The problem with this argument is that pharmaceutical companies are private businesses trying to make a profit, not charities. If it were truly unprofitable to sell drugs in, say, Canada or France, pharmaceutical companies would just not sell their drugs in those countries. It is _less_ profitable to sell drugs in those countries than America but still profitable, which is why they still try to capture those markets. If America fixed this imbalance by forcing a lowering of drug prices in the American market, there's no reason to believe that this would cause raising of prices elsewhere. The only way this would be possible is if it were truly unprofitable to sell the drugs elsewhere, which can't be the case since these are corporations not charities. The real impact would be to slow down new drug development, since existing drugs are already profitable to sell everywhere in the world even in countries with more regulation, but if America fixed its market by lowering drug prices for Americans, the total profitability of pharmaceuticals would decrease, decreasing the incentive to create new pharmaceuticals. That's a totally different and very plausible impact. Rising drug prices for existing drugs in other countries is not a plausible impact.

> If it were truly unprofitable to sell drugs in, say, Canada or France, pharmaceutical companies would just not sell their drugs in those countries

You’re confusing capital and operating costs. Once you’ve developed the drug, selling everywhere you can makes sense. When considering whether to develop a drug or invest in something else, America’s biotech market absolutely turns keys. (But not as uniquely as we think. Europe has a thriving R&D market, it’s just directly subsidised.)

I don't think they're "confusing" it, considering they specifically said what you said elsewhere in their comment.

So basically if this true, you prove my point. If Americans weren’t paying these high costs then R&D would slow down and the whole world wouldn’t get these drugs.

America subsidizes these drugs for the rest of the world, which does not pay its fair share into R&D costs. If we’re to fix our healthcare system, this kind of thing can’t continue.

I think they are not saying it's unprofitable, but rather that the current government should shape the market so the environment levels more over US vs the rest. (of course please in a laissez-faire change the market style not the bad socialist stuff)

You think pharma companies won't bill the rest of countries whatever the market can bear? I can't think of why they possibly would lower their prices even if the American government stops subsidizing their businesses via using their monopoly on violence to enforce our perverted IP regimes.

Europe is highly regulated. Other countries with nationalist governments if pushed too far will make their own generic versions. So no, increasing prices in other countries to offset the loses in the American market is not that simple.

For anyone reading not familiar with this, "America's drug prices are high because we're subsidizing the rest of the world" is MAGA propaganda, and is not based on logic. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pfizer-agrees-to-dea...

Fair point, I’ve corrected "talking point" to "propaganda" above. Not only does it not make any logical sense, but there is zero evidence that Big Pharma isn't pricing drugs to maximize profitability in every market in which they operate. Drug companies aren’t charities.

Besides, it also invites the immediate and rather fatal rejoinder of, "OK? So how about we... don't do that?"

Any negative response to that must suppose that everyone else would just give up on trying to advance drug R&D if the US stopped unilaterally self-sacrificing to subsidize it for the entire world... and when you lay it out like that, it seems like that must not actually be what's going on in the first place, because why the hell would we be do that, for that reason? So, very probably, we aren't, and further, if we are we should definitely stop.

>If America prohibited such gouging, would the rest of the world accept price increases on their drugs? If the current administration is so interested in inflicting harm on the rest of the world, maybe they should be convinced to lower drug prices.

I doubt governments elsewhere are itching to increase their healthcare spending even more. Realistically speaking the actual result will be cost cutting from pharma companies, mostly in the form of lower R&D spending for new drugs.

Seems like an interesting hypothesis to explore.

You didn't provide any context of why you think that could be the case or the mechanism through the alleged subsidies happen.

Orwell was an anti-Communist, though especially anti Stalinist. He fell into the POUM, he didn't choose them, "I knew that I was serving in something called the POUM. (I had only joined the POUM militia rather than any other because I happened to arrive in Barcelona with ILP papers), but I did not realize that there were serious differences between the political parties."

He actually said "As far as my purely personal preferences went I would have liked to join the Anarchists." After the Stalinists illegalized the POUM, killed and tortured Orwell's friends and tried to kill him, forcing him flee Spain, his view on Communism grew ever more dim, and after that he grew more strongly anti-Communist than his earlier anti-Fascism.

Orwell was not a communist.

Later

"Orwell was a communist even if he said otherwise" is a telling argument.