For the record, I don't think Viagra should need to be "free" either. I have no idea what Viagra costs--trying to find out on the Internet is fruitless. Prices range from $1 to $20 a pill. But I dare say if it's that important to a guy, he can scrape up the cash.

It goes without saying that drug companies are probably quite happy to have their product subsidized, either by the insurance companies or the government. Patient co-pays $12, subsidizer coughs up ten times as much to the drug company. The market process is completely short-circuited. Consumer demand is driven by the $12, so there is no incentive for the drug company to cut its costs.

I can see cases where insurance or a subsidy may be appropriate. If a critical drug costs hundreds of dollars, insurance is an appropriate recourse, or even government assistance in some cases.

This falls into the category that insurance was originally intended for: expensive and unusual health problems, not routine ones. An ideal government medical assistance program would fall into the same category, or be means-limited to people in real need.

Would drugs really cost hundreds of dollars in a free market system? Would the price actually come down to reasonable levels if the company could sell it to no one otherwise? It is a known fact that the price of a drug drops like a rock when it changes to "over the counter" status. But what if the costs are real costs to the company, not just inflated profits? Do they have to just shelve the research as a hopeless loss, keeping the drug from people who need it? And how are drug costs affected by the Byzantine FDA approval process, which can costs hundreds of millions, even for drugs that don't end up being approved?

Tough questions.

I've got no simple answers. My wife takes Avonex, which costs me $12 a month with our insurance (a policy that comes from her employer, though not for free). It would cost hundreds without such insurance, even exceeding the hundreds a month we pay for the insurance.