Turns out honesty isn't always the best policy

[MechaPilot]

People get upset at this one guy because he is actually honest about how the drug industry works. There's a bunch of meds being ridiculously priced, and yeah, it's a jerk move, but why are people getting so riled up by what this one guy did? Why not get upset tat the whole pharma-industry?

The truth doesn't absolve someone from the anger of others.

If I burn someone's house down and then tell them I did it and why, do they lose the right to be mad at me?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I completely agree with the bolded part. That's my point. It shouldn't be one or the other. It should be both. Don't be upset with just Shkreli. Be upset with Shkreli and the pharmaceutical industry. Don't be upset with just Shkreli and the pharmaceutical industry. Be upset with Shkreli, the pharmaceutical industry and the politicians that allow this to continue. There is plenty of blame to go around. Shkreli seems to be getting an disproportionate amount.

No, he is getting exactly as much blame as he deserves. I wouldn't give him any less blame than he is getting now. What he has done here is an awful thing. That there are others doing it as well, or that the industry is allowed to do it because of weak regulations and bad policy, doesn't reduce his culpability. Blame isn't a limited resource. We can give him the full amount of blame he is getting and still give a greater measure of blame to the industry, while demanding action from our representatives.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

No, he is getting exactly as much blame as he deserves. I wouldn't give him any less blame than he is getting now. What he has done here is an awful thing. That there are others doing it as well, or that the industry is allowed to do it because of weak regulations and bad policy, doesn't reduce his culpability. Blame isn't a limited resource. We can give him the full amount of blame he is getting and still give a greater measure of blame to the industry, while demanding action from our representatives.

And yet all the focus is on him. He's the bad guy. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's fine. He is getting a disproportionate amount of hate and blame.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

The truth doesn't absolve someone from the anger of others.

Never said it did.

If I burn someone's house down and then tell them I did it and why, do they lose the right to be mad at me?

Yes, totally.

 

[MechaPilot]

If I burn someone's house down and then tell them I did it and why, do they lose the right to be mad at me?

Yes, totally.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And yet all the focus is on him. He's the bad guy. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's fine. He is getting a disproportionate amount of hate and blame.

It is a new story. It takes time for journalists to contextualize this. What people are trying to discern is how exceptional this price increase is (remember it wasn't just that a price increase occured that got people mad, its that it went from 13.50 to 700 dollars. If it comes to light that this is is actually a common increase, believe me, you'll see people express their outrage at the whole industry. What I think is starting to happen is now the conversation is turning to the industry itself.

But again, we can blame this guy and blame the industry. Should we also be taking a harder look at at how these things are priced and the practice of buying market rights to raise prices? Absolutely. But he got exactly what he deserved for raising the price of life saving medicine that much just to make a profit. There is a lot of pressure on him to lower the prices now and that is good thing. The problem isn't that he got too much blame. It is that more needs to go around. Hopefully people will see this and understand just how messed up our healthcare system is. Frankly I am glad when this story broke that people didn't take the position that just because he could do something, he should have. That mentality has poisoned our economy for decades. I think seeing that it produces men like him is going to wake people up for once.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

View attachment 70643

Yes, excellent.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

It is a new story. It takes time for journalists to contextualize this.

It's a new story, but an old tale. He may have been the one to make the biggest price hike, but he did it in an industry that continues to raise the price of most, if not all, medication. Journalists have had plenty of time to contextualize this. Some have already done this. Some haven't. Politicians haven't done anything. Some have most likely helped push legislation that made this far easier to do. To me the public outrage is a bit misplaced, and quite frankly, too late. Hell, it'll probably be short-lived as well.

What people are trying to discern is how exceptional this price increase is (remember it wasn't just that a price increase occured that got people mad, its that it went from 13.50 to 700 dollars.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that it's the magnitude of the increase that you're bothered by?

If it comes to light that this is is actually a common increase, believe me, you'll see people express their outrage at the whole industry. What I think is starting to happen is now the conversation is turning to the industry itself.

Raising the price of medications is standard. Increasing it as Shkreli did may not be standard, but it does happen. There is an article I linked somewhere in a previous post where a drug that cost $500 per pack went up to something like $10,500 per pack. That's a pretty nice jump in price, wouldn't you say?

But again, we can blame this guy and blame the industry.

We can and we should blame him and the industry. We should also blame lawmakers that allowed this to happen.

Should we also be taking a harder look at at how these things are priced and the practice of buying market rights to raise prices? Absolutely.

Absolutely we should. Unfortunately the laws don't allow it.

But he got exactly what he deserved for raising the price of life saving medicine that much just to make a profit. There is a lot of pressure on him to lower the prices now and that is good thing.

He is supposedly going to lower the price of this drug. It isn't clear when or by how much it will be lowered.

The problem isn't that he got too much blame. It is that more needs to go around.

Excellent. You agree with me.

Hopefully people will see this and understand just how messed up our healthcare system is.

You know, while this would be a good thing, I doubt it will happen. There are plenty of politicians pushing to weaken the healthcare system that we have.

Frankly I am glad when this story broke that people didn't take the position that just because he could do something, he should have. That mentality has poisoned our economy for decades. I think seeing that it produces men like him is going to wake people up for once.

People have a short attention span. They will pay attention to this until Trump says somethign else about immigrants or women. Shkreli will probably slowly raise the price back up to $750 per pill, and no one will notice.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that it's the magnitude of the increase that you're bothered by?

I am saying the magnitude matters. There is a difference between a company that chooses to raise the price of a medicine by a marginal amount and one that raises it to the extent that people can no longer afford it. The effect of the former has areal impact on peoples' access to the medication and upon on growing prices in our healthcare system. So while I would be wary of any increase, especially if there seems little real justification for it, I consider it a lot worse if the increase is enormous.

Raising the price of medications is standard. Increasing it as Shkreli did may not be standard, but it does happen. There is an article I linked somewhere in a previous post where a drug that cost $500 per pack went up to something like $10,500 per pack. That's a pretty nice jump in price, wouldn't you say?

This story is definitely bringing that to light. I was aware of companies setting prices high initially due to research and investment costs, but was not aware of the practice of buying things like marketing rights then jacking up the price. In the first few stories I read on this topic, it appeared his was a particularly egregious case. But if there are others I welcome them all being put into focus and being made to answer to the public. One reason I think the treatment of Shkreli is exactly the right amount is it resulted in him being grilled and questioned on the subject by a reporter. That was a very illuminating discussion and I think he gave a lot of responses that left people scratching their heads. Hopefully we get more people like him in the spotlight.

We can and we should blame him and the industry. We should also blame lawmakers that allowed this to happen.
Absolutely we should. Unfortunately the laws don't allow it.
He is supposedly going to lower the price of this drug. It isn't clear when or by how much it will be lowered.

People need to keep the pressure on. If they do that, he is going to have to lower it, because this is doing real damage to his company's reputation. In fact, why not put the whole board of directors under scrutiny? There are people at this company making decisions that are harmful to the public. Put a light on it. That is how we used to deal with these issues.

People have a short attention span. They will pay attention to this until Trump says somethign else about immigrants or women. Shkreli will probably slowly raise the price back up to $750 per pill, and no one will notice.

They do and he might. Always a possibility. But that is why its important to keep in him the spotlight. Like it or not, he is a tangible image people can wrap their head around. People are responding in part because his actions are unconscionable. But also because he fits the bill of the perfect corporate villain. In an odd way, I think that will keep the focus on this issue. Again, normally I dislike these sorts of public floggings. In this case, given what is at stake, and that the guy tried to bilk people (or at least the healthcare system) out of hundreds of dollars per tablet, I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for him. The fact is people like him have been getting away with this kind of behavior for far too long and it is about time journalist started doing their job and hold these folks under a light.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

I wanted to say, I often disagree with a line of reasoning without disagreeing with the conclusion. That just means that I'm finding a problem with the reasoning. I'm a math guy, meaning, the proof is everything.

In the current case, I'm unconvinced by a statement that the pricing is unethical without identifying, clearly, the ethic which was broken.

Also, for the current case, I wholly agree that the raising of the drug prices is morally wrong. Profiting from the disadvantage of others, to the degree shown, is, in my book, pretty awful behavior.

I don't that it's breaking the law (unless there is some law about drug pricing that I don't know about). There *are* cases which are covered which are "close": Laws against price gouging during a natural disaster. See, for example, http://www.keoghcrispi.com/blog/201...sonable-prices-during-natural-disasters.shtml, which has:

The Elements of Price Gouging

The elements of the law section 396-r that are required to be present to show price-gouging are:

Any abnormal interference or disruption of the market;

Of consumer goods that are crucial for the consumers' health, safety, and welfare during this time;

Where the consumer goods are sold at grossly and unconscionably extreme prices.

So there is precedent for making a law against drug pricing of the character which is shown in this case.

Thx!
TomB