[tpmoney]

That’s a pretty privileged view point. On the other hand I have a family member whose genetic makeup makes it so that they cannot use ~90% of the medications available for their condition. As a result every new medication in that area is of extreme interest to them and their doctors because it might be something they can use.

Given the choice between higher prices or not having treatment at all, I suspect those whose medications would be culled would gladly choose higher prices.

[hyperpape]

And your point of view is also privileged by that standard. For people who can't afford the drugs for their conditions, reducing the price is "of extreme interest to them".

I'm not saying that your position is wrong--medical innovation is really important. I'm saying you're being reductionist. There are really hard questions here, and accusing others of privilege does nothing to make this discussion more productive.

[tpmoney]

Sure, being able to afford medications is also a privileged position. But too often I see these sorts of dismissals of “just a few less new medications a year” without an acknowledgement of the real human costs that will be paid. Further I posit that the problem of “some people cannot afford some medications” should and does have a solution other than “all people will lose access to otherwise viable medications”

[EpicEng]

That works for your 1 in a million (10 million? 100 million?) family member, but how about the 85 million who need insulin? Talking about "privilege" seems silly here as you're just prioritizing one person's needs over another's in the opposite direction.