3 ms·
The parent's getting downvoted to oblivion, but I dare say the argument makes sense. In the long run, more lives will be saved if there's a greater economic in
by asdfologist 11y ago
The parent's getting downvoted to oblivion, but I dare say the argument makes sense. In the long run, more lives will be saved if there's a greater economic incentive for entrepreneurs to make new and better drugs.
Or to put it another way - the government can instantly save many lives in the short run by forcing all drug companies and hospitals to make all their products and services $1 each, but this would have disastrous consequences in the long run, as every single one of those companies would quickly exit the market.
- refurb 11y agoThere may be a better system, but I haven't seen it. Look at some of the new cancer companies (CAR-T technology). These companies are raising hundreds of millions of dollars in Series A. Why? Because investors think they'll be a handsome return on the other end.
- tuna-piano 11y agoYep, exactly. When the entire economy is market-based, if you lower profit incentives in one industry, capital/talent/resources will simply flow into other industries. Maybe we should cap doctors pay at $15 an hour too. But I suspect when you are on the operating table, you want to pay top dollar for the person about to cut you open.