I really think this article is spot on taking on an issue that I believe will become more and more pressing over time as baby boomers continue to retire.<p>However, this line felt of out of place:<p>- &quot;And then there&#x27;s Gilead. It didn&#x27;t even develop Harvoni itself; it made a business decision to pay $11 billion to buy the company that did so it could be first to market and reap the rewards, $26 billion worth. There is something obscene about that. A billion-dollar profit would have been a very respectable return on investment, but Gilead is getting much, much more than that&quot;<p>I mean, why is that obscene? We have seen crazier returns in [insert latest &quot;stupid&quot; app that made billions]. These drugs are difficult to manufacture AND to market. I am sure that if the return would have certain, then the seller would not have sold the company for that amount and would instead reaped the presumed returns.<p>I think pharma is entitled to big returns because their business is really risky.<p>I don&#x27;t know where the answer is. Maybe it is government-driven pharma (yeah like the federal government is ever going to be good at anything), or a SpaceX for Pharma.