Wheaton's Law, for one.In the current case, I'm unconvinced by a statement that the pricing is unethical without identifying, clearly, the ethic which was broken.
Wheaton's Law, for one.In the current case, I'm unconvinced by a statement that the pricing is unethical without identifying, clearly, the ethic which was broken.
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.
Wheaton doesn't follow his own law, largely because it's an empty platitude. It's the easier and less rigid version of the Golden Rule wherein actions are replaced by civility. It's truly indicative of these post modern times.Wheaton's Law, for one.
Wheaton doesn't follow his own law, largely because it's an empty platitude. It's the easier and less rigid version of the Golden Rule wherein actions are replaced by civility. It's truly indicative of these past modern times.
I'll give you half a right. Yes, it isn't how the companies generally behave, but he is not doing something that other companies can't, or haven't used before. Did other companies raise the price as steeply as Shkreli did? I don't know. It's possible that they did. It's probable that they didn't. In any case, the ay that companies come up with a price is pretty much the same way as Shkreli did.
Should people be upset that this guy did this? Yes. I'm not denying that. Never have. I just feel that people should also be upset that it is legal to do what he is doing. People should feel upset that he did it, and that he can legally do it.
Let me ask you this: how do drug companies calculate the price of a drug? What variables do you think they consider when pricing a drug?I don't think you've come anywhere near demonstrating that. "Some drugs have high prices" does not equate to, "companies come up with a price the same way he did here"
Actually, it seems to be far more common than you'd think. That's from 2011. Pharmaceutical companies jacking up the price of well established drugs seems to be what the industry does. That's not a good example for you? How about one from 2014 where a free drug went up to $80,000? So yeah, Shkreli raised the price by 4,00%-5,000%? Pffft. Total loser. That guy needs to take some lessons from Catalyst if he wants to make it in the drug industry.Again, taking an old formulation and jacking up the price by a couple orders of magnitude is not usual. It is not what the drug business does.
That they *could* do it, in theory, isn't particularly relevant, as they haven't made a habit of it. We don't regulate away every "might be".
Well that's kind of my point. People may have been upset, but they aren't rally showing it. All the hate is directed at Shkreli. Are people upset with the pharmaceutical industry? I'm sure there are people who are. They just aren't showing it. They should. They should be just as angry, if not more so, with the pharmaceutical industry and the politicians that have pushed for reduced regulation and laws that allow this kind of behavior.Who, other than yourself, has said that people are not upset at the drug industry? Failure to make a specific statement against the industry at this instant does not mean people are not mad at them. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
Sure, you find stories, but where was the public outrage? I don't remember seeing this kind of hate being directed at those companies or executives. Do you?And, when we look at the news, what do we find? Gee, it is plans and stories about controlling drug prices. Some (like the last few of the ones I list here) from well before this incident.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/u...osts-are-rising-as-a-campaign-issue.html?_r=0
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...paign-issue/tOlUbF6UBlAxj4ppnTgeSP/story.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/03/doctors-group-joins-fight-against-skyrocketing-drug-prices.html
http://www.cjr.org/the_second_opinion/what_do_you_mean_control_drug.php
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/10/17/how-to-control-cost-prescription-drugs/
So, really, I don't see your characterization of the response as an accurate characterization of what's going on. Folks are, and have been, angry at the drug industry, for a long time.
Sure, you find stories, but where was the public outrage? I don't remember seeing this kind of hate being directed at those companies or executives. Do you?
Wait a second. If you agree that this is an immoral act, but you just want people to present it to you in a proper logical form? How about, no. If you already agree its wrong, then construct the logical argument yourself. Otherwise it is like you are asking us to entertain you. I think if we all basically agree the price increase was wrong, there isn't a need for us to comb over the logic of it.
If you are just trying to find the professional ethical guidelines on the subject, I think it is pretty basic business ethics to price things in a way that minimize adverse affect on people. If you can raise the price of a good, with minimally adverse impact on the consumers, then it isn't an issue. If you can only raise the price by adversely affecting others (or the system in this case) then I think it is a problem. Raising the price of a drug from 13.50 to 700 bucks clearly isn't ethical pricing. It has been a while since I've taken a course on business ethics or looked into the subject, but it isn't like people are just supposed to do whatever the free market allows without bringing some amount of professional ethical standards or personal morality to the table. If you think there isn't an issue, ask yourself if you could do the same thing he did. If you think it is okay for you to make a huge profit by raising the price of a life saving drug to the point that either the insurance has to cover it or people can't afford it? If that doesn't persuade you put yourself in the shoes of a patient who suddenly can't afford this drug. Do you want to rely on 1) the good will of a guy who jacked up the price to give you free pills, or 2) your insurance company to okay it? Remember if you need this drug and you don't get it, it could have serious consequences for your health, including death.
You make an excellent point.I will say this in Squirrel's defense. He is right
The idea of a monopoly AND predatory pricing rankles my sense of right and wrong.