They still make money but it isn't nearly enough to justify the massive R&D costs for new drugs. Show me some information from a legitimate source proving your dirty little secret. Drug companies spend 10 times more in R&D than they do in direct advertising.
What happens when foolish, shortsighted people like yourself kill the pipeline of innovation and your children have to cope with the fallout? Do you even have children? You never answered my question: Are you one of those people who could care less about future generations as long as you get yours now?
For an industry very similar in cost structure and profitability, look at semiconductors. It takes several billion dollars in R&D to bring a new processor to market. Because the cost of an in-market type device failure can be devastating (remember the floating-point error on the early Pentiums?), extensive testing is required before new chips can be released. Marketing costs are even higher than for pharma, because more of the product is marketed to end users, there being no restrictions on who can buy. There is no government "protection" for pricing in any market, no restriction on cross-market access by consumers, and no restrictions on exports except to a few military-designated "enemy" nations like Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Patent protection is the same as any other industry.
By your standards, this industry ought to be starving. Yet semiconductor manufacturers have no difficulty making huge profits and funding a steady stream of new designs. They do it because the industry is intensely competitive. It didn't grow up in the cloistered, monopolistic atmosphere that has pervaded medicine; it's been culturally adjusted to open competition from the beginning. If medicine were run that way, I bet we would already enjoy eternal life.