This. Epipen has ~year before generic; monopoly on life-saving medicine=gouge while can—who cares if a few kids die? https://twitter.com/ncweaver/status/768159978288844800 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @zeynep
We know demand curves slope down- a lower price will increase Q. So is any price that is not free morally unconscionable?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @btshapir
How about costs plus 100% profit? Executives make millions, kids get medication. Also, no demand curve here. It's health.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Of course there are demand curves in health! What do you think health economists study?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @btshapir
Your child is prone to anaphylaxis or not. It's a fatal risk or it's not. Price only means you'll be forced to risk death, or not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I think you misunderstand what a demand curve is. My original rhetorical point stands. Any price>0 implies some risk death.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @btshapir
In the United States, there are very few people who would not be able to obtain a $5 medication that would save their lives.+
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @btshapir
Not sure what the exact number would be but given how cheap the cost is, and how instantly fatal but totally reversible the issue+
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
...it's obvious that it is indeed a responsibility to make this device practically universally affordable/available.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
This isn't like expensive end-of-life, rare disease care, etc. where you have thornier issues.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.