David Bowie, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, John Lennon and Paul McCartney. The list of musicians who were “on the dole” to support their music careers before they made it big is huge. It’s almost a cliche at this point. And when they do make it big, their biggest concerts are usually held in stadiums that were heavily subsidized by tax payers.

Besides, Bristol Meyers Squibb acquired this drug for $14 billion which is bigger than the annual budget of the entire NSF. For a single drug. Tax payers weren’t the ones on the hook for that.

Do record labels in the UK get funding too? I'd imagine artists getting funding is like scientists getting funding, where as record labels getting funding is more like pharmaceuticals companies getting funding.

That's fine but even considering that, is 20% only on successes enough to fund the rest of the portfolio that fails? And will it pass the risk free rate of return you can get from money markets or treasuries or whatever?

In what sense are you proposing pharma production is funded by tax dollars?

Selling a product to the taxpayers is not the same as funding.

Fundamental research slants towards public institutions, advertising and the clinical trials are the main spending the drug companies do, though they have research beyond trials too. Lots of acquiring university spinouts as well.

The gap between "one chemical that targets this thing" and a drug is massive. And basic research might not even end up with the first, just the target idea.

'Bristol Myers Squibb executives say most eligible patients are covered by Medicare or Medicaid and wouldn’t pay the list price.'

That's kind of like saying hamburger buyers are funding McDonalds.

Buyer typically do not have a direct say in how businesses are run. They exert influence by either buying a product or not.

> That's kind of like saying hamburger buyers are funding McDonalds.

If Medicare and Medicaid cover hamburgers.

I could be wrong, but it looks to me like the fact that there's a built-in government-funded ('tax dollars') market is an aspect of pharma calculations.

Absolutely it is a huge part of strategy. but simply being a customer does not give governments a vote in the internal decision making.

Customers vote by buying products or walking.

The original question was:

> In what sense are you proposing pharma production is funded by tax dollars?

I am proposing that the pharma strategy of capitalizing on Medicare and Medicaid tax dollars is a significant component of pharma production. I think this is about executive decisions rather than customer decisions.

I would agree with with the word choice of capitalizing. Funding implies you are exchanging money for control. If I fund a company, I expect to get voting shares. When I buy from a company, I expect to get what I paid for.

It is literally the same exact pharma companies selling to the US Medicare, UK NHS, and communist China. What differs is the customers.