[mhb]

> hopefully that’s a net positive

It can't possibly be a net positive. The first pill costs $1B and subsequent ones costs 50 cents. Yes, the U.S. pays more, but the result can only be some combination of 1) other countries also paying more and 2) fewer new drugs.

[loeg]

And 3) US consumers pay less for pharmaceuticals. Together this might be a net positive for US consumers (even if they get fewer new drugs out of the bargain).

[mhb]

Well that's the choice. Allow drug companies to price discriminate so that poorer people can also buy the drugs or don't allow it and get more new drugs. It's not clear that drug companies are even going to retain low prices in other countries if it means that the US consumers will pay less.

Which drugs that haven't been invented yet do you think we should forego?

[loeg]

I'm not taking a side here.

[direwolf20]

Why are you so sure that isn't a net positive? Maybe we're spending too much money on inventing drugs that would be better spent on building houses or feeding the poor.

[mhb]

Anyone who's buying GLP-1 drugs can choose to give that money to the poor instead. What particular drug do you think shouldn't have been invented?