• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    35 months ago

    The arguments I hear most around this kind of stuff is something along the lines of, “the innovators have a right to charge however much the market will bear” and, “if we take away the incentive to innovate, these drugs will not exist.”

    My thoughts against these lines is that patents cause monopolies, so they are not “free markets,” and there would still be an incentive to innovate because of things like the first-mover advantage, and that reducing costs is also a form of innovation.

    My thoughts against “punishment” arguments, are that punishment just for punishment’s sake is cruel, useless, and often counter-productive. I don’t think people have as much agency as we’d like to think. In the case of type-2 diabetes, insulin is part of the rehabilitation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25 months ago

      I’m sure we could go deep into rehab and how it’s a net-good for society, but given your comments so far, I feel it would be a lot like preaching to the choir.

      Rehab in all forms is good, whether physical rehabilitation, mental, or medical/drug related.

      More healthy people in society means a more productive society. Period. Charging people out the ass to simply live and exist without constant discomfort is detrimental to the productivity of our society at large. Rehab is one tool to help society obtain and maintain a high level of productivity continually.

      There’s obviously more to the discussion of productivity but it kind of falls outside the context of the discussion.

    • @guacupado
      link
      15 months ago

      “the innovators have a right to charge however much the market will bear”

      ie “it hasn’t affected me negatively yet so I don’t care.”