[gruez]

I presume you're talking about pharmacy profit and insurance company profit. "universal healthcare" just means everyone's covered. It doesn't mean everything's owned & operated by the government. That means there can still be private insurance companies and pharmacies, both making a profit.

[Latty]

I would assume they are referring to most of the current suggestions for universal healthcare in the US, which follow a centralised model where a central body could collectively negotiate for drug prices (as the NHS does here in the UK, very effectively).

[gruez]

>which follow a centralised model where a central body could collectively negotiate for drug prices

That's orthogonal to universal healthcare or even a single payer system. There's nothing preventing you from having the whole country be represented collectively, but still have private insurers, like in germany. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2019/how-drug-prices-a...

[Latty]

Sure, that's true. It's not exactly uncommon to conflate a term with the most common/likely implementations known though, which is what I assumed happened here. It is true that universal healthcare could solve those problems, even if it doesn't have to.