I held off commenting in this thread after it came back to life, because it just seems to go in circles, with no minds being changed. I expect that the circular arguments will continue until everybody gets tired of repeating himself. However, I will address a few comments, but I won't directly quote anyone…Agreed – I feel the same.\nIt was suggested that little medical innovation is occurring in Canada - presumably because of our universal healthcare system. There is no question that most medical research happens in the US. But, if you look at it from a population perspective, the US doesn't really stand out.\nhttps:\/\/www.quora.com\/What-countries-have-lead-the-world-in-medical-research-and-innovation-during-the-time-period-between-1995-and-2014I spent a career working in the drug development industry in the USA, both private and US Government. When this article looked at medical R&D based by nation and population size, it ignores a major aspect of big pharmaceutical companies. Most are multi-national. For example, a company, such as Hoffman-La Roche (Roche), may have it's headquarters in Switzerland, it has major branches elsewhere including Japan and multiple locations in the USA. One of these branches, Genentech in San Francisco, was a major independant corporation which Roche purchased in 2009 for $47 billion. As a result, comparing R&D effort based on a nation's population is misleading.\nOn a related note, apparently the US subsidizes drug prices in the rest of the world.\nhttps:\/\/www.vox.com\/science-and-health\/2016\/11\/30\/12945756\/prescription-drug-prices-explainedI liked this article. It describes how the US fails to regulate drug prices, but doesn't explain how this bizarre practice developed. It was entirely a political decision, based on very large donations from Big Pharma companies to US politicians!\nWhile this may be true, it's only because the US government can't\/won't step in to exercise any control over prices. It's entirely likely that if drug prices were regulated, investment in research would drop. So, it could comes down to a choice between research to bring new drugs to market and access to existing drugs for all who need them.In my own experience, the US government heavily subsidizes medical and pharmaceutical R&D in this country. Most medical schools and medical research institutions in the USA rely on federal research support in the form of grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Inst., and the National Science Foundation. Many researchers owe their careers to this federal support. Similarly these medical schools and research institutes owe their existence to federal support. If an individual researcher receives a federal research grant, his\/her employer (a university medical school or research institute) takes at least 50% to 75% overhead. If a grant is for $2 million\/year, the employer takes at least half that much, $1 million\/year, as it's share of the goodies.\n\nIn my own field, cancer R&D, much of the expensive and time consuming clinical trials was performed by people working at these federally supported institutions. True, money also came from the pharmaceutical companies, who owned the rights to the new drugs. But little of this R&D could happen without the major contribution from US taxpayers.\n\nAs a result of all this, I think it's absolutely wrong – to the point of being politically corrupt – to allow the pharmaceutical companies to set drug prices in the USA without regulation.