[wjnc]

(As a though experiment) The problem would be how to combine shareholder capitalism with post hoc lowering of prices. Why should the shareholders Novo accept less returns on their bet, in order to give Americans a better price than 'the US' with all it's market power (or lack thereof considering their institutional arrangements) can bargain for? My opinion: The US could obviously change their institutional arrangements and get lower prices for patients (plus the shortages that go along with low prices), but this change would face stiff opposition in Congress from those gaining from the current status quo. You get what you pay for. Massive prices, and all the preferential treatment of suppliers and those involved in the supply chains that money can buy.

[EasyMark]

Because we live in a society. Other countries don’t pay nearly as much for it. Is it the duty of the US to subsidize those countries? Why are they paying less than us? It’s the US society that lets the corporation exist here, so why shouldn’t we leverage that against their interest. No one is calling for them to give it away free, but why should they get away with what is essentially usury? We aren’t really in a “free market”, lots of things have price controls especially those things which a necessary for life. In particular this could save tens (hundreds?)of thousands of lives a year, so when is enough $$ enough for stockholders? Who is really in charge here?

[sanderjd]

It isn't the duty of the US to subsidize them, but many of us think it is nonetheless worth the bargain in order to incentivize research into novel medicines.

I personally don't think this is the only way we could accomplish this, but I think it's a better outcome than it would be if nobody nation "over"-paid for medicine in order to subsidize research.