>>If they are not incurring losses over there, then why are they applying such a different profit margin here in the US? If the answer is "because they can", I'd only add "and because they believe greed is good".
>
>I already told you that they are not incurring losses there. Are you listening exclusively to yourself?

So why are they not applying the same prices here? They wouldn't be at a loss. Why do people have to go to Canada?

>Naturally, companies may decide themselves to boycott any market, without your help; though, in light of your obsessive idea of losses coming wrong, the boycott proposal looks, mildly speaking, challenging.
>Also, you don't understand how subsidizing works. I already offered to explain it to you, though I am not very optimistic.
>Finally, the most expensive drugs are equally expensive everywhere. Just look what Alan says. Canadians cannot afford them.

You can find exceptions to gravity, if you are bent to find them. If Canadian drugs are so expensive, why did the Congress pass a law to allow imports, and then "stipulated that the Act could not be implemented unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) could first guarantee that all drugs imported under the program would be safe and offer significant cost savings for consumers. In time, both the former and current Secretaries said these conditions could not be met, and declined to implement the law." (http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-2336)

Whatever that meant, it smacked of protectionism.

BTW, after reading that and a few other documents put together by congressional research, I've found the fundamental flaw in the whole... let's call it a system, for lack of better word. The word they use in these document to denote the users of the, ahem, system, is not "people", not "patients", not "the sick" (we already know there's no word for "bolesnik" in English)... it's "consumers".