That's a US problem. The prices of all medicines in for example Denmark are publicly available. The medicine is purchased by a single entity(and there are proposals to combine the entities within the Nordic countries to form a single large purchaser), so to sell medicine in Denmark you'll have to play ball. The prices are therefore quite reasonable. Insulin which is a commonly used example of overpriced medicine in the US is around 40-50 USD in Denmark. That is the brand version from Novo Nordisk.

The prices are available at https://www.medicinpriser.dk/?lng=2

The short answer is that we're talking about the EU. Thats a US thing.

As far as I can tell looking from the outside the US system is set up so that if you aren't ridiculously wealthy yourself you pretty much need lobbyist money to fund your campaign to get elected.

> As far as I can tell looking from the outside the US system is set up so that if you aren't ridiculously wealthy yourself you pretty much need lobbyist money to fund your campaign to get elected.

Considering their whole country started as a place where only wealthy male landowners could vote, and they literally deify some of those wealthy male land and slave owners, as well as their written works, it's no surprise really.

>As far as I can tell looking from the outside

Out of curiosity, how accurately do you feel are the opinions of outsiders with no experience living in your country who comment on your country's state of affairs?

Well, on the one hand of course you could argue that outsiders are less experienced with living in your country.

But outsiders have no emotional stakes in convincing themselves that your country is the best on earth. Consequently, I feel the non-US media are freer than US mass media to discuss the true state of American healthcare. Outsiders are less susceptible to your country's patriotic propaganda.

This does go both (or all) ways. The US are an example here, not a singular special case. Every country tries to convince its citizens that it's better than everywhere else.

I have previously lived in the USA, I'm not sure why you assumed I have no experience of that.

In general I would expect someone who speaks the language of the country I live in now at roughly the same level I speak English to have a pretty accurate understanding of what is going on here. It would, frankly, be quite weird to speak the language and have no idea of what is happening here. Of course America is a special case because of how the internet is dominated by US media, commentary and content.

Sometimes their perspectives could be more accurate as they don't have the same biases. Or maybe its better to say understanding and including their perspectives contributes to a more accurate understanding.

That's probably true, there is lobbying in the UK so I assume countries within Europe have similar issues but I don't truly know.

Generally political advertisements, campaign spending and especially donations are strongly limited. E.g. where I am a only private individuals can only donate and only up to 10k per year. The downside of that is that most funding parties receive comes from the state and it's based on their previous election performance (which is problematic due to very obvious reasons...).

Also if everyone can give/spend as much as they want legally it at least stays semi transparent so in theory voters can base their decisions on that. Illegal bribes, kickbacks etc. are a bit harder to track.

I think the explanation is these legislators are not the ones who feel ideologically strong about cutting drug prices. Of the three people listed in this article, Kyrsten Sinema is no longer a Democrat and Bob Menendez is currently under indicment on federal corruption charges, which is now the second time for him.

Lobbying is likely easier in a polarised two-party system where you really only have to swing a few people on the edges to deadlock things. The European Parliament has 6 large parties (>50 seats), and they're not particularly cohesive, so cases where the pre-ordained decision can be swayed by getting to this six people would be much rarer.

That is likely true, though there is still extensive lobbying going on in the EU and within EU countries. It is just done in a different way, with different mechanics.

Everyone has a price, and drug companies can usually find a way to meet it for even the most steadfast

> Everyone has a price

Some people really do have principles they won't violate. We just don't get enough people in politics who don't have a price.

Not politicians. Not many normal people either. And that presumes that most people even know what 'principles' are - which they do not.

Yeah I agree, I was responding to

> If legislators feel strongly ideologically about an issue, no amount of lobbying will make them vote the other way.

They don't feel strongly ideologically about an issue

You might be right, but having politicians who are not ideologically pro-affordable healthcare is a really sad state of affairs

Well one of these guys is Bob Menendez, who is currently indicted on his second federal corruption charges and who happily accepts cash and gold bars from Egyptian nationals.

Some do, unfortunately oftentimes it's the crazy ones that feel the strongest about things.