Powered By
Don't know how to edit the title of the question.
NOT uncut able. Read, un cureable.
Give me time n I'll figure out which questions are pertinent to ask.
If there is no incentive to cure your ailment. If treatment for symptoms of the disease is free. Why would you want to pay to fund research for a cure of the disease. Alternatively, if you have to pay for treatment, you would definitely fund research for a cure, not just treatment.
Look at history. When it is more costly to focus on a cure versus the treatment of a disease it is sent to the back burner. While there are those that Do keep trying they are oft buried under bureaucracy and other bs.
I don't know if that sounded logical, I'm just gonna stop while I'm ahead asking these sane questions...
If your government has to pay. It would be cheaper for them to keep on just buying you ointment for that rash insted of paying 10 times as much to cure you.
Just because, hey, you might get hit by a car tomorrow and the government would've spent all that money on nothing.
Join
Your Privacy Choices
