[antasvara]

>I didn't buy the premise of the movie that only that rich would be able to use them. Given they were robots, governments, hospitals, could and would make them readily available since ultimately it would massively lower their medical costs.

Given Big Pharma's current ability to get lots and lots of money for vital medicine, I'm not optimistic they'd price a theoretical medical machine low enough for a government to afford.

Plus, if overpopulation is a concern, a wealthy person wouldn't necessarily want the machine to get into the hands of everyone. Given that the creator of this machine would become very wealthy, the incentives would probably lean towards offering it to a select group.

[amanaplanacanal]

Big pharma usually only gets big money until the patents run out. Today's expensive treatment is relatively cheap a generation from now.

I realize that sometimes there are situations where this doesn't hold.

[stickfigure]

Nearly every edifice of modern society relies on the tacit consent of other people. Pharma needs patent laws and a whole market economy to function.

"One wealthy person controls everyone with robots" basically ends up with one wealthy person alone with some robots.

[antasvara]

>Pharma needs patent laws and a whole market economy to function.

I agree in general with this sentiment. However, I think that "medical robot that can cure anything" isn't something you'd patent (as you'd have to make some of the details public). I imagine you'd keep it as a trade secret and only license the machine for use by your own technicians or something along those lines.

I do think that the key assumptions for this scenario are that companies become as powerful (if not more powerful) than countries, and the incentives change such that withholding medical care is beneficial to the wealthy.

Do I think this is the most likely outcome? No. But I think that current countries with partially starving populations are a "worst-case" scenario for what a society dealing with scarcity looks like.