Alright folks. Take a deep breath, and consider: when a good or service is sold in a "natural monopoly" due to the absurdity of introducing redundant infrastructure to produce competition, we call the provision of the good or service a utility and regulate prices in the public interest, at least when demand for the good or service is inelastic because it's a necessity (e.g. clean drinking water provided to the tap, which we have usually socialized at the local level, or electricity or piped-in natural gas which we haven't). This is not obnoxious to free market economics because there is not a free market in such goods or services.
Explain, then, why so many on this board regard the regulation of price of goods with inelastic demand because they are necessities (e.g. the only effective drug for a potentially fatal illness) which are sold under an artificial monopoly called a "patent" created only by government intervention in the market is obnoxious to free market economics. Development costs? Nope, utilities also have sunk costs in infrastructure, but they are regulated in the public interest. There is not a free market in the only treatment for the disease (because the government has granted a monopoly on it) any more than there is a free market for tap water -- development costs provide no moral basis for the collection of monopoly rents on the drug any more than infrastructure costs provide a moral basis for monopoly rents on tap water -- the more-so when those development cost have been paid in part or whole with tax-payer funds under grants from the NIH or NSF.
