1. If the fatty and sugary foods were too expensive for them to buy, they would not have died from those things.
2. They did not die because fatty/sugary foods weren't expensive. They died because they chose to eat fatty/sugary foods. [1]
Just because X (good insulin being cheaper) would have helped prevent Y (deaths) doesn't mean that <not X> caused Y.
[1] I'm ignoring the fact that truly healthy foods tend to outside the price range of the poorer segment. The analogy only really goes so far here.
- People drive cars.
- Cars are car jacked.
- If people did not drive cars, carjackings could not happen.
- People driving cars is a requirement for carjackings.
- People driving cars is not a cause of carjackings.
I understand that it is possible and truthful to argue that people driving cars is a cause of carjackings; it's just not my view of the meaning of those words.
When people learn that the "old insulin" and "new insulin" are completely different products and that "old insulin" is still available at a low cost, the narrative and goodwill is shattered.
People hate being lied to and they hate being manipulated.
If you want to have a discussion that we should make the "new insulin" available for at low cost of for free, that is great! We can talk about the cost to manufacture and to develop drugs.
There are many smart people here and around the world, when we put our minds to a problem, we can find a solutions.
But by not acknowledging and downplaying the time and effort that companies and people have put into the "new insulin", then you are cheapening the work they have done and are signaling to everyone that you would do the same to their time and effort as well.
I would argue these two statements are equivalent:
- My patient was killed by the high price of insulin.
- If the price of insulin had been lower, my patient would still be alive.
I suspect that you accept the second statement, but not the first. What's the difference?