But we have pretty effective medical insurance - after paying initial yearly sum, insurance kicks in and covers 90% of the costs. No massive incomprehensible bureaucracy and fooling around with various charges. It doesn't matter what your employer is, you pay it yourself, it covers you no matter the age, status or existing state.

It can still be costly to encounter something serious, some other countries cover 100% of the costs (but question is the quality and speed of treatment, because if its free, old people with tons of mostly incurable ailments can easily flood the system). If it can properly ruin you, social system steps in.

That's a nice and heartwarming story. But I don't believe it for a second. When those companies want to fund research, they raise money from third parties. Or get it from the government in the form of grants.

No, all that money goes to someone's pocket, and mostly stays there.

Not the big companies. R&D is funded through the sales of current products.

Disclaimer: I work in big pharma, though in discovery research, nowhere near pricing and business decisions. Of course, in my position, it would be great if all pharma invested more in R&D

Indian companies can’t just manufacture patented drugs without a license. There is a judicial process to follow beginning with negotiations with the original patent holder. Only if the patent holder refuses to grant a license and the local manufacturer aspirant can prove there will be a public health crisis without the drug will the courts grant permission to bypass the patent.

http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/772644/Patent/Compulsory+Licen...

https://undark.org/article/hepatitis-c-sub-sofosbuvir-india/

It’s probably better for the world if they lean even further from patents.

I think it’s more likely that it funds higher profits for the companies and all the middlemen. This is just self serving propaganda by the pharmaceutical companies.