> This isn't a company offering you something you really want.
That is completely irrelevant in my opinion. The question is would you have have $300 insulin or none ? That is the choice consumer has unless of course someone (like government) can use coercive force against the company. In that case less companies would be willing to even enter the market.
Yes, expensive health treatment leads to death. There is nothing surprising about it. It is the way of life. But to avoid that death you can not steal from others or force others to work against their will.
For a lot of people, the answer is none. You're advocating for the death of people who can't afford insulin which to me is completely and utterly barbaric.
In this case, the end result is going to be either the government stepping in (since the role of the government is to ideally care for its citizens) and forcing prices down, or the people suffering will eventually enact violent action against said corporations.
I do not see why slavery and theft is a morally superior choice here either.
People suffering would eventually be violent towards the corporations then they would destroy what little chance they even had to survive. Most societies like Venezuella, India have tried that model and are curently at the bottom of the pile.
Eli Lilly had a revenue of $22B with a net income of just $204M last year. So roughly they have made $1 profit for every $100 of revenue. Does not look like "endless greed for profit" to me here. In fact I will not buy their stocks.
That is completely irrelevant in my opinion. The question is would you have have $300 insulin or none ? That is the choice consumer has unless of course someone (like government) can use coercive force against the company. In that case less companies would be willing to even enter the market.
Yes, expensive health treatment leads to death. There is nothing surprising about it. It is the way of life. But to avoid that death you can not steal from others or force others to work against their will.