So the company that is saving some lives is more reprehensible than the one that is saving no lives? Companies that create life-saving things should be charities, while companies that create things everyone can &quot;survive just fine without&quot; should be richly rewarded. Right? That doesn&#x27;t seem backwards to you?<p>It&#x27;s not like Sovaldi grows on trees, free for the picking, and Gilead came along and fenced-in the trees and now is charging $84,000 for access. It <i>created</i> a cure to what used to be a terminal disease. It should be rewarded in proportion to the <i>value of curing the disease</i>.