This kind of thing is why it bothers me when people complain about “free market medicine”.
A market where only one entity is allowed to build MRI machines, or license the tech to others to build, is not a free market. That’s a government-enforced monopoly.
Even the fact that a patient can’t just go get their own MRI at Scans-R-Us, but needs to get a doctor’s referral first, is a huge departure from what an actually free market for medicine would look like.
It’s an evolving technology. We get new patents with every iteration.
A market where only one entity is allowed to build MRI machines, or license the tech to others to build, is not a free market.
If you spend a few years in Business School getting your MBA, you get an earful about how and why patent law exists. The core argument is that private investment is predicated on returns and we can’t have nice things unless we have men with guns come for the property and freedom of anyone who “steals an idea”.
But more practically, this shit is just a racket. Lots of lobbyist money changes hands to make sure the decks at the casino are properly stacked. Medical treatment is just another opportunity to apply leverage through debt to control other people.
I understand the value of a patent system, but patents should expire.
Is there some reason why previous-generation technology, like the tech being used for MRIs in the 90s, can’t be used to manufacture more competitively-priced machines?
Like, is there a law specifying that the new technology must be used for an MRI to be usable as a diagnostic tool?
Shouldn’t that patent have expired by now?
This kind of thing is why it bothers me when people complain about “free market medicine”.
A market where only one entity is allowed to build MRI machines, or license the tech to others to build, is not a free market. That’s a government-enforced monopoly.
Even the fact that a patient can’t just go get their own MRI at Scans-R-Us, but needs to get a doctor’s referral first, is a huge departure from what an actually free market for medicine would look like.
It’s an evolving technology. We get new patents with every iteration.
If you spend a few years in Business School getting your MBA, you get an earful about how and why patent law exists. The core argument is that private investment is predicated on returns and we can’t have nice things unless we have men with guns come for the property and freedom of anyone who “steals an idea”.
But more practically, this shit is just a racket. Lots of lobbyist money changes hands to make sure the decks at the casino are properly stacked. Medical treatment is just another opportunity to apply leverage through debt to control other people.
I understand the value of a patent system, but patents should expire.
Is there some reason why previous-generation technology, like the tech being used for MRIs in the 90s, can’t be used to manufacture more competitively-priced machines?
Like, is there a law specifying that the new technology must be used for an MRI to be usable as a diagnostic tool?