←back to thread

275 points swores | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.227s | source
Show context
FredPret ◴[] No.40173118[source]
Drugs may be overpriced.

There is probably some bloat in drug development. But then again, maybe not. I'm not an expert.

What I do know is that drugs have gotten dramatically better in the short amount of time I've been alive.

The other thing we all know is that the source of this article, The Guardian and their friends, have a shitlist of industries and institutions it loves to hate.

Ask yourself: will they ever write a positive article about a defense contractor, a bank, big pharma, a US billionaire, or a landlord, even if said entity walks on water and then saves a million babies and the penguins and the world?

replies(4): >>40173169 #>>40173184 #>>40173519 #>>40173529 #
pfdietz ◴[] No.40173169[source]
People who don't like prices of new drugs are free to not use those drugs.

They want to have the benefits of the existence of drugs without paying the cost of discovering the drugs and bringing them to market. It's pernicious entitlement, made more outrageous by complaining about the greed of those actually providing the new drugs.

replies(7): >>40173225 #>>40173317 #>>40173336 #>>40173338 #>>40173448 #>>40173531 #>>40173599 #
notaustinpowers ◴[] No.40173599[source]
I hope you never become a diabetic when you get older!

An old coworker of mine dropped dead on her lunch break because her insulin was unusable when it got too warm during shipment. Her insurance said they would not pay for another month's doses until the next month and she'd have to pay $2,000 out of pocket. Which isn't the kind of money a poor girl from the middle of nowhere South Carolina has.

And now she's dead...because she was $800 short of raising that money from a GoFundMe...

But I sure am happy that her insurance company beat their quarterly earnings estimates!

replies(1): >>40174120 #
FredPret ◴[] No.40174120[source]
That's fucked-up and I'm sorry that happened.

Clearly things could be much better.

But that doesn't mean the system as a whole isn't a huge net positive.

The right approach is tweaking, not destroying.

replies(1): >>40174241 #
notaustinpowers ◴[] No.40174241[source]
IDK about your philosophy, but any death that is 100% unavoidable invalidates the entire system of business that has been built.

Nothing in this world is above a life. Not money, not profit, not a quarterly bonus. Zilch, nada, zero.

I'm biased, obviously, but by principle, I refuse to accept a system that accepts avoidable deaths as a "necessary" consequence of their business model.

replies(3): >>40174341 #>>40174415 #>>40176733 #
1. FredPret ◴[] No.40174341[source]
Yes but when you talk about system-wide decisions, it's not really clear which one will save the most lives.

If drug companies are made to sell drug x cheaper, maybe they end up charging more for drug y, or now they can no longer afford to invent drug z.

So we can look at someone dying for lack of $800 and say that's clearly a big mistake, but it's not clear what trade-offs and adjustments would make the system solve this problem without also making even worse mistakes elsewhere.

To measure our system, the best you can probably do is population-wide stats, like life expectancy, infant mortality, maybe average height (healthier populations being taller). On those metrics, we're making tremendous progress.