I can see you are getting too tied up in the existing perspective you have, so I recommend you step back and revisit our discussion with a third person's perspective.

If you have a point to make instead, say it.

I don't know what you're thinking but it feels like you seem to believe that only direct actions have effect.

That's not true. Indirect actions have effect too.

Just because the government's hands are tied in drug pricing does not mean the drug companies can charge the government whatever they want (like they can charge you or I).

For one, it has sheer size and it's pretty powerful overall.

It will take an extremely risk seeking drug company to try and exploit the government and drug companies are extremely risk averse.

Let me give another example - if you interviewed for a front end job this week at either of the coasts and refused to negotiate or name a number, most companies, if not all, would still offer a six figure number because that's the market. I WOULD be surprised if anyone offered you a minimum wage even if you were actually willing to take it!

Another example - say you are driving properly on the freeway following all rules like a perfect citizen and a cop car drives by - in general you're likely to take notice of that and be more careful in the way you drive even if the cop car in no way signalled to you or otherwise expressed any interest. Even if you knew this cop was not allowed to pull you over, you still would modify your behavior. In general for the better.

Compare your change in response to all other cars driving by you - one even might have flashed its lights at you and you showed them your middle finger. You probably wont do that to this specific car though.

Or if you went to an fancy event where the organizers explicitly asked you not to bring any gifts because they knew you were going through a tough time but you saw everyone else bring in expensive gifts, you would probably go out and try and get something reasonable, despite being explicity directed otherwise.

Just because one does not actively signal, or might even be obstructed from signalling, does not mean there is a complete lack of signal.

Drug companies have more to gain from keeping the government happy than making it unhappy.

To that end, they are willing to forgo some profit.

They dont have any reason to do so for you or I.

We are at a natural disadvantage: If you needed drug "GiveLife" to not die tomorrow, you would probably give up a significant amount of your worth or even go into debt to pay for GiveLife.

Ad hominems really don't help any arguments you have to make. Nor do a handful of tenuous analogies.

The government is not a singular entity, but it does exercise some semblance of self-consistent control. The drug/insurance companies have no interest in minimizing their profits aside from following regulations so as to limit potential liability. If the drug companies can successfully lobby for less control then the government's bargaining power is impaired de facto.

I repeat: if you have a point to make, prioritize it over pointing out my grammar or qualifying the way I present my comment.

Really, say it because I have no idea what your position is and we have been communicating a bit at this point.

You have repeated twice now that the government's bargaining power, is impaired. Yes, that's what I said in my parent comment 2 days ago. Why are you repeating what I said, to me?

No, my previous comment was not ad hominem because I didn't know the position you were taking and I still dont know what position you have on the matter. I noticed tunnel vision on your part that was imparing the quality of the conversation and I suggested a technique I often follow myself. If you want to argue the semantics of an ad hominem, I am out of time.

Is your point that the government's bargaining power, which is impaired, less than the bargaining power citizens like you and I possess?

To clarify: My point, with the tenuous analogies included, is: the government's bargaining power, even after being severly impaired, is still superior to the bargaining power citizens like you and I possess when it comes to negotiating the prices of drugs that we need to get and be better.

Other developed countries recognize this and exploit it to the benefit of their citizens. Perhaps we should think of something similar but outside government.

Neither of us have the need to get further bogged down on this. My point of course is that functionally the government only has this bargaining power if 1: the majority of the people in the government see a change in the status quo as desirable, and 2: The will of those same people can't be subverted through means such as excessive lobbying. If both of those conditions aren't met, then saying that this bargaining power exists is essentially meaningless. If that wasn't clear from context, well maybe no amount of clarification can help.

On a side note, questioning someone's motivation and/or ability to comprehend the relevant information and form opinions based on it is definitely a form of ad hominem, and definitely not the right way to start an attempt to clarify.