Quote:
Originally Posted by ardeegee
That may be strictly true by your definition, but "one" very much can be harmed by not affording something that exists. That includes things like medical care-- and knowledge. And it is better for "one" and for society as a whole if both are as inexpensive as possible.
|
That's just not thinking things through. If services and products are "as inexpensive as possible" there is little incentive to provide those services and products.
Millions of dollars are invested to come up with a pill that can be manufactured for ten cents each. If you only then charge 11 cents each for the pill "because it now exists" then you'll never again see someone spend the millions trying to come up with the new pill.
So yes, there is a very good virtue in the existence even of medications that someone can't afford. Poor "Billy", his lot in life remains unchanged whether the pill exists but is too expensive, or doesn't exist at all. But the rest of society would suffer greatly were "Billy's ability to pay" become the place where pricing is set.
Lee