Taking the television example a bit far - one can imagine that one company makes radio, other makes ~telephones~ cellphones, oven, etc. These are all electronic gadgets that are used for different purposes.

However, most if not the entirety of drugs is to cure disease and save lives (or significantly improve the quality of live). There is one market as opposed to a market each for the types of gadgets.

Which is why something as trivial as say a surgical equipment gets priced exorbitantly because without that there’s no “whole functioning gadget” (surgery).

The free market economy doesn’t work in this case.

> The free market economy doesn’t work in this case.

While I think this is self evident, it depends on your definition of "working."

If we - a I personally think we should - attach a social caveat to capitalism that requires we do what we can for people less fortunate, it fails miserably because we lack a mechanism for fostering unfettered profit while ensuring healthcare is available to all in a reasonable form. No such mechanism may exist, but I think the problem is we keep trying to shoehorn half measures into the current system and expecting a miracle.

>If we - a I personally think we should - attach a social caveat to capitalism that requires we do what we can for people less fortunate, it fails miserably because we lack a mechanism for fostering unfettered profit

In the case of intellectual property/technology you are mistaken. Patents have an expiration. Capitalists are provided a time limited monopoly for the sake of extracting rent in exchange for development of that technology. But after the expiration, it becomes public domain.

In this case, all of the drugs mentioned will eventually run off patent and be available in generic form for very little cost. Future generations will benefit considerably. This is where the moral argument becomes most powerful. Think of the potentially tens to hundreds of billions of people that will benefit from this in the future. Should we stop the pipeline of drug development because some people can't afford it today?

You're operating on a false dichotomy, though. Why is this the only environment you can envision wherein drugs can be developed?

Because it's the only system shown through out history to work?

If there are better alternatives, why aren't other countries uses such a model? Why is the US _THE_ powerhouse, followed on by other highly market driven economies?

People "envision" schemes all the time. I prefer to live in a world where my drugs are real, not envisioned.

Because the only alternative economic system, Communism, was a total failure at drug development compared to the system we have. We have an example of a working system and another, much less productive defunct competitor.

> All that said, if it's life saving you might be surprised what people can and will do, savings notwithstanding.

Withholding a life-saving treatment has to be criminal in some way.

I just can't imagine a hospital sending people home to die because they can't pay.

You'd be looking to criminalize rational behavior - a difficult and quite often counter-productive endeavour.

First, there's survivorship bias. The hospitals that eat the costs of saving lives eventually go under or can't compete with the ones that invest in better doctors, equipment and so on. What you see in the end is lots more hospitals who are willing to withhold life-saving treatments than ones that will treat anyone no matter what. We may in theory want everyone to be treated, but in practice, our market behavior of seeking cheaper treatments and better doctors sways hospital behavior as well.

Second, there's unintended consequences. A hospital going under to save some lives can have disastrous consequences on the rest of the community - non-life-threatening issues turn into fatalities with the hospital gone, leading to more lives lost than if the hospital was "cold-hearted" and "calculating". Hospitals are faced with this moral dilemma every time they do their budgeting.

Third, there's utilitarianism. Is saving one life no matter how costly the way to go? What if you can save two lives for the same price? Is saving an old person's life the same worth as saving a young one's? What about "saving" someone's life but leaving them functionally crippled, vs dealing with non-fatal conditions in people which might bring them back to full function? How should a hospital spend its finite resources?

When you mix in all these concerns with the practicalities of the situation(noone is working with perfect information, and hospital staff often has to make snap judgements), you're bound to get different outcomes, including sending people home to die, depending on how the hospital lands on this balancing act.

It's difficult enough to craft a law to deal with the moral issues, but then you also need to think of the legal issues in enforcing it, and how the enforcement could lead to further unwanted consequences. Then, purely from a utilitarian POV, think about funnelling all the costs of enforcement into a charity - which one is more effective?

Except it isn't. You can debate the moral questions behind drug pricing. But it's entirely legal for pharma companies to set the price for the drugs to maximize their profits. It's logical.

What exactly is logical about letting someone who figuratively has you by the balls decide the price for a drug?

The logical thing would be having your insurance negotiating on your behalf ahead of time.

Also "but it's legal!" is not a valid argument in a debate about whether something should be legal.

Closest thing is called EMTALA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_an...