3 ms·

Or... $11B was a terrible price to pay, and their desire to recoup their shitty investment still shouldn't be allowed to bankrupt people who just want to live.

Or... $11B was a terrible price to pay, and their desire to recoup their shitty investment still shouldn't be allowed to bankrupt people who just want to live. It's also incredibly obtuse to call $84k a "30% premium" on raising a child. There are so many people who don't (because they can't) spend close to $245k, more that can barely pull it off, and even more that shouldn't have pharma rates kept artificially inflated on their backs.

omegaham 10y ago
> and their desire to recoup their shitty investment still shouldn't be allowed to bankrupt people who just want to live. The natural response to that is, "Well, okay then - we won't be investing in lifesaving medication development because we'll have to deal with constant cries of 'You're bankrupting people who just want to live!'" We already see this with antibiotics. Now, boner pills, on the other hand - that's a smart investment. No one will complain if people can't afford boner pills.
MichaelGG 10y ago
Ultimately if we want companies to do research but not be able to charge prices, then the government should be involved. It's like the case with Turing pharma. Everyone's upset at him for buying a (very old) drug for a very rare condition and raising the prices. Yet... why was he able to buy the drug in the first place? Look there, don't blame the person that found a golden penny.
- discardorama 10y ago
  > then the government should be involved. The government is involved. Most of these drugs would not exist were it not for the NIH.
rayiner 10y ago
> It's also incredibly obtuse to call $84k a "30% premium" on raising a child. There are so many people who don't (because they can't) spend close to $245k[.] Lots of people can't afford gas at $4/gallon, and need to buy gas to get to work. But does that mean the fair price for gas is $2 or $1? Does that mean it's reprehensible to impose a carbon tax that would make gas even more unaffordable for poor people? And when oil was $4/gallon, oil companies were making money hand-over-first. Should we have forced those companies to sell oil at $2 instead? The answer to these questions is, of course, "no." Making oil artificially cheap would badly distort peoples' incentives, undermine economic efficiency, and harm the environment. Making sure that poor people can still get around is of course an important concern, but one we can solve through the appropriate welfare systems.

omegaham 10y ago

> and their desire to recoup their shitty investment still shouldn't be allowed to bankrupt people who just want to live. The natural response to that is, "Well, okay then - we won't be investing in lifesaving medication development because we'll have to deal with constant cries of 'You're bankrupting people who just want to live!'" We already see this with antibiotics. Now, boner pills, on the other hand - that's a smart investment. No one will complain if people can't afford boner pills.

MichaelGG 10y ago

Ultimately if we want companies to do research but not be able to charge prices, then the government should be involved. It's like the case with Turing pharma. Everyone's upset at him for buying a (very old) drug for a very rare condition and raising the prices. Yet... why was he able to buy the drug in the first place? Look there, don't blame the person that found a golden penny.

discardorama 10y ago
> then the government should be involved. The government is involved. Most of these drugs would not exist were it not for the NIH.

rayiner 10y ago

> It's also incredibly obtuse to call $84k a "30% premium" on raising a child. There are so many people who don't (because they can't) spend close to $245k[.] Lots of people can't afford gas at $4/gallon, and need to buy gas to get to work. But does that mean the fair price for gas is $2 or $1? Does that mean it's reprehensible to impose a carbon tax that would make gas even more unaffordable for poor people? And when oil was $4/gallon, oil companies were making money hand-over-first. Should we have forced those companies to sell oil at $2 instead? The answer to these questions is, of course, "no." Making oil artificially cheap would badly distort peoples' incentives, undermine economic efficiency, and harm the environment. Making sure that poor people can still get around is of course an important concern, but one we can solve through the appropriate welfare systems.