How is this riskier or less “mentally sound” than what European countries do? European drug price caps are premised on the threat that, if drug companies don’t sell at those prices, that the government will bar sales of the drug in the country, or drop the drug from coverage under the public health system.

Here, there is no threat that the drugs will be banned from the market completely. The threat is that the drug companies will face high tariffs that reduce sales. That’s a much less extreme threat than what the European countries use as leverage.

▲

killingtime74 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If you will do a deal at any price, as Donny says "you have no cards". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiat...

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.

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. https://www.comparethemarket.com.au/health-insurance/feature...

	▲	rayiner an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> 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.