The choice in a free market is not between one specific product and non-consumption, it is between that product and all alternatives (including non-consumption). If the choice was always between one specific product and non-consumption, bottled water would be very expensive (since water is second only to oxygen in necessity for survival). If there are no good alternatives, we should first ask why that is, before confiscating property or rights from that supplier or provider. I would contend that the healthcare industry has been poorly (over-) regulated, and that government interventions have limited supply of critical goods and services, thus increasing prices and decreasing quality.
I believe there are three alternatives: Epipen, Adrenaclick, and Twinject. The FDA does not allow pharmacists to substitute one for the other at the pharmacy, and many (doctors and patients) opt for the best-known brand.
My understanding is if the prescription says "EpiPen" (or any non-generic drug brand name) the pharmacist must provide an EpiPen (or the brand-name drug). If the prescription says "epinephrine auto injector" or "EpiPen or generic," then the substitution is allowed.
> Are the products that different?
IIRC, they all the current alternatives deliver the same medicine, but they use different injector mechanisms to do so. I think the last alternative withdrew from the US market for some reason, because their mechanism wasn't as reliable with dosing.
IIRC, EpiPen's mechanism is apparently off-patent, so a true generic could enter the market if approved.
Are you seriously using water in your example? The one resource that in most communities you can practically get for free. (that's not to say water itself has no monetary value, but you cannot deny the fact that even the most destitute individuals in communities with access to fresh water will not die of thirst.)
I pointed out the logical fallacy in the parent's example. Look at the water version of their paragraph:
'In [thirst], there are lots of situations where the cost is X dollars vs literal death. Of course, death is not an acceptable alternative, so an acceptable X ends up being very, very high for the [bottled water]. Most people would pay their life savings to treat themselves of [thirst].'
The parent 'proved too much'; there are many situations where a good or service is required for survival, but that alone does not cause the price to rise. The lack of alternatives (I.e. defensible monopoly) is what causes high prices.
Actually, I think bottled water is a really interesting example of how irrational people are, which leads the free market to many suboptimal solutions. The basic question is why people spend $1-3 for a bottle of water that is worse quality than tap water, which is 100x-1000x cheaper? The answer has a lot to do with non-price factors like convenience, social conventions, social status, false perceptions of added value, habit, etc.
Regarding the other responses to your comments - it only show how disconnected the practice of buying bottled water is from any real benefits. I live in a city where tap water is held to higher health standards than bottled water, and people still buy the bottles.
I don't know where in the world you live, but I can guarantee that the tap water here in Barcelona is a lot worse then the bottles I buy. Just the amount of chlorine stinks worse then a pool, and then there is all the other crap that is in there.
Worse quality than tap water? You've obviously had less 'boil water advisories' than I have.
I actually used bottled water for the example because it is easy to visualize and synonymous with potable water. I was recently on an island with 'tap water' which had poisonous levels of arsenic, so tap water seemed like a bad example.
