[ubernostrum]

There is a tendency to believe that the normal dynamics of markets should be suspended when the product is "really important." Of course, that's backward. When the product is really important, the worst thing you can do is turn it into a low-profit economic ghetto by reducing incentives to invest.

You contradict yourself here.

The normal dynamics of markets have been suspended in order to ensure that "really important" products make it to market. That occurs through government-granted monopolies on drugs along with subsidies and grants on research. And that is what props up the market and provides the "incentive to invest" you insist is needed.

So you can argue for "normal dynamics" -- which would be a more free market with no government-granted monopolies, subsidies or research grants -- or you can argue to preserve "incentive to invest". But you can't have your cake and eat it, too, and the fact that you don't seem to consider how much we already do to meddle with the market in order to make sure "important" products are available is slightly worrying.