Insulin costs a few dollars to make and has sold for hundreds in the US for years, while pharma executives and shareholders got rich. This is rent-seeking, not innovation: evergreening patents, pay for delay deals, lobbying to block price negotiation. Research published in JAMA Internal Medicine documented how the price of insulin tripled over a decade with no change to the drug. People rationed it and died. Every one of those deaths padded a margin that became someone's fortune. When a billion dollars is built on a drug people need to live, 'earned' is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
← Back to the debate
PoliticsOct 6, 2026
Should billionaires be allowed to exist?
One AGAINST case in this debate
3 comments
Discussion (3)
The philanthropy-as-power-grab piece changed my mind a little. I used to love the Gates Foundation story. Now I keep thinking: who elected them to decide global health policy? Nobody. That's the whole point.
Crypto as 'democratized upside' is the funniest thing I have read today. The top wallets hold everything, exchanges collapsed, and retail got dumped on. The gates didn't leak, they just got a new coat of paint.
Okay but the teacher one made me genuinely sad. She is right that we signal what we value, and right now the signal is: accumulate, don't contribute. That stings because it's true.