I was trying to trying to point out the scale of the "inefficiencies" inherent in current pharmacy billing practices (and in my understanding medical billing in general). The prices are literally just made up[0], and then payors have to guess how much they should pay. "That's not how it works", perhaps a poor choice of words was intended to reflect that if a drug costs $2000 per month or even $500/month, often that money doesn't need to come from anywhere.

Now that you've clarified, it sounds like you're arguing against the idea that drugs have no cost of development or production, which is not an idea that anyone actually holds, so I'm sorry for wasting our time. I would point that "free at the point of service" does seem to be one sense of "free".

[0] https://www.rjhealth.com/2019/07/31/drug-pricing-101-reimbur...

> I would point that "free at the point of service" does seem to be one sense of "free".

Sure, and my contention (going back to the grandparent) is that is an illusion. I'd be more than happy to give you a car for free and then just charge you later if you thought you were getting it for free. I want people to continue to be aware that even drugs that are sensibly priced do still bear costs to society.

> which is not an idea that anyone actually holds

You'd be surprised. In fact, the language most people use is "healthcare is free in Europe and elsewhere" because they don't understand how things work. It's not free. Never has been and never will be.

> often that money doesn't need to come from anywhere.

I'd love to hear more. How is it that nobody has to pay for the drug? How does the drug come into existence without money?

They're saying that most of the price of the drug is way in excess of the actual costs involved. So the only reason why anyone is paying that much is because somebody is trying to collect significant economic rents from their drug purchases. In a not-for-profit healthcare system, or one where drug prices are regulated, this overhead would simply not exist.