Hacker News Reader

Comment by conanbatt | Hacker News Reader

I think there are two contradictory conditions in this. The reality is that just because it saves lives doesn't mean it should be free. The US is the only country in the world that spends a billion dollars to develop a drug for a disease that helps 1000 people. It is kind of amazing, but ultimately economically terrible: half a billion can save a lot more than 1000.

We have to bear the cost of accepting that lives are not worth infinite, and that its not okay to spend irrationally to save one.

That said, the US has deep issues in its pharma, like extreme regulatory restrictions and importation restrictions that can be tear down overnight and would drop drug prices to the floor very quickly.

View on HN

>> I think there are two contradictory conditions in this. The reality is that just because it saves lives doesn't mean it should be free.

If the economy can't support peoples' lives, what's the point of having an economy in the first place? Is it just so a very few people can accumulate most of the available wealth and leave everyone else unable to access vital goods and services?

There arent infinite resources, the whole point is how to manage them. The US has millions of malnourished kids, Something that can be solved with a lot less resources than obscure diseases that will affect only a handful.

That said, let the billionaires spend their money on such cures if they wish (and they do). If we talk about what is the role of government in spending money to save lives, expensive pharma isnt one of them.

Imagine we could choose between living miserably and never progress, or let one person die one hour earlier than they normally would and the rest would live immortally and thrive in luxury forever. I think most people would pick the latter.

Now, we're in a situation similar to this, although much much less extreme. But the point is, trade-offs exist. And this is one of them.

The current economic situation is a lot closer to "what if one person could live immortally in luxury, at the cost of everyone else dying an hour earlier than they normally would".

What. How did you come to this estimation?

An economy isn't something you choose to have or not have. It arises naturally as a matter of fact. Our legislation and rules and laws that govern it are a consequence of its existence, not its cause.

It's a feedback cycle, not a one-way arrow.

> what's the point of having an economy in the first place?

Ask yourself who established the rules for our economy and who stands to benefit from them. If you ask them, things are working just as they are meant to.

Our country owes its roots to a wealthy, merchant class uprising. The system they setup benefited people like themselves.

> We have to bear the cost of accepting that lives are not worth infinite, and that its not okay to spend irrationally to save one.

This is a key point and one I see a lot of people lose track of in these debates. Nobody is entitled to have millions and millions spent on keeping them alive, and this is one of the key moral hazards of public healthcare (though one we mostly bear the cost of already with Medicare).

"Nobody is entitled to have millions and millions spent on keeping them alive..."

I agree. The F35 cost has gotten way out of hand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com