What if these companies did find a cure, and after running the numbers, determined it was less profitable? Wouldn't 'death by a thousand costs' be more profitable a one-time cure (or limited rounds)? Just because people would be willing to pay almost any amount does not mean they can pay almost any amount.
(Personally, I think they would release a cure if they could find one, but I have heard arguments as to why it would be less profitable, and I am curious about your opinions.
These companies are evil, but it's not entirely their faults. I think they are a manifestation of a sick society -- with each answer to our hopes and prayers the Monkey Paw curls.)
It might be less profitable if you view cancer treatment as MRR. Actuarial tables tell you that this MRR will certainly end unless you produce remission and so I'm not sure if that is a good reason for them to not release it as a single dose. Though, there's no reason they wouldn't divide the dose. Charge say 375,000 instead 200,000 for the treatment using 3 doses instead of 1. But then the question is asked - why wouldn't they just release the treatment at 375,000 then?
What if these companies did find a cure, and after running the numbers, determined it was less profitable? Wouldn't 'death by a thousand costs' be more profitable a one-time cure (or limited rounds)? Just because people would be willing to pay almost any amount does not mean they can pay almost any amount.
(Personally, I think they would release a cure if they could find one, but I have heard arguments as to why it would be less profitable, and I am curious about your opinions.
These companies are evil, but it's not entirely their faults. I think they are a manifestation of a sick society -- with each answer to our hopes and prayers the Monkey Paw curls.)