Ah, so if the grant total of other administrative expenses for a drug company (of which your article freely admits that marketing is only a part, and tellingly doesn't even attempt to quantify how much) are more than R&D, and if you cherry-pick a single year such that it obfuscates the cyclic nature of R&D (where R&D for a given drug will be separated from marketing expenses and profits for that drug by many years), then R&D doesn't cost much of anything and thus need not really impact the sales price of a drug. Got it. I really want to think you would be a bit more attuned to this kind of shoddy analysis and faulty logic if its conclusion wasn't what you already obviously want to believe.
And it's also interesting that after you painted yourself into a corner on the original topic -- that the U.S. can't arbitrarily slash its pricing structure for drugs without adversely affecting the overall drug landscape, both for itself and others -- you've jumped to another lilypad and are now embracing a fundamental change to that landscape, arguing to put the entire pharmaceutical industry under state control (employing, dare I say, banal socialist propaganda?). I guess that's fine as long as you don't mind new, useful drugs -- and maybe even sufficient quantities of existing drugs -- becoming roughly as available as health care for veterans or eggs in Venezuela. Party on, comrade.