Life-saving pill hep-c costs $1 to make

>life-saving pill hep-c costs $1 to make
>company charged $1000 for it
>this is somehow justifiable

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=i5MGZvsDx1k
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

They did have to research it and test it but yea, it's a fucking rip off.

Demand my friend, demand. A driving factor in prices everywhere.

It's why those pieces of foam with holes in them people were wearing a few years back because every mouth breathing moron wanted bright colours on their feet sold for like 10-20$ a pop. Crocs or whatever the fuck they were called. Now no one likes them and you can't even give that shit away.

The difference is this medication is a 'need' in many cases, so the demand is more than a "oo that's nice" it's more like "nigga i'm going to die without that! gimmy!" So they can jack up the price, because people WILL pay for it.

Is it a perfect system? Nah, not at all. Should companies have 100% freedom to charge whatever they want on nessecities? I don't think so, I believe mobs of people should be able to barter prices down more efficiently, the thing is if 1000 people sign some meme petition to get the price down to 1$, and three people just say "Fuck it" and buy a pill each, that's 3000$ for the company verses a measely 1000$ by pleasing 1000 people. Why would they ever drop the price?

>this is somehow justifiable
Capitalism. /thread

make it yourself if you think the price's unfair

Manufacturing costs are a very small part of the total costs. The regulatory costs and R&D costs are enormous and it's often a high risk venture so the cost of capital is quite high (there are usually only a small number of successful drugs that have to pay for all the failed drugs and give a good enough return on capital).

If you want lower costs you should lower the amount of regulations.

This is a libtarded thread.

Ron paul has said all that needs to be said on this subject.

They made it, good for them. They should make a profit off of it. They shouldn't be allowed to charge whatever they want for something that diseased people NEED to live, especially when they essentially have a monopoly on it (most of these drugs are patented).

>lower regulations and let a bunch of retards release poorly-tested drugs to the public
brilliant

link?

cant.
patents are bought up by the companies.

all that retarded shit you wrote and not one mention of patents

The problem with pharmaceuticals is that it's that demand for them is very inelastic. I don't see any reason why most pharma research shouldn't be publically sponsored and owned. Everyone but a few crooks would be better off this way. Just like most basic education and roadworking is done by the state, it is important that pharma research and patents belong in the public domain. Inb4 some of you fags calls me a commie.

Problem with the FDA is that the incentives are all fucked up. The free market can do it better and cheaper.

youtube.com/watch?v=i5MGZvsDx1k

its justifiable because he's a trump supporter
/thread

I'd rather live in a capitalist society where drugs cost $1000/pill than live in a socialist one with no medicine

Yeah it costs $1 to produce but how much went into R&D?

At least $4 billion to get it through trials, plus god knows how much money fucking it up until they got the formula right.

you wont get the medicine and only the people above your social caste will have access to them either way

Shut up user don't bring logic into a feels fight

patent is lame excuse, you can always make it differently, no need to follow same path in making it

BUT MUH 1 DOLLA COSTS BIG PHARMA IS A HOAX
t. nigger-tier burgers

Can we stop pretending like human life is something that needs to be saved at all cost?
We are all interchangeable and replaceable and it's arguably cheaper to produce new ones than keep the broken ones going.

>spend $999.01 learning how to make Thing for 99c
>sell 99c Thing for $1000
>turboNEET complains

End snowflakism NAO

If you don't have competition you can set the price as high as you want

its not just the r+d expense for that drug
its also the r+d expense for the other 99 drugs they tried first that didn't work or had side effects so bad they couldn't pass clinical trials
somebody's gotta pay for it or the company goes out of business and nobody gets any medicine
and then they have to turn a profit so that the people who did all that r+d can eat and pay their mortgage
and they have to compensate stockholders for taking the fucking huge financial risk of investing in r+d with such a high failure rate, or else the research never gets funded
i mean yeah they could probably sell it cheaper but that would mean that they stop coming out with new medicines and a bunch of people lose their jobs

>he really thinks $1000/pill is the bare minimum they can charge to break even
youre a fucking monkey and a clown

Monopoly on the trademark and capitalism.
If trademarks weren't so fucking retarded with medicines, we wouldn't (I would think) have expensive healthcare because people wouldn't stand for this bullshit.

>Now no one likes them and you can't even give that shit away.
I'm pretty sure Deadpool would have spiked the market for a couple weeks.

>trademark
Patent*. Forgot the word there for a few minutes.

Did it cost $1 to develop? No so fuck off

Read Bad Pharma, he talks about how these big pharma companies misrepresent statistics, overcharge and generally harm sick people and how governments and regulators turn a blind eye towards it

ITT: loads of misinformation about drug companies

Most (around 100%) of the time, the party paying for the drug is not the person who needs it, but their insurance companies. Drug companies jack their prices way up to get more money from insurance companies, not necessarily the sick people they're selling it to.

They know they can do this because the insurance companies will never run out of money to pay them, so it's a win-win. The drug company gets more money for research or even for their pockets, and this, in turn, helps out whoever their giving drugs to, too. The only "loser" is the insurance company whose coffers are hardly affected.

Martin Shkreli is a prime example of this. Some people think he's the devil for raising his drug prices through the roof, but he is not stopping any HIV-infected person from obtaining the drug. For those that don't have insurance and need the drug, he even gives it to them for free.

>muh shareholders

Never thought about that. Good to know.

They spent years researching and testing, costs a lot, the patent will run out in 20 years driving the price down, the fact that they discovered it and price high allows them to do further research, making better and newer medicines rather than the companies that in 20 years just make it for cheap who actually discovered nothing.

Say you create a great product that people are willing to pay thousands for? Why should you sell it for less just because others are poor? Why should you not deserve to make as much money as you can regardless of what others think/feel? It's your product, it's your life, you should be able to do as you please. If they don't like they don't have to pay for it

>Most (around 100%) of the time, the party paying for the drug is not the person who needs it, but their insurance companies
and you think this won't affect insurance premiums?

It hasn't so far, so, speaking statistically: no

>medical research should be self funding
>medicines should be cost controlled

Pick one and only one