• TheMurphy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1526 months ago

    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.

    • @grayman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      326 months ago

      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.

      • TheMurphy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        266 months ago

        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.

        • @grayman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -46 months ago

          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.

          • TheMurphy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            96 months ago

            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.

    • littleblue✨
      link
      fedilink
      English
      126 months ago

      Plus you can send a healthy individual back to their families and into society work again.

      This is how the US will use this.

    • @1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      United States are in the same group as China, Yemen and Syria on this one.

    • @DeuxChevaux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -226 months ago

      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.

      • @kameecoding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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…

      • TheMurphy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        146 months ago

        Worst take on Lemmy in 2024, already calling it now.

      • @Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        They’ll have to fight the shareholders of the health insurance industry, who don’t want to pay for a long-term condition

      • @GardeningSadhu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -36 months ago

        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.

          • @GardeningSadhu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -46 months ago

            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.

        • @Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          English
          16 months ago

          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.

          • @GardeningSadhu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            06 months ago

            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.

          • @GardeningSadhu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            06 months ago

            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.

            • @Welt@lazysoci.al
              link
              fedilink
              English
              26 months ago

              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.

          • @GardeningSadhu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            06 months ago

            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.