Yeah, so with Martin Shkreli arrested, I started thinking.
Yes, what he did to extremely sick people was extremely bad. And, now it seems, he's always been like that; profit for himself above basically everything else.
But, he is far from the only CEO-type that's done this. Many (even most) do it when they can get away with it. And it's totally legal. Hedge-fund types, and "investors" find out what drugs are only made by one company (mostly older drugs that are still used), and buy the company that makes it, then jack the price up as much "as the market will bear."
I'm not going to rehash the arguments against a free-market mentality in health care; it's been done before (check here). Instead, I feel the need to comment on a more over-riding problem.
In an unfettered, unregulated capitalist environment, everything is considered by its value. Its monetary value. Shkreli and the others thought that what they did was perfectly fine, since they could make money at it. Others, closer to the research and manufacture of the medications, check out the needs before they begin work. To a certain extent, this does make sense; research and development does cost a lot, and they need to make some kind of money to stay in business. But that means that fatal illnesses and diseases that strike relatively few (and thus won't be sold to thousands, or even millions) don't get any medication that might very well save lives, because it won't be profitable enough. And foreign causes (remember Ebola?) only get research when it might get us. Africa tends to be among the poorest on the planet; they surely can't afford "real" medicine, so it doesn't get made, since those expected to need it won't be able to afford it, even cheap.
This time of year, it seems every movie version of A Christmas Carol runs eternally on TV. Some of them don't keep the original ending intact, but some do. The next-to-last paragraph includes:
"He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world."
It's not just about being nice at Christmastime; it's about being a good man, taking care of your fellows when they need it. You know, acting like Jesus himself said to.
Also, many politicians in Congress who claim to be Christian, voted against Medicare and Medicaid expansions, Veterans' benefits, and the Zadroga 9/11 first responders bill, and (of course) the Affordable Care Act, and most of them say it's because of cost.
My immediate response to that is to ask, "well, what is a human life worth, then? How much money would you, should you spend, to keep a human being healthy and alive?"
I mean it sarcastically, but it seems that many people actually consider it seriously. If saving a human life will cost me money, then let's not.
Please understand, I'm not against capitalism; good work would get rewarded. Achievement should be acknowledged and repaid. But there are some things that shouldn't be purely profit-driven.
And what of a widowed woman or a woman who's escaped abuse, raising a child (or children) alone, working 3 full-time jobs, still can't get ahead? Still descends deeper into poverty? She's not "lazy" or a "taker" or a "moocher", any more than physically or mentally damaged veterans are; they've worked and sacrificed to protect us all, just as the woman works and sacrifices for her family; who are we; what are we if we don't help them? And why not? Simply because it costs money.
