Well.. I don't really agree.

Your claim though was that "This will, of course, lead to a loss of the US profits that currently drive R&D for new medications, which will lead to a loss of innovation in this most important industry. So we will all lose due to incessant interventionism." I'm claiming though that (1) you have no evidence that that is the case (in fact, there is reason to believe it will have little or no impact) and (2) that R&D is in fact being funded in significant part BY government intervention. If both of those things are true, that significantly undermines your whole argument. In fact, even if only one is true, your argument is still significantly eroded. You've, in this specific case only, provided no evidence that intervention is having a negative effect. While it may be true that interventions can cause chaotic effects, this doesn't lool like a good example.

In fact, in so far as you've given things that high profit margins are supposed to cause (such as increased competition and lower prices), one might wonder why the market is in this case not responding any faster. It might be in part because of government intervention in the form of intellectual property law and import controls. Then again, it might just be a long lag, and maybe I'm not being patient enough. Or it might even suggest that once again the market model does not perfectly fit corporate economics in the modern era. I don't know which is responsible in this case.

(I would add, to address you side point, that while there is no economic or legal (at the moment) problem with making a profit, that there is a significant MORAL problem with maintaining such high profit margins in an industry that people's lives literally depend on. And public morality CAN be legislated. I understand you think that there are pragmatic reasons not to in this case, but there are certainly reasons one might be tempted to anyway.)