Take a closer look at the post, and you'll see that what JunkDNA just said is that is going to happen, and hard. Right now they run about a 17% profit margin [1]. If they lose their cash cows en masse, that's going to go negative, fast. That's not that great a profit margin from that point of view.
What are they going to do then? The only thing they really can, slash costs. It seems unlikely the all the slashing is going to come out of everything except R&D.
We're ultimately going to have to deal with the fact that as a society we've chosen to make it extremely expensive to bring new drugs to market. Basically, our extremely high standards are/were sustainable only because we also gave them patent protection. It is going to be economically infeasible to have both extremely high standards for new drugs, then refuse to protect them for long enough to recoup their costs. There is no law of economics that says a thing must be produced; raise the cost above what can be recovered and what happens is that it won't be produced.
That's generally not a model that results in decreased costs, not to mention that we're in a situation now and for the forseeable future where people really need to stop thinking of the government as a free money fountain. We already can't fund our current commitments, adding yet more billions onto the already huge pile is not necessarily a good idea.
(And don't even think of trying to sell me on it being a net money saver. It won't be after the special interest groups are done with it.)
The money needs to come from somewhere. I'd rather not have the costs concentrated on the sick. We do have plenty of money to fund everything we need if we pull our military out of most foreign countries. I believe that Nasa's annual budget, for example, is roughly the same cost as 1 day in Iraq [citation needed].
In 2011, we spent 700 billion on the defense department, and we spent 1,205 billion dollars more than we took in. It's time to stop thinking of the government as a free money fountain.
I'd suggest it's much cheaper to look into how we could reduce the regulations making it so expensive, rather than throw government money at a problem of the government's creation. At the point where we are seriously talking about the entire edifice collapsing one must take seriously the question whether the costs of our regulatory regime have managed to exceed the benefits. Right now we have a terribly irrational balance between those who are hurt taking insufficiently vetted drugs vs. those who are hurt by not having drugs available for years that turn out safe. The former are visible and the latter invisible, but they are still real. A classic recipe for irrationality.
What are they going to do then? The only thing they really can, slash costs. It seems unlikely the all the slashing is going to come out of everything except R&D.
We're ultimately going to have to deal with the fact that as a society we've chosen to make it extremely expensive to bring new drugs to market. Basically, our extremely high standards are/were sustainable only because we also gave them patent protection. It is going to be economically infeasible to have both extremely high standards for new drugs, then refuse to protect them for long enough to recoup their costs. There is no law of economics that says a thing must be produced; raise the cost above what can be recovered and what happens is that it won't be produced.
[1]: http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html