&gt; A car is financed over 5 years. You can&#x27;t get financing on pharmaceuticals.<p>As a matter of economics, the <i>value</i> of something doesn&#x27;t (or shouldn&#x27;t) depend on how easy it is to get financing for that thing. In fact, your financing example cuts the <i>other way</i>. That $33k new car is actually worth more like $40k to the buyer, because that&#x27;s how much they pay after financing it. The market shows that people value an average new car at &gt; $40k. So how is it unreasonable to say that the value of a Hep-C cure is at least $84k?<p>&gt; It is absolutely reprehensible behavior.<p>Gilead is <i>saving lives</i>. Apple is making money hand over first selling shiny trinkets that nobody <i>really needs</i>. Which is the reprehensible one? What you&#x27;re basically saying is that a company should <i>make less money</i> for creating products that fundamentally help humanity. That&#x27;s crazy!<p>People should be able to get these drugs, even if they can&#x27;t afford it. That&#x27;s the difference between iPhones and Sovaldi. But it&#x27;s the government&#x27;s job to make that happen--the companies shouldn&#x27;t be forced to basically be private charities.