> Negotiation with the government is also done in Australia. The drug is not banned here though if there's no agreement. It's just not publicly funded.

A tariff isn't a ban either. Imposing a tariff and eliminating a subsidy are both just ways of reducing a foreign drug maker's sales in a local market by making the product more expensive.

Fundamentally, neither Australia nor the U.S. can force companies located in Switzerland or Denmark to sell them drugs at a particular rate. The only leverage they have is hurting drug maker's sales by reducing the demand in the local market.

> You understand the US is the most expensive place in the world for medicine right... If you don't change your strategy this won't change.

The executive negotiating with drug manufacturers is a dramatic change in strategy from what the U.S. has done before.

Free markets don't exist when the political system is engineered for regulatory capture. Look at corporate political spending over the last 30 years. We don't have free markets.

PBMs do indeed pile-on and profiteer, however manufacturers are fleecing U.S. consumers specifically and exclusively.

Profits in the U.S. for drug manufacturers on a per-drug level are significantly higher than in other countries.

By saying the admin should leave the innocent manufacturers alone, you're papering over this fact. Numerous experts on this issue have suggested the government needs to negotiate with pharma companies directly. Now the admin is doing just that you're saying those companies should not be negotiated with and they're innocent of all profiteering, a suggestion not sustained by the facts.