So why does this guy think this? How does his argument work out? I’m genuinely interested because it is so unfathomable to me that I can’t comprehend how he could come to the conclusion that lower drug prices is bad
He claims that profits is what causes new drugs to be invented and that with less profit incentive, then less drugs will be invented. The he implies that more people theoretically die because medicines aren’t invented.
It’s profit motive, free market nonsense. It doesn’t make sense because profits go to the company owner. The people who invent drugs receive a wage. Also many drugs are invented through government research and then sold to private owners.
Oh wow didn’t expect a proud turbo lib to be using the capitalist innovation line in such a way. the turbo libs I know don’t fall for that one anymore.
Nah, it’s the old “if the prices are low the pharmaceutical companies won’t have money to spend on new meds” line. Clearly doesn’t know much about… You know… Subsidies.
“The problem is there’s too much demand for medicine and some people must simply go without”
So the shortage is already here? Also, if there’s an excess of demand, what if we fixed public health to encourage more walking, time outside, and more so less people will need these rare, scarce resources in the first place. Thus the most ethical way to lower demand?
“No because then the economy would be hurt by less people buying things.”
It’s how I believe, nothing’s more laugh inducing like the idea of communism causing shortages, when capitalism has caused multiple shortages just because porky doesn’t feel like making more or doing artificial scarcity, but it’s ok because here’s some articles on why these shortages are good, actually.
So why does this guy think this? How does his argument work out? I’m genuinely interested because it is so unfathomable to me that I can’t comprehend how he could come to the conclusion that lower drug prices is bad
He claims that profits is what causes new drugs to be invented and that with less profit incentive, then less drugs will be invented. The he implies that more people theoretically die because medicines aren’t invented.
It’s profit motive, free market nonsense. It doesn’t make sense because profits go to the company owner. The people who invent drugs receive a wage. Also many drugs are invented through government research and then sold to private owners.
Oh wow didn’t expect a proud turbo lib to be using the capitalist innovation line in such a way. the turbo libs I know don’t fall for that one anymore.
Probably thinks the only reason the prices are high is to keep a drug shortage from happening. He’s too far gone into neoliberal propaganda
Nah, it’s the old “if the prices are low the pharmaceutical companies won’t have money to spend on new meds” line. Clearly doesn’t know much about… You know… Subsidies.
“The problem is there’s too much demand for medicine and some people must simply go without”
So the shortage is already here? Also, if there’s an excess of demand, what if we fixed public health to encourage more walking, time outside, and more so less people will need these rare, scarce resources in the first place. Thus the most ethical way to lower demand?
“No because then the economy would be hurt by less people buying things.”
Any neoliberal talking point collapses once you dissect it just a little bit
It’s how I believe, nothing’s more laugh inducing like the idea of communism causing shortages, when capitalism has caused multiple shortages just because porky doesn’t feel like making more or doing artificial scarcity, but it’s ok because here’s some articles on why these shortages are good, actually.