> 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.