> A free market is generally considered superior because the element of competition keeps the vendor(s) honest. If it were illegal for others to make drugs, I would expect the result to be much like it is now for companies that hold patents on drugs; charge as much as possible for as long as possible, until you're forced to bring the price down by competitors.
Why would you expect that? If you take, eg, the French railways, they have for a long time charged reasonable prices for a good service with very good territorial coverage. Similarly, state-owned energy monopolies generally don't gouge out their customers. As for the "honesty" of big pharma, are we talking about the same entities repeatedly caught hiding unfavorable studies or plainly bribing doctors?
Why would you expect that? If you take, eg, the French railways, they have for a long time charged reasonable prices for a good service with very good territorial coverage. Similarly, state-owned energy monopolies generally don't gouge out their customers. As for the "honesty" of big pharma, are we talking about the same entities repeatedly caught hiding unfavorable studies or plainly bribing doctors?