I think your response seems to lean a little more towards "Faith-based" than "Fact-based".
Let's consider what the article has to say about the reason antibiotics are fast loosing their effectiveness, shall we?
The facts presented were stark and chilling. The antibiotics that have protected us from an array of lethal microbes for more than half a century are rapidly becoming ineffective. And the blame rests entirely at our own door. Rampant, irresponsible overuse of these miracle drugs, to the extent that more than 63,000 tons globally are pumped into livestock production every year, has driven the evolution of a new breed of superbugs. Before long the world may be faced with a situation last seen in the pre-penicillin era when even the most minor infections, such as those resulting from a childs grazed knee, could prove life-threatening, and every operation was fraught with danger.
Unless you want to take issue with the majority of medical practitioners and microbiological researchers, I think we can agree to take the waning effectiveness of existing antibiotics as a given. Simply because microbes evolve, and resistance to antibiotics is a strong survival trait. And why is it a survival trait? Because use in livestock industry (continuous sub-lethal doses of antibiotics in order to increase meat yield) produces the perfect environment for bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics.
As many of the posts remark, we're seeing the emergence of bacteria that are resistant to many antibiotics, some that are resistant to most of our antibiotics, and a very few that are resistant to every single one of our antibiotics. Way to go, especially since bacteria swap pieces of their DNA on a continuous basis.
The mere fact that "Some people die of multidrug resistant infections, but not many." doesn't mean it's a big problem. That's like someone dropping out of a 40 story building and saying, as they pass the 30th story, "Well, nothing happened so far. The risks must be over-hyped. So lets talk 'economics' about deploying our parachute".
The most effective way to avoid finding ourselves without effective antibiotics is to stop the production of antibiotics-resistant bacterias. As in stop antibiotics use in livestock immediately, barring perhaps genuine veternarian use to treat infection. Also infection rates in livestock production can be reduced fairly sharply by avoiding overcrowded pens. That costs money of course, but in the end it's *our* money and *our* health problem.
The next thing to do is to enforce existing limitations on antibiotics (make sure that loud ("concerned and assertive") patients cannot pressure doctors into prescribing them antibiotics where they aren't medically necessary) prescription and to ensure that people actually finish their antibiotics treatment.
Last but not least we might have a look at how we can ensure development of new antibiotics. E.g. by issuing a fresh 20-year patent if and when an antibiotic actually makes it to market within the first 20-year patent period. If it doesn't make it to market within 20 years, it's not eligible for patent extension.
That ought to ensure profitability. In addition, why not fund additional (university) research into developing new antibiotics, and seek international cooperation to spread the cost? The current road from compound to medicine is a very long one: why not focus more research on shortening that a bit?
It looks like money well spent to me.