I posted this in a previous thread:<p>By centralizing all procurement of a drug for an entire country through a single contract, of course countries are able to negotiate better prices than what Americans pay in a more free market. This is especially true given the structure of the pharma business, with massive up-front costs and almost-zero marginal costs. You could do the same with countless products. But this is it&#x27;s own kind of abuse. Instead of being paid the market price, pharma companies are paid the lowest-price they could absolutely tolerate. They also have to worry about the political fallout of walking away from a deal when the  government tries to blame them for the lack of a deal.<p>There&#x27;s definitely ways in which drug pricing can become abusive and needs to be regulated, especially because government intervention via patents is partially responsible for enabling these abuses. But let&#x27;s not throw out the baby with the bath water. A free market for drugs makes sure that companies can recoup their investments and make a reasonable profit. If pharma companies don&#x27;t feel that they can do that, they won&#x27;t invest in new drugs. Also, I don&#x27;t want to live in a place where the availability of a treatment is determined by some government committee that determines what the value of a month of my life is.<p>A final thought, sticker prices for drugs are thrown around as evidence that drugs are overpriced, but 1) no one ever pays the sticker price, it&#x27;s almost always negotiated way down and 2) these drugs provide immense value. Antiretroviral drugs, for example, turn HIV from an imminent death sentence into a very manageable disease like diabetes. Thousands of dollars a month is pretty reasonable when you consider that. Insurance makes sure that individuals can afford it.