4 ms·
It's disheartening, but I think the logic in your first example is that the manufacturer did not give the consumer a choice; in the second, the consumer can cho
by arbitrage 11y ago
It's disheartening, but I think the logic in your first example is that the manufacturer did not give the consumer a choice; in the second, the consumer can choose not to pay, and die instead.
It's a horrid way to think about it, and it's a horrid ethical system that gets developed when it all comes down to money.
- ck2 11y agoOh manufacturer has a choice too. Make a reasonable profit and live an extremely comfortable life, or make an obscene profit, put people's very lives in danger, and risk a long prison sentence. The problem there is ZERO risk for them to make a pill $750, let's give them a little motivation to do the right thing. I mean why not even $75, why go directly to $750? Because insurance, that's why. What about people in the medicaid-gap who cannot get insurance in this country? There are millions of people who cannot get insurance in the USA to this very day.
- masteryupa_ 11y agoWouldn't that presume that the cause of the person's death came as a result of something that the person in question was responsible for rather than a disease or other invasive medical condition? I could foresee your argument remaining viable in the case of someone refusing to drink tap water, dying and subsequently attempting to sue the state for maladministration perhaps but if the cause of their death was not directly correlated to their own actions (rather than the actions of another party that had ramifications) then I don't think they would be liable.