←back to thread

249 points randycupertino | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
stego-tech ◴[] No.45949690[source]
I feel kinda bad for the writer, because it's a good question: no, curing patients is not a good business model, just like public transit is not a good business model.

What a lot of folks neglect are N+1-order effects, because those are harder to quantify and fail to reach the predetermined decision some executive or board or shareholder has already made. Is curing patients a bad business model? Sure, for the biotech company it is, but those cured patients are far more likely to go on living longer, healthier lives, and in turn contribute additional value to society - which will impact others in ways that may also create additional value. That doesn't even get into the jobs and value created through the R&D process, testing, manufacturing, logistics of delivery, ongoing monitoring, etc. As long as the value created is more than the cost of the treatment, then it's a net-gain for the economy even if it's a net loss for that singular business.

If all you're judging is the first-order impacts on a single business, you're missing the forest for the trees.

replies(21): >>45949742 #>>45949753 #>>45949762 #>>45949770 #>>45949870 #>>45949906 #>>45950012 #>>45950170 #>>45950199 #>>45950225 #>>45950250 #>>45950263 #>>45950419 #>>45950655 #>>45950858 #>>45950892 #>>45950987 #>>45951787 #>>45952894 #>>45952915 #>>45955069 #
1. BurningFrog ◴[] No.45950987[source]
> those cured patients are far more likely to go on living longer, healthier lives, and in turn contribute additional value to society

That's not true for diseases that hit those at or near retirement, which is probably most of them. They are mostly drawing pensions without contributing much economically.

Note 1: This is just stating economic facts, not advocating any ghoulish policy. Note 2: I expect that Note 1 will be ignored.