I&#x27;m trying to understand, but I&#x27;m pretty confused.  There must be something I&#x27;m missing, because it seems that this is an obvious move to the majority of the world, as well as the majority of Hacker News.  Could you all help me out?  What am I missing?<p>First, implicit in most of the comments here is the idea that whether you <i>need</i> or <i>don&#x27;t need</i> a drug is a simple, black-and-white thing.  The idea seems to be: if you truly had a need for a drug you&#x27;d be going to the doctor for it already, and if you were going to the doctor for it already you&#x27;d get the medication.  It seems to me there&#x27;s a lot more nuance.  There are many, many classes of drugs that solve problems that aren&#x27;t obviously &quot;go to the doctor!&quot; kinds of problems.  I take a prescription medicine sometimes when I do public speaking.  It never occurred to me to talk to a doctor about that problem, because it just seemed like a &quot;problem&quot; some people have and others don&#x27;t.  I happened to find out that this situation is easily treatable online, but I easily could have found out by watching a commercial.  And this medicine makes my life significantly better, so that commercial would have been of enormous benefit to me, the consumer.<p>Secondly, it seems obvious that commercials which increase demand would inflate price.  For the class of drugs like above -- drugs that make people&#x27;s lives better but aren&#x27;t saving lives or addressing significant medical problems -- why should that not be the case?  I pay zero dollars for this drug because I have good benefits.  Why should that be?  I make plenty of money, and I can survive just fine without this drug.  Why should I pay zero dollars for it?  Why shouldn&#x27;t the free market be in play in that situation?  If we pretend my insurance didn&#x27;t pay for this drug, I would be happy to pay a bunch of money for it -- or choose not to pay a bunch of money for it because it&#x27;s too expensive.  It&#x27;s exactly the same decision I make about food at the store, or a new TV.<p>I understand that there are many prescription drugs that aren&#x27;t &quot;casual&quot; in this way.  I think it&#x27;s good for society to do everything it can to grant to citizens a certain level of health, and therefore I&#x27;m all for restrictions on how these kinds of drugs are priced.  And therefore it makes sense to have restrictions about how these kinds of drugs are advertised.  But Viagra?  Why shouldn&#x27;t Viagra be subject to the free market?  I&#x27;m an ultra-progressive (though rational) liberal here, so I don&#x27;t really understand what I&#x27;m missing.  Clue me in!