There really isn't the need for treatments if you have a cure. These are two different types of medical procedures. If there is a medication that can cure my disease, why would I want to just treat it?

Of course, the market power behind the treatment wouldn't be there.
The person making the cure would, unless it's a combination treatment and cure.

I don't agree. The healthcare insurance industry is a good example. They create practices that maximize their profit, regardless of the impact that it has on their customers or society.

That's largely because we've removed the price at point of service, in my opinion.
Instead of insurance administrators fuddling what to cover, we need individuals making those value judgments for themselves.

Insurance needs to take somewhat of a back seat to people and their wallets.
 
No. You get cancer. You receive the cure. You no longer have cancer. As opposed to... you get cancer, you get treatment. You still have cancer. You get treatment. You still have cancer. You get treatment. See what I'm getting at?
Then I have a question for you, CC. When doctors find a cancerous tumor, why do they seek to remove the whole tumor (if possible) then often follow up with chemotherapy to try to eradicate any remaining cancer cells? If ongoing treatment has such a larger potential for profit, wouldn't it make more sense to leave a few cancer cells behind to assure the need for future treatment?



See above. I get the difference. What I am saying is that there are THREE levels, not two: vaccine, cure, and treatment. Currently, cancer is under the third category.
But there is huge profit potential in all three.



Profit motives are amoral if they live in a vaccum and do not take into consideration the impact on larger issues. For example, it might maximize profit for a company to dump waste in a local river, rather than dumping it with the larger impact of the environment and the drinking water of the local population.

Hummmmm, ok, good point.
 
Those are step 1 libertarians, they will either move on to further steps or wash out.
More often than not, they wash out.

Agreed. They tend to be both the most dogmatic and short-sighted of the libertarians.

Of course, the market power behind the treatment wouldn't be there.
The person making the cure would, unless it's a combination treatment and cure.

Like I've been saying though, with a cure, treatment would no longer be necessary.
That's largely because we've removed the price at point of service, in my opinion.
Instead of insurance administrators fuddling what to cover, we need individuals making those value judgments for themselves.

Insurance needs to take somewhat of a back seat to people and their wallets.

I partially agree, however, I also think that the insurance companies need far more regulation to prevent the kinds of abuses going on. We are not just talking about profit... which I have no problem with. We are talking about profit at the expense of harming society as a whole.
 
Back
Top Bottom