ElM, if I had invested in and was now producing anti-AIDS drugs, I would be selling them like this.
I would charge what the market would bear. Meaning, I would agree to supply each individual on a negotiated basis.
A rich person worth $1 billion, I would ask for $900 million for a lifetime of treatment. That's unless there were competing products which might make me have to lower my price very dramatically to maintain market share. But let's assume there isn't much competition at all and it's my drugs or death.
Somebody worth $10 million, I would ask for $7 million [any more and quite a few would think it better to die and give their money to their children, family or something].
Somebody worth $1 million, I would ask for $600,000
If they were only worth $100,000, I would ask for $40,000 and 30% of their income [the tax department would have to give tax credits for AIDS drugs so they could pay me].
If they had no assets, but earned $20,000 a year, I'd ask for $10,000 a year [or maybe 50%].
If they had no assets and no income, I'd require $5,000 a year from their family and friends, neighbours and others. If their families etc don't want to pay, then they are obviously not worth keeping alive to risk infecting other people.
Maybe there would be a lower price for places like India and Brazil where governments keep them poor; a self-inflicted poverty, but poverty all the same = it's amazing how people vote to stay poor, decade after decade. See Richard Branson's comments to India recently about not letting him invest, forcing him to take his money elsewhere.
Avoiding a black market in the drugs would be tricky, probably impossible. Maybe a fixed price is the way to go. Bad luck for those without friends or family to pay.
Mqurice |
