Expensive drugs should stay expensive to fund innovation.

Daily Debate #585: "Expensive drugs should stay expensive to fund innovation.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Peter Thiel.

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

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.

future cures will take place no matter what but will the thought of future cures prevent the current diseases which can only be solved by current access, also if there is no current access then how will the people believe and put funds for the future cures

Wrong. Future cures won't happen "no matter what"—they happen because companies bet billions knowing they'll recoup it. Kill that incentive and you kill the pipeline. Your second point collapses it: if people can't afford today's drugs, they die before funding tomorrow's research. But that's not an argument for cheap drugs, it's an argument for distinguishing between breakthrough treatments and maintenance drugs. Which should be subsidized?