[ehnto]

> The likely thing is that innovation would come to a standstill. Money goes to where it can make the most money. No money in drugs? No new drugs.

There are pharmaceutical companies all around the world, while it's true that the US currently has the largest market cap for pharma companies, it's not like the rest of the world is sitting on it's hands. Of the top 15 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, 8 are in the US, and 7 abroad. But market cap is a poor metric for impact, especially in the US, where it seems the market can price a social media company with no profit at 44billion, I'm not particularly convinced by valuations on pharmaceutical companies who's share pricing rely on price gouging and a indentured customer base to stay high.

Another perspective is that while they're able to sell insulin at 40x cost, something they developed decades ago, what's their incentive to develop new drugs? In countries where companies are required to provide licensing for generics after a certain time period, they would be incentivized to continue developing new drugs in order to keep products on the shelves that are in the exclusive licensing window.

Regardless of any of the above, what you're essentially advocating for is fleecing US citizens to the benefit of the rest of the world. I'm just not sure how this could possibly be a good thing for the US.