Clark,
I think the logic of your argument can easily be refuted by reference to contemporary events: (1) the debt/deficit question and (2) the debt ceiling fiasco that took place last year. Both seem and seemed to demand that politics/ideology be subsumed under "hard economics" or "financial physics" as you call it. It hasn't happened with the debt/deficit and it didn't happen with the debt ceiling. And just watch what happens to the "fiscal cliff" problem, if Obama is re-elected. (The problem disappears, of course, if Romney is elected, because all the tax cuts will be extended and "sequestration" will drop off the map, or at least, parts of it.)
Here's my point: "Hard physics" doesn't necessarily trump politics/ideology, even if and when you substitute "hard economics" for "hard physics" And even in "hard physics," science does not necessarily trump politics/ideology. (You might want to go back and read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.") There is no automatic or necessary operation by which "hard economics" is translated into action on the political side. There are unbelievably complex hierarchical, mediating systems and structures that make such a translation problematical, at best, most especially in the U.S.
This whole discussion began with Dew's attempting to bolster his argument that investing in oncology-oriented small-cap biotech stocks, specifically ARIA, is a "sucker's bet." (Dews's term.) Dew argued that the U.S. will move eventually toward a NICE-like pricing model that makes investing in oncology small-cap biotech a bad investment. I have simply tried to challenge his argument that England and "the rest of the world" will be models for drug-pricing in the United States.
This doesn't mean that Dew is wrong in his basic thesis; it's just that the arguments that he is making to bolster that thesis seem highly questionable to me.
Like McBio, I think prudent investing in oncology-oriented, small-cap biotechs is, at present, a potentially good investment.
Bladerunner