How much should we pay for cancer drugs?
...
But the broader answer is that we are probably not going to find a perfect answer. We often talk about the purpose of research as being "finding a cure for cancer" -- but we rarely ask if that wouldn't create problems of its own.
Either way you have learned nothing and come out of her post more confused than when you went in. McArdle thinks "journalism" means giving her opinion, not investigating and reporting.
5 comments:
It's good that we have real economists like Dean Baker. (Who also aren't sociopaths.)
~
With even Marxist rags like Forbes and the Wall Street Journal covering the explosion in generic drug prices, it's amazing that Megan can maintain her level of pure ignorance. Too lazy to html -
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/02/27/why-are-generic-drug-prices-shooting-up/
Listen, after everything we know about her, if you read McGarble to learn something, you are severely delusional. You read her because: a. you are a fool and always will be a fool and love bias-confirming drivel (see David Brooks), b. you want to see how low this monster can go and want to bear witness to this train wreck (us).
I was diagnosed with a mild case of cancer myself 20 years ago. I know from that experience that if (God forbid) Megan were to be diagnosed, she would see no problems caused by a cure being found. She really hasn't got a clue how it would change her perspective.
Emily
McArdle's commenters were especially ugly regarding Clinton.
(B) is correct too. It's like Sharknado--you know you'll hate yourself for watching but who can pass up a movie where people chainsaw sharks out of the sky?
Cluelessness is the biggest tool in McArdle's skill set.
Post a Comment