Search for a cure for a non-meme related illness that isn't hyped up by """research charities""" or the """media"""

Pharmaceutical companies spend the majority of their money on marketing, not R&D. Your argument is invalid.

>opportunity cost isn't real because marketing
ok.

Opportunity cost doesn't apply because only ~30% of their resources are being utilized to manufacture and research drugs, i.e. they don't have to sacrifice anything but advertising.

This kind of apologism is why such an exploitative system is allowed to persist.

>the free market may be able to fix it, but it won't
What did they mean by this?

Which is why funding and properly organizing the NIH is so critical.

you have no source on that, and my case was about opportunity cost in general, a problem that is unavoidable. You refused to answer the question. Let's say you're the dictator of a socialist economy. Are you gonna spend hundreds of millions on research of a rare disease that affects ten people, or are you going to fund research on hypertension instead? Resources are finite whether you like it or not, saving lives costs money and saving some lives costs more money than saving others. When you make the choice of saving a dozen of people with rare diseases you're sacrificing hundreds of others inflicted with common deadly medical conditions.

How is she now?

Your argument is invalid because most spending really does go to advertising. Try again.

>fiercepharma.com/sales-and-marketing/new-numbers-back-old-meme-pharma-does-spend-more-on-marketing-than-r-d

>The biggest marketing premium belonged to Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ), with $17.5 billion in marketing spending, more than double its $8.2 billion in R&D costs. J&J has a big consumer division, with store-shelf products like baby shampoo and dental floss, which could skew the numbers toward marketing.

>Next in line is Pfizer ($PFE), long known for its marketing muscle. The drugmaker plowed $11.4 billion into marketing in 2013, $4.8 billion more than it spent on R&D--a difference of 72%. AstraZeneca ($AZN) is close behind with a 70% difference. The U.K.-based company put $7.3 billion toward marketing last year, and $4.3 billion into R&D. AstraZeneca has been pumping up marketing behind products such as its blood-thinner Brilinta as it preps for the onslaught of Nexium copycats.

>The next 5 range from a 47% difference in favor of R&D on the high end--Novartis ($NVS), with $14.6 billion in marketing spending--to 27% on the low end. The latter is Merck ($MRK), with $9.5 billion allocated to marketing and $7.5 billion to R&D.

your article unironically has "meme" on the title.

Do you disagree with the numbers? I chose an industry-friendly source because the misallocation of capital is so heinous that even they recognize it.

Accept it: you are wrong.

What are you talking about? Why is it allowed that not every disease in existence is cured?

Check out these septs though

point to me exactly what I'm wrong about. In your utopia opportunity costs will not exist? Every disease will be addressed equally with infinite resources at your disposal?
besides medicine needs publicity, or your wishful socialist dictatorship won't spend a dime on propaganda?

You are presenting a false choice between either treating rare diseases OR producing boner pills, when in reality it's possible to produce treatments for rare diseases AND boner pills by wasting less money on advertising the boner pills.

Because life has value, and if that value can't meet the running cost of the industry that would save it, the industry won't exist.

Ensuring that everyone has access to healthcare is great, but it gets a bit harder to justify funding the necessary R&D, the legal gymnastics, and setting up the production lines for a new drug just for a handful of people.