[ThePythonicCow]

Since the article throughout is recommending lifting the re-importation ban thus forcing more costs onto the rest of the drug subsidized world in order to sustain R&D costs, I don’t agree with your analysis.

Good point. I've been vacillating on whether to phrase this as

• "lifting the ban on re-importation", which sounds like a good thing, I'll agree, and yes, that article recommends it, or as
• "importing Canadian price controls", which doesn't sound so good, as it indirectly imposes Canadian price controls here as well, by trying to drive the market price down to whatever is the lowest price. In this case, the low price is the most controlled price, not the most competitive.

We risk trying to "fix" the market distortions that have been caused by excessive intervention, both here and in other countries, by yet more regulatory intervention.

My current guess (yet another vacillation, sorry) is that it won't really make much difference whether or not re-importation is allowed. The excessive role of government in medical services and drugs will continue to grow.

That article favored "lifting the reimportation ban" because it could be a first step toward reducing the market distortions of excessive government intervention. I doubt that.

[dervish]

“The excessive role of government in medical services and drugs will continue to grow.”

I agree. Medicare D costs are going to grow exponentially, and a Dem government will surely step in and impose price controls. I would not want to buy pharma stocks long term.