> You are paying for the cost of researching it and testing it, as well as a thousand other drugs that didn't make it to market.
Trying to think of other straightforward instances where a tremendous cost is spent on researching and testing, and directly affect human well being.
One example would be meat farming. As far as I know raising pigs or chicken evolved a lot in our lifetimes, extensive research was done on how to produce mor meat, there's oversight by a public agency and it is consumed by human so there is a decent amount of safety check and oversight.
Yet meat is cheap.
The more research that went into it, the cheaper it got. Provided meat as a product is more stable and less dangerous than drugs, I still think that it doesn't explain why meat would become cheaper while drug price should stay high and pharmatical firms should have extra protection to keep their prices high.
We're not paying for research, we're paying for monopolies.
Trying to think of other straightforward instances where a tremendous cost is spent on researching and testing, and directly affect human well being.
One example would be meat farming. As far as I know raising pigs or chicken evolved a lot in our lifetimes, extensive research was done on how to produce mor meat, there's oversight by a public agency and it is consumed by human so there is a decent amount of safety check and oversight.
Yet meat is cheap.
The more research that went into it, the cheaper it got. Provided meat as a product is more stable and less dangerous than drugs, I still think that it doesn't explain why meat would become cheaper while drug price should stay high and pharmatical firms should have extra protection to keep their prices high.
We're not paying for research, we're paying for monopolies.