[premium-concern]

> But if their revenue levels in the U.S. were at the level they are in Europe, they absolutely could not justify their enormous fixed costs.

Maybe the public could help them substantially lower the costs by not allowing to advertise prescription drugs to laypeople?

Agree with the GP. There is some massive Stockholm syndrome going on here.

Some countries have well-functioning health care systems since the 18XX, not just since the feel-good story of "Murica is subsidizing other countries because we are such a great nation" became a thing.

Working health care is not rocket science, but it looks like everything that doesn't fit the American narrative of exceptionalism is conveniently ignored these days.

[rayiner]

> Maybe the public could help them substantially lower the costs by not allowing to advertise prescription drugs to laypeople?

That argument, though oft-repeated, is mathematically non-sensical. Unless companies are currently operating irrationally, one less dollar spent on advertising will result in more than one dollar lost in revenue.

[premium-concern]

Every dollar earned by advertising prescription drugs to the general population is a dollar that shouldn't have been earned in the first place.

See the Opioid epidemic that is still taking lives in the US for more than 20 years. Imagine what an economic benefit it would be for the populace if all those average middle-class Jane and John Does wouldn't have had their life shattered by addiction and instead would be holding down a steady job paying taxes.

Or imagine how much cheaper it would be if the US' reckless abuse of antibiotics in both humans and livestock wouldn't cause such a rise of multi-resistant strains of diseases.