I think you should be conflicted for a slightly different reason :-)<p>Should Americans pay for a disproportionate share of pharma revenue? I for one am so happy for all the medical research that we fund in this country, it is probably the best thing we can possibly do for the world. Of all the American foreign aid and foreign intervention, very little else will compare to the amazing impact of widespread access to Harvoni&#x2F;Sovaldi in India. That is truly an amazing gift that America is giving to India, and it&#x27;s made possible exactly by extreme price discrimination.<p>This is an amazing miracle cure for a deadly disease. My understanding is that it cost a lot of money to develop, and took a lot highly skilled work, and involved a fair measure of risk of total loss. We want wins like this to be rewarded. We want a significant fraction of the dollars this drug earns to ultimately be re-invested in more of this kind of R&amp;D. We definitely want more drugs like Harvoni&#x2F;Solvaldi coming to market.<p>So the conflict I have is, when manufacturing is not the bottleneck, you want to get this cure out to people everywhere, but at the same time you can&#x27;t afford to pay for it all to happen in one year. So you see cases like OP where they won&#x27;t pay for the treatment until you are showing symptoms. But the cure is so easy, nobody wants to wait for symptoms, and how can you blame them?