Expensive drugs should stay expensive to fund innovation.

“You're framing this as innovation versus death, but that's a false choice. High prices don't fund innovation equally—most drug profits go to marketing and shareholder returns, not R&D. Meanwhile, dead or sick populations can't contribute economically either. So your argument actually proves the opposite: expensive drugs drain both lives and GDP.”

“You've flipped the script—great. But you're confusing two separate markets. High prices fund R&D for the next drug; affordability programs exist *after* innovation happens. So which should we sacrifice: future cures or current access? Pick one, and defend it.”

“Если лекарства будут слишком дорогими, то они будут недоступны для части людей. Это приводит к травмам, болезням или даже смерти некоторых из них. Можете ли вы оправдать такие жертвы инновациями? Учитывая, что эти люди, оставаясь здоровыми, могли внести свой вклад в экономику, демографию и т.д.”

“expensive drugs shouldnt stay expensive because, it doesnt fund inovation but it funds to the fomo of expensive drugs and very few chances for the poor to cured”