They are not doing so because they want to. This oligopoly would love to charge a higher price in other markets, but the governments there have formally and informally instituted price controls.
A Machiavellian would love your strategy as it would end the price controls in other countries--drug co. would sell only here if the price controls didn't budge in an upward direction.
I completely understand the freeloader aspect of what's going on. Drug co. should refuse to sell in those countries, but I reject intereference with their selection of price here.
Here's the timber company background from a yahoo news article:
"I own a timber company?" Bush asked. "That's news to me." Then he paused and added, "Need some wood?"
That baffling exchange arises from an analysis by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org debunking Bush's claims that Kerry's plans to raise taxes on the richest Americans would increase the tax burden on 900,000 small businesses.
The analysis found that the Bush campaign is counting every rich person who has even $1 of outside business income as a small business owner, even if they have no employees.
The analysis said even Bush qualifies under that definition because he reported $84 in income from his part-ownership of a timber enterprise on his 2001 federal tax return.
No drug companies could sell at any price they wanted to, just not price discriminate. They would sell at any price they wanted to in the US, and the freeloaders in the other "rich" countries, would either pay the same price, adjusted for volume sale cost savings, or do without. Drug companies will always deem it mandatory to sell in the American market and will, and will have to, in order to fund drug research.