Are you saying that's not the correct price in a competitive market? After accounting for all costs, of course.

Maybe you should read those people as saying "this market is lacking in competition to make prices reasonable".

10000% of costs is, quite simply, asking for someone to put a shiv in your kidney.

The only way to achieve such margins is by literally suppressing all competition with armed force, with an unquenchable, non-substitutable demand. In the case of pharmaceuticals, the feds provide that force.

Normally, the balance point is the fair point. By making it cheaper, you get people who don't need it still buying it, leaving no supply for others that do need it. At the same time, making it more expensive leaves people who need it not being able to get it.

This reasoning is why we say the market price and fair price coincide. This breaks down when demand is inelastic. (It also breaks down when income inequality gets to be huge). Specifically, when there are no people that want something but don't need it, the argument breaks down. In this situation, the market price is called price gouging.

There are some cases where responding to the market makes sense. I.e. when there is a flood incoming, make flashlights and batteries a bit more expensive to discourage hoarding and encourage more supply. Don't charge the market price mark-up of 10x though.

Who doesn't think like that? If demand is high, it's the perfect excuse to exploit people. Why would anyone try to rationalize a reasonable exchange, when they can rip desperate people off?

Especially when you can remove the clause containing the words "free market" without changing the meaning of the comment. "It is shocking how many people will ignore the fact that health care and pharma in the U.S. are nothing like the toy models taught in econ 101, but pretend that they are in order to defend rent seeking."