Quote:It's only different because you say it is. In every case it's a matter of an owner and his rights to his property.

Except when the life of another human being is involved. I'm not saying give the drug away to people who can afford it, but I am saying that there should be aid for those who can't afford the pill themselves. No one should have to die because they can't afford life-saving medication.

 

A second point of note: this pill can obviously be produced for a few dollars per, at most, given its previous price. One could argue that if the new owner were to arbitrarily raise the price and someone who had been on the pill died because they couldn't afford to continue treatment, the new owner had committed manslaughter.

 

Quote:Who's talking about criticism? We're talking about government mandated price controls. Criticize all you want.


And medicine and medical knowledge are a commodity, just like everything else. That it is essential only serves to make it more valuable. If you dont like it then go to medical school yourself or invent your own life saving drugs. That used to be the American way, now we just cry and make the government give us what we want like we're all 2 year olds.

If this were about cars or boats or houses or even food, we'd be in total agreement. The line for me is drawn when someone is dying, there's a pill out there that can save their life, and the pharmaceutical company charges $10k for a pill that costs them $0.10 to produce without offering any assistance or alternative to those who will die without it.

---