Also, I don't think most people actually sit in a doctor's waiting room anymore for a flu vaccine, they only get it at the doctor's office if they are already to see the doctor for some other reason. It's way too expensive for your health care provider to schedule an appointment just to get a flu shot. People get it at a drugstore, grocery store, etc, or at a flu shot clinic. If they wait in line, they are waiting in line with a bunch of other people who are there just to get a flu shot, not people who are already sick.
(the discussion about how it is far more profitable to treat as opposed to cure asthma is something for another time)
I think a cure for asthma would be a goldmine, especially compared to a new treatment. Imagine a best case scenario "take a pill, your asthma is cured, works for pretty much all patients" drug, then look at the numbers:
Market: 25 million+ asthmatics in the USA. A new treatment would have to compete against all of the existing treatments. A cure would own the market, full stop. It would displace pretty much all of the brand and generic treatments. Insurance companies would have to cover it. Medicare/medicaid would have to cover it. Pretty much everyone with decent insurance would end up on your cure.
Costs: R&D costs
Price: Treatment: set by the cost of competing treatments. Cure: list price, $30k a pop in the USA, easy. Actual average price would end up being more like $15k after various discounts.
Revenue stream: This is the biggest advantage of a cure. With a treatment, you have to wait for your profit from each patient: money comes in dribs and drabs from each patient over a decade, and you never know when they might switch to another drug or just stop taking asthma drugs. For a cure, you get all of your money from each patient up front on day one. A dollar earned by the cure is worth about two dollars earned by the treatment, because you get that dollar much sooner and with much less risk. Really. By the time a competitor comes out with a "me too" asthma cure, you've already cured most of the existing asthmatics ($15k x 15M patients = $225 billion dollars, spread over ~4 years), so you will only be competing for new cases.
I'd be fine with refusing the company the patent protection on an obvious follow-up product.
What if the new formulation is clearly better for some or most patients? Even when several drugs all have the same active ingredient, different formulations can change side effects drastically. Ditto for when the "me too" drug contains an active ingredient that is slightly different from the original.
So it is ok to keep forcing them to make the product if it was not making them money?
If a sudden stop would lead to a drug shortage and huge price spike, sure. Generic companies manipulate the price of drugs (think 1000% price hikes, if you can get the drug at all) this way. It works because it would take a drug manufacturing plant months and millions of dollars to become approved to make a given drug, and that assumes the plant wouldn't need several months and millions of dollars of retooling to even make the drug at scale.
A bus can only be in one spot.
A car goes on your schedule, not the other way around. Which is why driverless cars will win.
I'm not too worried about traffic.
Now there's a contradiction. A car certainly starts on your schedule, but after that your schedule is determined by traffic. And places with heavy traffic would probably see driverless buses long before places with nice suburban 5mph over the speed limit the whole way commutes. Then there are costs:
The problem with busses is that anybody of means doesn't like taking them. Too many other people's stops and what not.
Look around you: That's actually not that big a problem, since it describes a small and shrinking percentage of the population (in the US, at least). Most people won't be able to afford a driverless car until quite a while after they are introduced. Ditto for driverless-Uber single passenger type services: too expensive for the daily commute. Most people will be choosing between sitting in traffic playing games on their smart device in a public or private multi-passenger vehicle, or driving their own car and not playing games on their smart device. Really the big problem with buses (driverless or no) is that it's hard for local movers and shakers to get rich off of them. They are purchased from another state/country, there aren't many big construction projects involved, and most of the money goes to labor and admin. I.e., city employees that probably won't even vote for the movers'/shakers' pet politicians, let alone give them kickbacks. Compare that to a subway or light rail: HUGE sums of cash going to local consultants/real estate interests, HUGE sums of cash going to the construction companies that "win" the bid, HUGE sums of cash going to the investment bankers that write and sell the bonds, etc. Rich people using them is pretty much irrelevant at that point.
The transition I see happening first is fewer families having multiple cars. Partial conversions, if you will.
Step one: propose bonds that would pay for last mile fiber networks, with rollout decided primarily by neighborhood population density.
Step two: ?
Step three: Money goes to municipalities which in turn put network installation and management projects up for bid. Municipalities choose to provide service as a utillity or allow private ISPs to compete to sell broadband services.