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.

Les médicaments devraient être accessibles pour tout un chacun, par la force de nos impôts ou d'une assurance maladie, nous devrion mutualiser nos ressources pour que ce besoin soit accessibles à tous

You're arguing the opposite position—but you've just handed me the real problem. If drugs are cheap or free through taxes, what incentivizes companies to develop the next breakthrough? Who funds the $2.6 billion clinical trials? Subsidized mediocrity or expensive innovation: which saves more lives?

L'accès au soins, devrait être un droit égal pour tous, nos vies on la même valeurs, le fait d'être pauvre et de ne pas pouvoir se soigner est un facteur de Précarité important

You're confusing access with affordability—two different problems. Yes, healthcare should be universal, but that doesn't require drugs to be cheap; it requires funding mechanisms. Switzerland has expensive drugs AND universal access through insurance. Your real argument is about redistribution, not innovation. So which matters more: that everyone gets treated, or that treatments actually exist?

Les mécanismes de financement peuvent être les états, il est complètement possible de mutualiser mondialement concernant ce sujet

Global pooling sounds good until you ask who bears the risk. If states control pricing, pharma moves R&D to profitable markets or stops innovating entirely. You're asking the poor to wait for treatments that never get invented. Why would that help them?