Think Out Loud Thread

Cancer is not large. Cancer is wide. You can't just setup one organization and say "cure cancer!" because there are so damned many types of cancer. A solution to one type of cancer doesn't necessarily track over to another.

Yes, there should be more funding, and something done to limit the health industry's profit on cures, but one centralized cancer-cure-institute (or whatever)? I just don't see it as helping.

I do. No reason why that singular institute couldn't handle research on all forms of cancer.
 
I do. No reason why that singular institute couldn't handle research on all forms of cancer.
I just see an issue with how specialized in so many areas it would have to be.
In general, the larger an organization gets while trying to specialize in multiple areas, the more you have to spend on bureaucracy to support the organization and get the different sections to talk to each other.
Why spend money on office workers when you're trying to cure cancer?
 
Cancer is not large. Cancer is wide. You can't just setup one organization and say "cure cancer!" because there are so damned many types of cancer. A solution to one type of cancer doesn't necessarily track over to another.

Yes, there should be more funding, and something done to limit the health industry's profit on cures, but one centralized cancer-cure-institute (or whatever)? I just don't see it as helping.

They should profit hugely on cures, and almost nothing on treatments. Then they would be motivated to cure shit instead of treating it for forty years.
 
I just see an issue with how specialized in so many areas it would have to be.
In general, the larger an organization gets while trying to specialize in multiple areas, the more you have to spend on bureaucracy to support the organization and get the different sections to talk to each other.
Why spend money on office workers when you're trying to cure cancer?

Bureaucracy is going to be there no matter what. Private or Public. Singular institute or divided.

Maybe it doesn't need to be a singe building or compound, but just a single group organized to get the people and resources needed to cure it.
 
fuck them. cures should be nationalized.

thats what NIH and CDC are for, but they dont have the funding they need. Where they have millions, the drug manufacturers have trillions, and non-societally beneficial motives (stretch illness on to prolong drug sales, rather than cures which would end the illness (and hence their income) )
 
thats what NIH and CDC are for, but they dont have the funding they need. Where they have millions, the drug manufacturers have trillions, and non-societally beneficial motives (stretch illness on to prolong drug sales, rather than cures which would end the illness (and hence their income) )

Thus why profit is bad in the medical industry. Thus why healthcare should be a public service.
 
Something as large as cancer needs a middleman to organize efforts for funding; it's not each individual hospital/university's job as it would become a clusterfuck because of how many private institutions are out there. Unless you are thinking of a different way?

I think you do get multiple hospitals/uni's collaborating as progress is made. They can seek each other out w/o a mass 'organization.'
 
Why is that?

Finishing the iconic Susan G. Komen 3-Day walk last year was so important to breast cancer survivor Geri Bertolino, she wouldn't let even a serious knee injury stop her. The 57-year-old Sarasota woman hobbled across the finish line on crutches, joining the 1,300 walkers who completed the 60-mile trek to raise breast cancer funds and awareness.
Tuesday, she learned that the 3-Day, a fixture on the charity scene, is pulling out of Tampa Bay and six other U.S. cities in 2014, a victim of dwindling participation and funds.
 
I've read many times that a clue to how phoney an organization is to look at how huge they are. Spending a lot on marketing is one clue.

I wish that more people organized fundraisers on their own for ONE, but to then have a clue of where to actually throw that money to, is frustrating. Too bad we are so clueless as to where the money actually CAN go to be used in the most honest way. But those danged, huge ass organizations are always well known.

Kinda cutting out the middleman (huge, potentially false, organizations).
 
There are some large organizations that do lots of good though. You can't judge just based on that. Most NPOs will publish their annual financials and you can peruse them and judge for yourself. That being said, Susan G Komen is evil in so many ways.
 
If i'm going to do something for charity, I'll do it myself. I can't stand the idea of a charity CEO earning so god damn much.