Quite possible the largest alternative health scam ever.

[Montmorency]

And the "logic" that making people healthier was part of the dream when the NHS started that after the initial high costs, things would get cheaper as people became more healthy. Clearly that didn't happen - and is one of the reasons why most countries run massive current account debts as costs for retired people are balooning as the longer they live the more they cost - and we can pay more for them to live longer.

In fact, people have become healthier. It's one of the reasons they're living longer. Long enough to incur complementary chronic health issues. But that hardly means the enterprise of modern healthcare has failed - quite the opposite, in fact.

Some drugs and treatments are more important than others. For instance, if corporations are unwilling to develop new antibiotics due to the expense, then they should step aside and abdicate all responsibility for development of antibiotics in particular to states. They can continue on with their lesser product lines as previously.

[rory_20_uk]

States do.

And so Uni's do. If we give it to them and tell them how to spend it.

But they haven't. Nothing stopping them. Companies do create these things. If govenments / universities can do it better - then they are completely able to do so.

In fact, people have become healthier. It's one of the reasons they're living longer. Long enough to incur complementary chronic health issues. But that hardly means the enterprise of modern healthcare has failed - quite the opposite, in fact.

Some drugs and treatments are more important than others. For instance, if corporations are unwilling to develop new antibiotics due to the expense, then they should step aside and abdicate all responsibility for development of antibiotics in particular to states. They can continue on with their lesser product lines as previously.

People live longer and don't die wich chronic diseases. I never said that this is a failing of modern healthcare - but the fact is it costs a lot more and money is not infinite. There is unlikely to be a point where the costs are lower as almost everything that is found is to alleviate things to do with chronic disease - not cure.

Ok, several points to clarify here:

1) Companies have developed many antibiotics - but they don't get licenses since the standard is they have to work better than existing ones rather than providing an alternative. There are many, many antibiotics such as this. The failing is therefore that of the FDA / EMA not companies. This goes for both classes of antibiotics as well as new antibiotics in classes.
2) Countries are more than able to develop them as well - but they haven't
3) Lesser priorities... oh, such as dementia, diabetes, asthma cancer and so on...
4) No company has the responsibility to create any particular product since they receive no grants to do so.

In short - you want more antibiotics then alter the process to enable entibiotics to be lisenced with warnings in sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 as appropriate. Many would rarely be used unless new resistances appear. But sadly State regulatory bodies don't appear to have this foresight.

[HoreTore]

But they haven't. Nothing stopping them. Companies do create these things. If govenments / universities can do it better - then they are completely able to do so.

Indeed, and that's what I want them to do. No need to stop the existing pharmaceutical companies though, if they can survive with government competition it's fine by me. But pour some tax dollars into development of everything deemed "basic necessities" and finance it in a way most beneficial to society(whether that's free or not).

If pharmaceutical companies can survive the competition with government companies giving their drugs away for free - great!

[Beskar]

1) Companies have developed many antibiotics - but they don't get licenses since the standard is they have to work better than existing ones rather than providing an alternative. There are many, many antibiotics such as this. The failing is therefore that of the FDA / EMA not companies. This goes for both classes of antibiotics as well as new antibiotics in classes.

That is an interesting truth.

[Husar]

There is unlikely to be a point where the costs are lower as almost everything that is found is to alleviate things to do with chronic disease - not cure.

That is where you have to look for the conspiracy!!!!1111

As for the antibiotics, don't we already have bacteria that are resistant to most/all of our antibiotics?

[rory_20_uk]

That is where you have to look for the conspiracy!!!!1111

As for the antibiotics, don't we already have bacteria that are resistant to most/all of our antibiotics?

The whole vaccine market would rather point to there being no conspiracy; and recently there has been several new cures for Hep C released - cures are much harder and have taken longer.

Yes, there are bacteria resistant to most currently used antibiotics - which is why having different ones even with a poorer safety profile would be a good thing for those cases where resistance is present to usual ones - I'd not want Vancomycin if Methicillin works but I'll have it if resistance is present as I'd rather damaged kidneys than be dead (televancin was available and is better but is no longer in the UK as it is unprofitable).

Although resistance can be to classes of antibiotics, the wider the antibioitic classes used the less likely bacteria will be resistant to all of them.

Bacteria that have resistance are generally less virulent since they have multiple DNA plasmids to encode for all the protiens required. This slows down the rate of division, and so generally require a weakened immune system to do well.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Didn't you guys hear? We are all dead from Ebola in 18 months anyway.