Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

What we have learned over the last 25 years is the traditional laissez faire model has failed us when it comes to antibiotics.

I disagree.

Think of it this way. If it were truly laissez faire, then drug makers would charge a price high enough to still make it worthwhile. Unfortunately, the way antibiotics are paid for in US hospitals, the hospitals would lose money each time they used the drug.

Hell, we pay ~$80K to cure hepatitis C (millions have it in the US). If you have an antibiotic that cures a highly resistant infection that happens maybe a few hundred times in the US, why not charge something similar? What is the benefit to society to save someone's life?

View on HN

> If you have an antibiotic that cures a highly resistant infection that happens maybe a few hundred times in the US, why not charge something similar?

Because a few hundred times 80k is still not much. And even so, many people still can't afford it.

If you can't provide enough value to society that you can spare a few tens of thousands of dollars to cure yourself, are you really worth the cost of developing these drugs, testing them, training doctors, etc.?

All of this over-regulation is why medicine is declining in the first place. That shouldn't justify more regulation.

That easily makes the top 3 list of most sociopathic things I've read all month, and between mass shootings and debates about refugees it's been a banner month for sociopaths on Facebook. Did you intend to measure the value of a human life in terms of enhancing shareholder value or is this just poorly worded?

Some people are only able to reason about things they can measure.

Let's ignore profit for a minute. These drugs still cost money to discover and produce. Who pays for it?

We put a price on human life all the time, not just for drugs.

Agreed and I find this utterly appalling. For me this is a damning indictment of capitalism and a clear indicator that there has to be a better way to handle task prioritization and resource allocation in a modern society.

Is there any system where you can avoid it? Even in a command economy system trade offs have to be made. If you have resources X to spend, you need to figure out what to spend it on. That means you're putting a dollar figure on a human life. I don't see how it could be avoided.

I don't claim to have answers and would definitely support experimentation in this arena. Political systems are certainly ripe for disruption.

The point of providing value to society in the first place is so that people can experience the benefit of it.

> If you can't extract enough value from society so that you can spare a few tens of thousands of dollars to cure yourself

Fixed. I also generally feel casual disregard towards human life and suffering as long as the human in question is not me, but lets call things with their real names.

With a price of drug per year being twice the average income in the richest country in the world - that creates impossible situation by definition for half of its populace.

Also value provided is not always correlated with value extracted - a janitor for a modest fee keeps my house clean. A hedge fund manager ruins the global economy just when I must enter my prime growing years in earnings and make sure I am at a disadvantage at both the cohort before and after me.

Which of those two lives is more valuable to me?

"With a price of drug per year being twice the average income in the richest country in the world - that creates impossible situation by definition for half of its populace."

Even worse. There are a few gigantic outliers at the upper end of the scale. That means that the number of people below average income will be >50%. What you want to check against in such cases is the median (50:50 split by definition).

"Also value provided is not always correlated with value extracted"

That is exactly one of the main problems society is struggling with. How do we even measure value provided? It's a subjective measure to begin with. In the case of the hedge funds manager, it's probably net-negative for most people (but I'm sure her friends would disagree).

Then again. True laissez fair would mean no patents. So I think its fair to assume that it would be radically different in which actors are involved and in which constellations they collaborate. In such a system I wonder if "drug makers" would be able to charge much more than the production cost. Is first mover enough to cover RnD? I suspect not in which case "drug makers" would probably not be "drug inventors"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com