alt Hacker News> I reject your argument. It is easier to see when comparing the cost of goods. It is not a fact of life that goods in the US cost 2x the price of equivalent goods in the UK.
Services aren't goods manufactured in a single place. Delivery of healthcare services in the U.S. versus U.K. reflect myriad factors that are rooted in differences between Americans and British people. Americans wouldn't tolerate the trade-offs in the British healthcare system--a system I think is very good, btw--for the same reason they wouldn't tolerate living in little British houses or driving little British cars.
> Please explain why it is a fact of life that a drug in the US costs considerably more than the same drug from the same manufacturer just purchased in Europe.
It's a policy determination to subsidize drug companies to make sure we get access to the latest drugs.
> Americans wouldn't tolerate the trade-offs in the British healthcare system
I do not believe this is true. Keep in mind that the UK has universal healthcare (NHS) but also has a private healthcare system.
The private healthcare system can be used to prioritize speed, comfort, elective procedures, ...
Around 12% of the UK population has private medical insurance [1].
> It's a policy determination to subsidize drug companies to make sure we get access to the latest drugs.
There are cases in which a drug is under extreme demand outstripping manufacturing capacity. In these cases, paying more can provide access to a limited resource.
However, to my eyes, this appears to be an unusual occurrence rather than the typical state of drug production worldwide. I don't see evidence that the amount the US pays for drugs results in dramatically higher access.
I believe the opposite is true. If a drug is available in a US pharmacy but it is unaffordable, does one have access to it? I would say no.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/30/almost-one-i...