Maybe it's time to think about establishing a government funded new drug development organization. Otherwise,these new treatments will only be available to the 1%ers. I doubt my insurance would cover me for an $850,000 treatment.

The same treatment will likely cost under $200,000 in Canada and even less than that in far-flung countries. We need a way to help Americans get treated there without having the drugmaker or the FDA cry "Foul!"

There are too many people, and the 1%er's know it. With all of the medical breakthroughs happening now and in the future, a way must be found to keep the lower classes from overpopulationg the planet. Restricting medical care by keeping the price high is one way of keeping the numbers of the poor to manageable levels.

pharmaceutical companies spend three to five times as much on Advertising than they do on Research.
Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine was told he could become extremely rich if you painted it the vaccine, he replied that he did not do this to become rich but to help Humanity, he found the concept of getting rich off people's misery disgusting.
Unfortunately today many people have been convinced did making money and getting rich is more important than helping our fellow humans they should be ashamed.
Also much of the basic research in medical science is done by taxpayers sponsored government Laboratories and universities then once it hits a certain stage is sold off a very little money to private companies
Scientia Non Domus, (Knowledge has No Home)
antiguajohn
.

I didn't believe you, antiguajohn98 ("pharmaceutical companies spend three to five times as much on Advertising than they do on Research."). But you were right: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.18066f9a7107

"hey look, we cured a blind man!" - Company X "Yeah, but it cost a million dollars, what a rip off!" - Liberals
Seriously people, if it does what it claims, why are you complaining? Do you think people who own stock in these companies thought "you know what, I'll invest my life savings and retirement account into a company that will give away their product for FREE"?
They risk money to make money. They do good for people (curing blindness, seriously?) so they can make their profit margins for their investors (read: granny and her 401k) and people complain that it's expensive?!?!

While the example of Jonas Salk is uplifting, it is not economically sustainable. The more so, since he could not have done it under today's regulatory scheme. He simply did have the billion dollars that our "modern" FDA requires for testing a new treatment.
We are invited to "imagine a future where life-saving medical innovations are only available to the super-rich." Yeah, about that... in unregulated technology, something two years old is OLD. Something 5 years old is, not only old, it is also CHEAP. So there: the regulatory scheme and the patent system are the cause of expensive and restrictive technology. If you want the technology of medicine to follow the type of path that other technology does -- change the laws!

Thank you FDA for keeping medical monopolies safe and profitable?

Great, I can see again, but now I am in dept prison for the next 40 years. F-that.

We need to get corporations out of the health business and replace them with co-ops. The treatment I want has been withheld for years to maximize profit.