IMHO that's almost a meme: The US spending is paying for all the research other countries benefit of. Usually used to defend the US system against criticism. The arguement, by the way, isn't true.
Kind of like the argument Europe is benegiting of US military spending and would be overrun by the Russians if it weren't for the US...
And give up membership in the most powerful military alliance in human history, reduce US international influence and give up the most lucrative defence market in the world. This idea is so spund, even the Congress GOP voted for a law preventing the POTUS from pulling the US out of NATO on his own.
I agree so, that Europe should be less dependant on the US, we sure shoupd have a very solid and competitive defence sector supplying the various European armed forces.
Being a NATO member is not being a client state... And the thing I support is a stronger EU defence industry, not the US leaving NATO or whatever you read into my comment.
And yes, the idea of the US leaving NATO is so bad it is only loughable, the only ones happy about that would be Russia and China. US influence is not limited to Europe so, NATO activities stretch to Afghanistan (past tense), Iraq (same), Ukraine, Africa, the Balcans...
As bad as NATO intervention was during the war on terror period, and boy was it bad, tue alternative would be either Chinese or Russian dominance in those regions. And that would be even worse. NATO, human rights and all that is a different topic so.
US military dominance (in the form of NATO in Europe) isn't so much about defending the counties per se but to defend its interests in the countries by low key taking over their armies. You have a country quite well by the balls if their defence depends on you.
It takes a lot of money to bring a drug to market. Those costs have to be recovered and there has to be a net profit or no one would do it.
Pharma companies charge different prices for drugs in different markets. Markets with single payer systems usually restrict expensive drugs (either not permitting them or restricting their use to fewer cases) and/or cap prices. Some countries don’t honor pharma patents. Together these controls may make the drug unprofitable in many markets. Someone has to pay full price to make the drug research net profitable, or the pharma companies reduce research into stuff they lose money on.
It happens that the US market is favorable for pharma companies to recoup R&D costs by charging more than most anywhere else. This is possible because of the US regulatory environment and heavy lobbying by pharma.
This is what is meant when someone says that the US “subsidizes” drug costs for the rest of the world.
Note that I am not saying this is a good system; I’m just attempting to describe it.
> It takes a lot of money to bring a drug to market. Those costs have to be recovered and there has to be a net profit
A friend of mine who works in this industry explained how they come up with drug pricing and whether they decided to bring a drug to market. It's pure capitalism, of course--and why shouldn't it be?
It's a bummer, though, to think of the drugs that could have really, really helped some people but weren't lucrative enough to bother selling. Oh well!
> or no one would do it.
On the other hand, that's sort of like saying "There has to be a net profit in going to the moon or no one would do it" or "there has to be a net profit in selling flood insurance or no one would do it". Neither of those net a profit, but sometimes does it all the same.
There's a non-trivial amount of R&D being done with public funds (universities, and/or grants) that go to medicines that end up being locked up with patents and privately owned.
I lived overseas for work. I once went to the pharmacy and they said "4" -- and I was like "4 hundred?"
No, they meant 4. The same medicine I'd pay $25 copay (with insurance kicking in another $70 or $100) cost $4 out of pocket overseas.
This is because single payer systems overseas negotiate down prices. The US does. not. This effectively means that the US is subsidizing the drug industry.
Kind of like the argument Europe is benegiting of US military spending and would be overrun by the Russians if it weren't for the US...