Well, even though I'm going to nibble at the hand that feeds me, I'll give you my perspective, FWIW. Here are some of the dynamics behind the "greedy Big Pharma" diatribe:
1) Pharmaceutical companies, unlike almost ALL other industries, can only profit off of their products for a very limited time. Suppose Apple's patent ran out on their iPhone in just 20 years? That's what happens in the drug world. Unless they can extend their patent life somehow (one of the reasons you see some drugs with multiple dosages or modes of delivery), the generics are available and the Pharma company's product is all but dead, especially since it's difficult to get a brand drug approved by insurance companies if there is a generic available.
As a result, they have to shore up their revenues. What would happen if you had to retire from your job in 20 years? You'd be an aggressive saver. So, yes, pharmaceutical companies aggressively price their products. The market research projects I hate the most are price-sensitivity projects, where they push and push the ceiling for what they can ask for and get. So, this aggressive pricing can be interpreted as "greed."
2).Pharmaceuticals have been responsible for over-drugging the public, but also saving the public. They have given us unbelievable high-tech innovations that have increased cancer survival rates incredibly. I worked on one project for a drug that saves babies from certain death by tinkering with their genomes. Even the bread and butter drugs like anti hypertensives have driven down cardiac mortality rates.
But these novel high-tech drugs come with an ENORMOUS price tag, which they feel is justified because they are so high-tech and so effective. But insurance companies are quaking in their boots because in some cases one course of therapy of these drugs is 1M or more. So, charging 1M to cure one person may be seen as "greedy"
BTW, MOST drugs that go to clinical trials, at tremendous expense, fail. I've started researching many drugs very early in the lifecycle--many drugs that never came to fruition, after millions have been spent. That cost is absorbed into the price of the drugs that make it.
OTOH, who is better at selling diseases so they can sell the cure than Big Pharma? Who ever heard of "overactive bladder" or "erectile dysfunction" in the mass market years ago? Of course they existed, but no one named those conditions and then created the cure before. But if you can make someone believe they have something to be treated, and it's a chronic condition, you can make a lot of money.
So, marketing pharmaceuticals the same way that any other company fills an unmet need in the market can be seen as "greedy."
And of course, these huge companies have a lot of shareholders, and they have to please their investors above all. So their mandate to make a profit can be seen as "greedy." Now, are they making "too much" profit? That's the debate. In the system that we have we don't have systems in place to limit the profit of any other corporation, so why should Pfizer be any different?
My opinion is that Big Pharma is just one piece of this whole healthcare albatross we have. Taking away the profit motive would make healthcare much less expensive. People ask, well, won't that reduce innovation? I don't know. I just know that it's the fact that no one person is paying. Pharma can charge big prices because he insurance companies will pay. But not for long...
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
In answer to the question, as much as I love Bernie and hate this healthcare system and wish it were replaced by Medicare for All, I think "greed" is not quite the right word. I'll try to figure out the right word after I finish my next interview which is in 15 minutes..