Turing Pharma Boss Martin Shkreli Defends Massive Price Increase As A Good Thing For Patients
from the just-another-symptom-of-a-diseased-system dept
Martin Shkreli -- founder of Turing Pharmaceuticals and overnight poster boy for everything that is wrong with the pharmaceutical industry -- spent a lot of yesterday defending his 5000% price hike on Daraprim, a drug that treats victims of toxoplasmosis. That the drug has a nexus with cancer and AIDS sufferers (basically anyone with a diminished immune system) made the price increase seem even more unconscionable.
Shkreli's self-serving interviews were loaded with ridiculous statements.
He claimed raising the price from $13.50/pill to $750/pill was done in the interest of the same people who would likely find it suddenly prohibitively expensive to take the drug.
“With these new profits, we can spend all of that upside on these patients who sorely need a new drug in my opinion.”First off, there's no consensus that the medical community is searching for a new toxoplasmosis drug.
Dr. Wendy Armstrong, professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, questions Turing’s claim that, after more than 60 years of physicians using Daraprim, there is a need for a better version of the drug.Next, there's the inherent ridiculousness of this assertion, which portrays Turing's plans for Daraprim as a reverse pyramid scheme, in which future "investors" will benefit from the gouging of those who got in on the ground floor.
“I certainly don’t think this is one of those diseases where we have been clamoring for better therapies,” says Armstrong.
On top of that, Shkreli claims the drug is still underpriced, despite having been sold for $1/pill before its acquisition by the company Turing acquired it from.
While it's true that drug research and development can be expensive, it is nowhere near as costly as this price hike would indicate. Shkreli tossed out the easily-debunked claim that it costs $1 billion to bring a new drug to market. The actual cost is considerably lower (~$55 million), according to research using the same data drug companies provided to backup their claims of $1.3 billion in R&D costs per new drug.
Data also shows pharmaceutical companies spend far more on marketing than research and development. They have to. Most "new" products on the market aren't actually new. They're just variants on what's already available. It's tough to sell a "new" drug that doesn't outperform a competing product, hence the increased marketing expenditures.
Shkreli also used a variant of "everyone else is doing it" to defend the price jump. He pointed to the existence of other cancer drugs costing "over $100,000" per treatment as justifying Turing's price increase. But being slightly less exortionate than competitors isn't the same thing as being "good."
Shkreli has little interest in being good, no matter what altruistic assertions he makes. His former company -- from which he was ousted over accusations of stock price manipulation -- also jacked up the price on an essential drug just because it could.
When Retrophin acquired rights to Thiola, the drug cost about $1.50 per pill. [Patients take multiple pills per day.] Now, Retrophin has decided to charge more than $30 for the same Thiola pill. Retrophin says it has plans to change the Thiola dose and develop an extended release version of the drug, but I have seen none of those changes yet. To my knowledge, Retrophin hasn't yet done any of this work -- except to drastically increase Thiola's price.And indeed, Retrophin never did. From a 2015 presentation, it's generating sales for Retrophin, but nowhere in it is any indication the company is actually working towards an extended-release version of the drug.
I asked Shkreli about this and he claimed the company ditched the R&D plans after it ousted him. Maybe this is true, but it doesn't exactly instill any confidence in Shkreli's latest claims that price hikes are being done with an eye on increased R&D spending. Instead, they look like nothing more than the normal deflection performed by drug companies after controversial price increases.
Other circumstantial evidence does little for consumer confidence. Not only is Shkreli being sued by his former company for fraudulent behavior, he's previously been taken to court (by Lehman Brothers) for a $2.3 million loss he incurred (but never repaid) when his bet on a market decline went south. The complaint accuses him not only of failing to pay Lehman what was owed, but of pushing through the transaction without actually possessing the funds to cover the original purchase.
Shkreli also has a history of thriving on market failure. He has made money shorting pharmaceutical stocks while simultaneously engaging in questionable behavior. Here's a "treatise" he wrote detailing the negative aspects of one company's research efforts, which clearly states at the top of each page (for legal reasons) that he stands to personally gain if the company's stock price drops.
DISCLAIMER: The authors of this article have a conflict of interest and will benefit financially if the stock price of VTL falls. The authors reserve the right to change their investment if the price of VTL changes dramatically. Please read the Disclosure at the end of this paper for more information.(This was tracked down from a deleted tweet by Martin Shkreli. Other Twitter users had commented on it, so it was recoverable from Google cache. Here's a screenshot, because the cache won't stay live for long.)
But he's also been accused of actions that are more than simply treading the edge of legality. A heated Twitter exchange implies Shkreli talked the FDA out of a drug approval -- something that hurt the company producing the drug, but paid off for Shkreli's stock short.
Shkreli's history does little to back up his assertions of altruistic goals and a future full of well-funded research and development. Instead, it shows someone who's willing to exploit every last dollar out of something and leave its dessicated corpse behind.
What he has done is anger the "community" he's a part of. Drug prices were already being subjected to the scrutiny of crusading legislators. Now, drug prices are no longer under the Congressional microscope. They're also being projected onto the Jumbotron that is social media. No less than presidential candidate Hillary Clinton offered up her view on the price hike, promising a plan to address the problem.
On top of that, share prices for several drug companies fell the day the Daraprim price hike went viral. That this may have worked out well for Shkreli can't be ignored, considering his prior experience with shorting pharmaceutical companies. Maybe this was part of the plan: Short pharma stocks. Jack price up on newly-acquired drugs. Play the villain while cashing in on the market decline.
That's all speculation, of course. What is certain is that Martin Shkreli is not THE problem. (He's not even "Big Pharma," even though several editorials have placed him in this group.) He's part of the problem, but his specific actions are more about exploiting obscure drugs that competitors aren't interested in. His actions shed little light on the genesis of high drug prices.
The original issue is patents. That has been mostly ignored by legislators and opinion pieces during the most recent push for some sort of drug pricing controls. And it will continue to be ignored because Daraprim's price hike is completely unrelated to patent monopolies. Turing's exclusive license for Daraprim includes only the use of the trademarked name. The patents have expired. Anyone can make it, but no one's been particularly interested in offering an alternative. (Maybe this will change now that a company has a chance to take on the villain du jour…)
But it's patents that make drugs unaffordable in the first place. New drugs are given, at minimum, 20 years of competition-free sales. That's two decades (at least) where drug companies can charge whatever they want because no one else can offer a competing product. Companies -- like Shkreli -- will claim they need this exclusivity to recoup "massive" research and development costs. But this simply isn't true. Pharmaceutical companies enjoy massive profit margins, much more than would be expected if they were faced with meaningful competition. The lie is exposed when patents expire. Prices fall dramatically once the market is opened, including that of the original manufacturer's.
So, if the government really wants to tackle the problem of overpriced drugs, it needs to start with the protections it grants that allow this to happen. But this seems unlikely to happen because drug companies have significant "buying power" when it comes to legislation, no matter how many people come forward to testify about being priced out of essential treatments.
Shkreli, however, is specializing in finding "orphan drugs" -- drugs for rare conditions that are no longer under patent protection (which would raise the acquisition price significantly) but which have seen little to no competitive movement over the years. His decision to implement a 5000% price increase, despite minimal costs (and benefiting from R&D performed 60 years ago), is one he can make because there's no market force in place to stop him. So, he may be the poster boy for everything that's wrong with the pharmaceutical industry, but he's not really indicative of the ongoing problem.
What he is, however, is an opportunist with a hedge fund background and a history of market exploitation. Any claims of altruism or searches for better treatments should be met with intense skepticism.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: daraprim, drug prices, drugs, martin shkreli, monopolies, pharmaceuticals, price gouging, toxoplasmosis
Companies: turing, turing pharmaceuticals
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And this is why to heavily regulate corporations and tax the hell out of the rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And this is why to heavily regulate corporations and tax the hell out of the rich.
Regulation only does one thing, cause MORE problems and secure a companies bottom line when they corrupt the organization "regulating" them.
The FCC is a prime fucking example of this very fact... they helped created the telco monopolies!
You will only gain a false sense of security from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And this is why to heavily regulate corporations and tax the hell out of the rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulation only does one thing, cause MORE problems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Regulation only does one thing, cause MORE problems"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So any other pharmaceutical can come in and sell their version for $1/pill again, be seen as a hero, and probably bankrupt this bastard.
Who's up for a Kickstarter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then they go straight back up again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And then what happens when this guy finds out another company is about to release their version of the drug for $30? Oh, look, he's suddenly being big-hearted and pricing his own drug for $20, which once again, undercuts the competition... which is basically what the drug has been doing for the past 50 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost of Drug
In the UK, the same drug is currently sold by GSK at a cost of £13 for 30 tablets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34322720
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cost of Drug
The only people who would have to pay the inflated price are those whose doctors mark the scrip DAW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cost of Drug
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cost of Drug
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cost of Drug
Americans. The rest of the world are unaffected by the purchase of US marketing rights, even though the pills come from the same place.
But, any attempt to fix to fix your healthcare system that allows this stuff to happen, blocks Medicare from negotiating prices to get the same deals as other public healthcare systems, etc. tend to get labelled "socialism". Thus rejected by the same low-information voters who would benefit from those types of changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cost of Drug
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cost of Drug
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Distirubution Rights -- IANAL
How would US law allow for exclusive distro rights for an unpatented product?
This sounds like something ready for a major antitrust suit.
Maybe I don't understand capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Distirubution Rights -- IANAL
Monopolies are 100% allowed in the US. What is not allowed is abusing the power of a monopoly position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"abusing the power of a monopoly position"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Distirubution Rights -- IANAL
If someone else wants to start manufacturing it, they aren't prohibited from doing so - it's just that they also have to get separate FDA approval for what they produce, unless they can prove that it's chemically identical to what the existing manufacturer produces.
That separate-FDA-approval requirement seems like the real root of the problem, in this and similar cases where all applicable patents are expired; it imposes a barrier to entering the market, thus restricting the number of potential competitors.
There's room to argue that it's necessary from a public-safety perspective, and I'm not entirely sure that that argument doesn't hold up - but the result is highly unfortunate and undesirable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again you pirates hide the truth. If you can't afford it, you don't deserve it!
Attempt # 32! You pirates are very insistent on hiding the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta love those pro-corporate priorities
Insanely priced drugs, priced purely for profit are good, despite the very real health costs suffered by people who can't afford drugs they need to live normal lives(or live at all).
At least you're honest about the fact that you don't care one bit about actual people, and only care about the wealthfare of corporations, so that's something I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gotta love those pro-corporate priorities
(http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Kohlberg%27s%20Stages%20of%20Moral%20Development.htm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again you pirates hide the truth. If you can't afford it, you don't deserve it!
I hope you're not referring to yourself, because you've *never* contributed anything factual to dicsussions here.
You need to stop lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again you pirates hide the truth. If you can't afford it, you don't deserve it!
Yet, you never use the opportunity freely afforded to you here to list the facts, only to whine and lie about people.
Is that because you have no facts yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again you pirates hide the truth. If you can't afford it, you don't deserve it!
You have clearly stooped to a new low - congratulations, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again you pirates hide the truth. If you can't afford it, you don't deserve it!
https://youtu.be/xzNyVPbx3gI?t=31
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
Obviously Daraprim is going to be smuggled in from other sources and sold -- still at an inflated price, but not $750/pill -- by dope pirates. If the pirates are nice they may even undercut the $14/pill price, since people will be paying out of pocket.
We had the same problem with oysters and media once.
Hoist the colors high!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stop. Reacting. To dog whistle words!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for attempted murder charges against this asshole...
He's the one that forced the price hike, he's the one who chose to make it tougher, if not down-right impossible for people to get this drug without a fucking care in the world for the people it would hurt or kill.
Sounds like pre-meditated to me.
I hope Shkreli enjoys what's about to happen to him once the thousands of attempted murder charges are levied against him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Murder charges
On the first Sunday of the month he invites the local precinct to join him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for attempted murder charges against this asshole...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By killing off the less fortunate he is making the world a better place for the wealthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup, that means that medical drugs would be something either made by the government, or left up to businesses but subject to heavy regulations, particularly regarding the price, level of healthcare and such.
Healthcare (among other things) is something that shouldn't be left up to private actors (at best, they would coexist, though I don't like that idea). And no, I don't mean healthcare "for the poor", like the medicare or whatever is called, but I'm talking about regular healthcare.
Free market in this issue means "kill market". At best is "blackmail market".
And those complaining about taxes or whatever... well, what you are not paying in taxes, you're paying it in medical insurance. Or in rip-offs like this one. And probably, more expensive than what healthcare taxes would cost you.
With the extra that every time you go to the doctor, you have to figure out either how you're going to pay him, if your insurance will cover it, or if it will be very expensive (and thus, your insurance company will up the prices).
IMO, a person in a hospital should only care about getting better, not about paying it or not.
Remember that when it's a business, their goal isn't to get you healthy, but to get money out of you. We got a saying here: "if you need to have a low-risk surgery or treatment, private healthcare is faster; but if your life is at risk, you're safer in a public hospital".
And those thinking about "how lucky I am that I don't live in the US" should do well to remember TiSA. And to remember that you want to oppose it because of news like this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's profitable because they only privatized part of the chain. If they also had to investigate, charge, try and convict malefactors in order to get the bodies to store in those prisons, it'd be far less profitable. The private prison network/industry is getting a free subsidy from the taxpayers which produces inmates for it. Sweet deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Privatization may not be the answer, but handing it over to the Gov would be catastrophic. Look at Obama care! Since it's come into play, my premiums have doubled, and my deductible is 6K.. 6K!!!!!!!!???? WTF! I pay twice as much, and I'm not getting any better care! What's basically happened is; I'm paying for people that can't/won't pay... all they did is take my hard earned money and give it to someone else... I would rather the Gov not help me anymore.. It's going to bankrupt me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...and the private sector isn't? I suppose it's down to how you define "waste", I suppose, but often that's removed by abusing employees so it's all semantics.
"Since it's come into play, my premiums have doubled, and my deductible is 6K"
I've never paid a deductible in my life. nor a direct premium.
Oh, yeah, I'm in one of those socialised countries so my taxes pay for it, but I'd rather have that than face a system where I could be bankrupted, refused care or anything else that gets in the way of someone's profits. From what I've seen, I pay far less than Americans too, even though I have access to both public and private care (part of my employment benefits).
"I'm paying for people that can't/won't pay"
You have done for your entire life, one way or another - and often in the most expensive, least efficient, most wasteful way possible.
Shame you don't know enough to realise that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Shame you don't know enough to realise that."
I make the same amount of money I did before, but I bring home significantly less now. I pay significantly more for health care per year out of my check and I have to set aside 6K per year instead of 3K on a flex card to make sure I've got enough set aside to cover my deductible. We didn't socialize our healthcare, we just made a bad situation worse. We can still be bankrupted, we can still be refused (not counting stabilization and life threatening) care.. for the contributors, it's the same basic system but it costs a lot more now.
I've worked my whole life, carefully planning how much money I set aside based on my health needs. I purchased a plan that covered the catastrophic situations, and a general plan for everyday needs. I was in charge of my health, I decided what and how I was cared for... My health care decisions were mine. Now my options are limited, and the plans I want are cost prohibitive.
If you want to hand over your health care system to the Gov't. Knock yourself out, but don't force your socialized bullshit on the rest of us. I would much rather use the Govt to regulate a health industry, and make that industry compete for my business than hand over the keys to the castle to the Gov't who historically speaking, use these types of programs for political purposes and for their own benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How's that been working out for you so far?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, you can thank the conservatives for shooting down single payer - which would've actually sparked competition, and actually CAUSE capitalism, by giving the insurance companies a run for their money.
You've got what you got because you were more interested in protecting the insurance companies who were screwing you over just the same before. Just like most of you idiots who run around screaming "SOCIALISM" you get conned instead into voting against your own best interests.
You've got what you got because you put profits before actual health care. Someone's just GOT to make a buck, even at the expense of lives (well, except when it comes to abortion, right?).
I'm happy to hear that YOU personally have been affected. What you have is CAPITALISM, and the insurance companies simply recouping their losses at your expense. Or, business as usual.
Surely you can understand the capitalist way, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not all of us are equal, some of us have disabilities and legitimate problems that make it physically/mentally impossible to stand on your own feet. I get that. I'm prepared to do my part and help support them. Support them by helping them train and learn a skill so that they may contribute in some way to society. If at that point we find they simply cannot stand on their feet or contribute, then we do what we have to do to carry them, but we exhaust all other possibilities first.
We do need some Gov regulation in the health industry. Like all things, there needs to be a balance. A balance between profits and humanity. Profits so that we continue to innovate and develop, humanity so we don't forget our fellow man.
Everyone had the opportunity to the same health care I had. I purchased it through the open market. I got a fucking job, worked my ass off putting myself through school, racking up student loans and debt to do it. I got my education on my own back, paid off my own debt's, got a fucking job, and made the shit happen. Don't be scared you fucking leech, you can do it too, I believe in you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop complaining on here that your costs went up because of Obamacare. They went up because the greedy fucking insurance companies have idiots like you voting against single payer because "socialism."
You got your fucking capitalism, right here with this drug going up 5000% - enjoy it, and save me the story on how you work for this that and the other thing - I don't give anything close to a shit.
What I'm happy to see is people like YOU being affected by basic needs like this - if there's anyone more deserving of rising health care costs, it's YOU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong wrong wrong! They went up because you, and people like you, are fucking leeches. You wanted your free health care, well you want it scrubb, you got it. Enjoy your Gov mandated health care, mommy Gov will be making all the decisions for you now. Eventually you won't be contributing enough to make it worth those expensive procedures keeping you alive, mommy Gov may have to put you down by withholding treatment. It's really for your own good! Think you can just go to a private practice and pay for the procedure? I don't think so.. mommy gov has an estate tax, it doesn't make a lot of since to let you spend all that hard earned money of yours on health care before they get their chunk, I'm sure you understand!
"What I'm happy to see is people like YOU being affected by basic needs like this - if there's anyone more deserving of rising health care costs, it's YOU!"
Ahh.. see, that's where it get's interesting. If you know anything about basic business, and I'm not assuming you do because your obviously a socialist leech, you would understand that because I'm hiring employee's now, I actually don't pay for anything. I pass along cost one way or the other. Either my employee's foot the bill, or my customers do, either way it won't be me. And I realize your feeble mind can't wrap itself around this simple fact, but try... I HAVE to pass along those costs or they won't have a job, and I won't have a business. So it really is in their best interest that I do so.
You keep on clinging to that Gov tit if it makes you feel better leech. I'll keep pulling the cart for now. Eventually 'm going to get tired though, and you'll have to get your fat ass off the cart and pull it yourself... but until then, enjoy the ride.
Margret Thatcher said it best;
"“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that's truly the case, THEN QUIT BITCHING! Again, passing on costs is THE SAME THING THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE DOING (and the same thing YOU'RE complaining about). You said yourself you're not paying for it - stop coming off like some "I just barely make it, but now I can barely make it even less!" kind of person.
Fucking whiny capitalist bitches - complaining when other compaines do the same thing they do...hypocrite much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you learning impaired? I said costs went up BECAUSE the socialist got involved. They, and I do mean the leeches like yourself, caused this mess we call Obama Care. Now, I do believe something needed to be done regarding increasing costs.. even before Obama Care it was on the verge of getting out of control, but the current state is not an improvement at all, it's much much worse.. they should have increased competition by opening up the markets, not closed them off even more and forced people to buy something they couldn't afford/didn't want.... and then subsidized it, shifting the costs over to the middle class....
"Fucking whiny capitalist bitches - complaining when other compaines do the same thing they do...hypocrite much?"
One more time for my new feeble minded socialist friend; My only complaint is that the Gov got involved and caused my nice medical coverage to be out of reach, and I had to settle for a half ass thought out program that forced me to carry other leaches like yourself. But as I mentioned before, I soon will be passing off the costs to my employee's, so I'll be able to afford my health plan again, and yes it will be on the backs of the people that work for me... You could say I get to spend a little time on the cart no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahh, I see...and the conservatives, who are hell bent against this socialism scourge, are fixing this as we speak...oh wait...
It's you who are full of shit. You're whiny, complaining, but doing so successful, nonetheless, on the backs of your employees! And over health care...that's why there needs to be socialism with respect to health care IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Companies LIKE YOURS, who are so concerned with your own bottom line, that you'd simply have your employees make a choice between say, health care and food, but complain like a whiny bitch when it cuts into your discretionary spending.
Go fuck yourself, you hypocritical piece of shit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Until then, I"ll go fuck myself as you've asked :) But please keep in mind; Eventually you will have to pull yourself off the Gov tit, When you do, look me up, I might give you a job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I refuse to do is say that people should be denied health care because they can't afford it. Companies have head decades to "do the right thing" and have chosen profits over basic human needs. This article shows exactly that.
You are no different, in subsidizing your golf game on the backs of your employees. Take solace in having "earned" that - after all, even assholes deserve a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How so? One guy does something totally stupid, and the media are having a field day with him. He's going to get what he has coming to him. That doesn't mean the whole system needs to be socialized. Perhaps more regulation, but socialization? That's not going to fix anything, your just going to make it worse.
"What I refuse to do is say that people should be denied health care because they can't afford it."
Who pays for it? You think it should come from the government, therefore the people? Who is the government to decide what is best for my money? Why not let me decide how much I have to give? It is charity after all right?
People already can't be denied treatment in the U.S. for life threatening issues. By law they can't be turned away for treatment.. what else do you want? Everything should be free? The crook in jail should get the same treatment as a Policeman? Where do we draw the line? Who gets to choose?
The system is broke. But insurance companies have been allowed to do what they've done, who do you think allowed them? You think socializing health care, giving more power to a government that's allowed it to get this bad already, will fix things? I think your crazy if you think the U.S. Government can "fix" a broken system. They've destroyed every program they've ever touched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It is charity after all"
We like to imagine that ours is a society in which anyone can find work, and can find adequate work for reasonable hours in safe conditions that is enough to sustain themselves and children. In fact, that was essential to the American Dream before the California Gold Rush changed all that in 1849.
The US has more wealth-per-capita than ever, but its distribution is so disparate that we have five times as many unused homes as we have homeless. We dump food to rot and compost while people starve. Here in San Francisco, there are five times as many homeless as there are beds, including and this is the nation capital of the non-profit humanitarian community. The US looks more and more every year like Mexico with its grand hotels with walls to block the squalor from view.
It take more than charity to fix this. And we could do better if we wanted.
But as you demonstrated, we just don't value our fellow Americans. Our fellow human beings. Perhaps you'd rather we leave the refuge and resources of the downtrodden to the workhouses and prisons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It is charity after all"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a sentimentalist, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm a sentimentalist, I guess.
I've always seen it cynically. "Alright, I just have to be nice to people for this one week, and then I can go back to treating everybody like shit? I can do that." Never had much Xmas spirit in my heart. What's with all the presents one-upmanship? Don't need it. Don't see any point in it. Enjoy it if you like it. I ignore it. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You want my money, but you don't want to earn it."
How about Romney while we works for Bain Capital using legal loopholes to bankrupt corporations, walking away with the loan money while the banks and the government foot the bill. Does he earn his money?
And then how about the troops in Afghanistan who are put in harms way, and have to face enemy fire on our behalf (even though we don't necessarily want them there). Their families are on food stamps or would be if the USArmy would let them. (They don't because it looks bad if USArmy families are on food stamps. So they just starve.)
(Actually they don't starve. Like Americans during the great depression, they live on a less-than-subsistance diet and slowly die of malnutrition.)
Oh and how about a friend of mine who has suffered from two accidents of being hit as a pedestrian by a motor vehicle. In both cases, she had the right of way. In both cases the drivers had little to no insurance. She used to provide tutoring for special-needs kids. Now her brain doesn't function well enough to teach. Tell me, should we just let her die?
You reap the benefits of living in a large society, but you don't consider and therefore gripe at the costs. Enough people like you and we end up with what we have now, a nation impoverished where they fudge the numbers to make it seem like it's right and acceptable that the nuclear family cannot sustain itself with two breadwinners on minimum wage, meanwhile no-one is parenting the children. And now we have adults who cannot function for it.
Want and Ignorance must be your favorite Christmas characters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "You want my money, but you don't want to earn it."
He's already getting his, the media is/are going to crucify him. You don't need to socialize medicine to fix that problem :).
"And then how about the troops in Afghanistan who are put in harms way, and have to face enemy fire on our behalf (even though we don't necessarily want them there). Their families are on food stamps or would be if the USArmy would let them. (They don't because it looks bad if USArmy families are on food stamps. So they just starve.)"
I've got 4 tours in the Gulf under my belt, 3 of which were in a combat zone. I chose to serve my country, it was a sacrifice. I didn't make much either, but it was my choice. It sucks that I qualified for food stamps, but service is about service, not making money... The Army had/has plenty of programs that did/does help out, I used them. They worked.
"You reap the benefits of living in a large society, but you don't consider and therefore gripe at the costs."
I don't think he was complaining that he had to pay, he was paying before Obama care... I looks to me like he was complaining that as soon as the Government got involved, he had to pay much more than before, and got much less... it's a legit gripe I think.
This is a tough one. The Government is a train wreck, messing up everything they touch, acting like Robin Hood and taking from one and giving to another... and big business is designed to make money, no humanity involved just money. Maybe the answer is neither.. let the people themselves decide what to do with their money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sacrifice
Yeah, this has been bothering me ever since.
Being a soldier is a sacrifice in that soldiers are sent into harms way and come back with injuries (as often psychological ones as physiological ones) or they don't come back at all. It should not be a sacrifice that the United States treats them and their family like so much dirt, all the while.
Our DoD budget is more than the military budgets of all the rest of the world put together, and we spend enormous amounts on high-tech gear that doesn't pan out (and often is sold to the government at grossly inflated prices). Certainly they can extend to the troops (and their families) the best gear, the best supply and the best health-care that money can buy.
And, oh man, they so don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll bet you're the kind of idiot who thinks that only unemployed people are on food stamps, as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doomed to fail
If the patient has control, then prices inflate, since the question of treatment is not affected by pricing.
If the insurance company has control then they will actively choose to let expensive patients die off (or suffer without treatment) which is what we had before the ACA with the whole pre-existing condition controversy.
And there becomes a conflict between doctors who are compelled to treat, patients who (of course) want to continue to live, and third-party providers who want to capitalize on these compulsions.
And this is why Big Pharma has gotten really big, and now only wants to treat rich people that they can overcharge.
The problem is that it leaves a whole lot of non-rich people who really do not want to die, and who have families who are quite irate that someone could have saved their loved ones, and chose to withhold treatment.
Someone wrote something something indifferent bourgeoisie blah-blah outraged proletariat yada valid grievance. My mind escapes me but it seemed relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For you, so long as you ignored the fact that you were still paying more per capita on healthcare than any other country on Earth and a large proportion of your population still had zero access to care outside of the ER.
For those who couldn't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions, those who were bankrupted by healthcare (something impossible to do under the system I enjoy btw), those who lacked preventative care and were crippled by preventable diseases, etc? Not so much.
"I've got mine, f**k you" is a poor way to run a healthcare system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You, in case you're still ignorant of the fact, have been paying for other peoples' healthcare your entire life. When you pay your premiums and don't claim, some of your money goes to pay for others' claims (or into the pockets of the insurance company's CEO if not).
But, it gets better. You've been paying for 3 other healthcare systems you can't even access (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). On top of that, what do you think happens when people can't pay their bills either because they're uninsured, go bankrupt, or they're refused coverage by their insurance company? YOU DO!
You've been paying way too much for others your entire working life, but you'd rather keep that broken system because you're scared of your own government.
"the Gov't who historically speaking, use these types of programs for political purposes and for their own benefit."
And private insurers never do? You're deluded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not afraid of my Government, I'm terrified. They have wrecked every program we've given them. We've already tried to give them a health care system, and they wrecked it. Look at the V.A. .... It's government health care, and it's completely wrecked. Medicare/Medicaid = wrecked. I'm not making this shit up, look it up for yourself. The government HAS wrecked every system they've put their hands on.
"But, it gets better. You've been paying for 3 other healthcare systems you can't even access (Medicare, Medicaid, VA)."
On the contrary, I'm a disabled combat veteran. I've used V.A. hospitals enough to know that I don't want to use them. I would much rather pay insurance and shop for my own doctor and hospital based on their performance than get stuffed in a disgusting waiting room in an underfunded, politically run, completely incompetent V.A. hospital.
" On top of that, what do you think happens when people can't pay their bills either because they're uninsured, go bankrupt, or they're refused coverage by their insurance company? YOU DO!"
Yes. I have to pay for stabilization care for people that don't have insurance and can't afford it. I understand that. It's the price you pay for living in a modern society. I'm fine with that. I honestly hope no one ever gets turned away, and we already have laws to prevent hospitals from turning people away.
"You've been paying way too much for others your entire working life, but you'd rather keep that broken system because you're scared of your own government."
YES I would. I am indeed terrified of my own government. They are completely out of control. You see story after story, many on this site, showing how out of control they are. That is the exact reason I don't want to give them our health care. At least with the private sector, we know what they are up to, profits. We can regulate that, we can pass laws that force humanity onto the corporations. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than handing over our health care to a corrupt, self serving, politically motivated, politician that could drastically change things based on if they are right or left.
"And private insurers never do? You're deluded."
Not usually no. Private insurers are about money. That is their motivation, that is their singular goal. It's easy to see, and relatively easy to regulate if you can find a non-corrupt politician to actually pass a bill.
I can concede that the health care system needs to be regulated. It needs watch dogs, oversight, whatever.... but handing ANYTHING of importance to the Government is a TERRIBLE idea and historically speaking, has never worked out well for the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would you suspect that?
"Look at the V.A. .... It's government health care, and it's completely wrecked. Medicare/Medicaid = wrecked"
Partly due to the massive inefficiency of having 3 systems + the rest of the crap that's in your systems, partly due to constant underfunding and partly due to deliberate crippling from corporate-led interests (e.g. Medicare not being allowed to negotiate prices).
But, what's your private sector alternative? The old system was broken for millions of Americans too, if you recall.
"On the contrary, I'm a disabled combat veteran. I've used V.A. hospitals enough to know that I don't want to use them."
OK, this is the problem with your vague ranting. Not only do I not know what your insurance was before, the reasons why it changed and the alternatives that are available to you (have you honestly researched them, or just taken your insurances company's word that it's the ACA's fault?), I have no way of knowing your personal status.
As with you, I have made some assumptions. In that case, I'm sorry that you're paying taxes for systems you refuse to access rather than ones you can't. But, what's your alternative? Bear in mind that the reason government is running VA is because veterans will be among the most expensive to treat and thus least attractive to private insurers.
"I don't want to give them our health care."
In many other systems, the care is run by doctors. It's the funding and regulation that's handled by the government. Why do you insist that the healthcare itself needs to be given to the government.
"We can regulate that, we can pass laws that force humanity onto the corporations"
Unless your own bills go up as a result, apparently. Millions were helped by "Obamacare", which among other things stopped people from being refused due to pre-existing conditions or sold useless plans whose lifetime caps disappeared the second you needed serious treatment. It even provided subsidies for those unable to pay.
But *your* bill went up, so you're opposed to those regulations. Which regulations would you have preferred?
"Not usually no. Private insurers are about money."
Which is why they do those things. That's why the employ people to refuse payment and care, why they refuse coverage to people with prior illnesses, why they bankrupt people who cannot afford to pay already inflated prices. Why they raise prices as high as they can and blame someone else if it's convenient.
"handing ANYTHING of importance to the Government is a TERRIBLE idea and historically speaking, has never worked out well for the people"
American exceptionalism at its finest. You always claim you can't do what has already happened in every other developed country, and often more efficiently too. Why are you exceptionally unable to do these things?
Do other systems have problems? Sure. But, it's not founded on the level of inefficiency and inhumanity that yours has been. I do have a personal stake in this - my uncle who emigrated to the US was bankrupted by his wife's illnesses, but 3 months of intensive care for my father in the UK only cost daily parking & coffee. The only reason I can think that someone would defend this is the "I'm alright Jack" mentality - that others are OK to suffer just so long as you're not personally affected.
We can agree to disagree, but I'm always mystified at the knee-jerk reaction this issue raises. You're passionately defending a system that's guaranteed to put profit over your very life if they're allowed to, but equally convinced that something that's been achieved in every first world country is impossible. It's a very weird thing to my mind.
I'm not as scared of the government as I am of someone who will refuse life-saving treatment because it cuts into their bottom line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's robin hood eh? Communist manifesto? From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs? The state will be the one determining how much health care you get, and how much you contribute? Maybe it works for the U.K., glad if it does, good luck with that here....
"but 3 months of intensive care for my father in the UK only cost daily parking & coffee. "
Wrong Wrong Wrong... it was still expensive, your father only paid the "daily parking & coffee." amount, the rest of the money was taken from someone else and given to your father. I hope he made a full recover, but he did so on someone's dime.. it wasn't free.
That treatment would have probably bankrupted him in the US., unless of course he had insurance and supplemental insurance like i did. I paid a premium for what i had, i was covered damn near 100%. But I had a choice, and I decided that is what I wanted to spend my money on, but at least I had a choice on how to spend my money. If you live in the U.K., you may get free-ish healthcare, but you don't have a choice, it's been made for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The NHS is not the only thing that national insurance pays for. Also, do you have a citation for the 25% figure? I don't see it in any of my official documentation, although it's been a few years since I left my homeland (to another TWO socialist healthcare systems - one in the country where I work, the other where I live - the horror!)
"Communist manifesto?"
So, you're another twat who doesn't understand the basic differences between capitalism, socialism and communism. Why should I take your opinions seriously when you can't operate a dictionary?
"The state will be the one determining how much health care you get"
No more than a private insurance company does. Is there any reason people like you give people with a profit motive a pass but grill elected officials for the same thing? If you're going to spout free market bollocks, there's a reason why healthcare isn't a free market. See if you can work it out.
"Wrong Wrong Wrong... it was still expensive, your father only paid the "daily parking & coffee." amount"
My father paid nothing because he was in the ICU. My family paid the rest... and we got what we paid for by paying into the NHS for our entire working lives. That included the 40+years my father had paid into the system, by the way.
Yet, you would support a system that would not only take that money from you, but charge you more to the point of bankruptcy? Yeah, I'm the one who's mistaken...
"That treatment would have probably bankrupted him in the US"
...and it bankrupted nobody in the UK. What's the problem?
"If you live in the U.K., you may get free-ish healthcare, but you don't have a choice, it's been made for you."
Whereas if you live in the US, you pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA AND a private insurer, and you might not get care from any of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False Logic
" Pharmaceutical companies enjoy massive profit margins, much more than would be expected if they were faced with meaningful competition. The lie is exposed when patents expire. Prices fall dramatically once the market is opened, including that of the original manufacturer's. "
Any time a market opens up prices will invariably fall, now that there are new competitors. This is not an argument that there are "massive profit margins" that are inappropriate given the large R&D that is done for both the specific drug and all the others that failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False Logic
By the lab he's just bought the US marketing rights from. Not by this company.
If he wishes to release the figures that justify a 5500% price increase, maybe people will even be sympathetic to a product that's not only been so underpriced it hasn't recouped in 70 years, but a business deal done so poorly that all of those costs transferred to a company that's only marketing to one country.
Otherwise, that's pure bull in defence of greed over and above peoples' lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He will. He's mortal. We just need to suffer his existence a little while longer. Too bad his demise won't fix the demented system those like him abuse, nor ease the suffering of those subject to its whims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drug price
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have correctly pointed out that the market doesn't offer solutions to the provision of drugs for rare conditions because there's little in the way of profit in it. Has anybody else noticed this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short
This is Martin Screw-Elly. He is a greedy bastard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Short
THE END...
...For Elly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Short
As the laws that protect the peasants from the parasites are slowly altered from nation to nation through the use of phony "trade agreements/treaties", to allow the mega-wealthy to profit unhampered, this is the sort of creature that will rise to the top of the success ladder and rule the earth from his ivory tower.
After all, the game is "how much can you get, by any means available", and the rules are quite simple:
anyone who is unwilling to do the things necessary to reach the top, deserves to become food for those who are willing to do whatever it takes.
Its the capitalist/fascist motto.
Compassion is a weakness. Passion is better.
Altruism is a weakness. Self aggrandizement is better.
Love is a weakness, unless its the love of winning in the game.
The world is currently ruled and directed by people just like this smiling, evil, parasite, albeit most are actually slightly more human still, but they all see suffering, pain and disease as a means to profit - period.
It is essentially why we have long ago stopped curing diseases, and why 90% of our pharmacopia is composed of poisons that cause harm and merely mask the symptoms of disease, by shutting down the parts of the body that react to those symptoms, leaving the disease intact.
To creatures like this, other people facing adversity is merely the universe offering the advantage of opportunity to those who see it for what it is. To end the suffering of others is to destroy an opportunity for personal monetary advancement.
Like I said, you might as well get used to it, since most of you actually dream of being this guy, and would never do anything to limit the privileges of such creatures, lest you limit your own privileges should you someday become a wealthy parasite yourself.
And so, Eat or Become Food, is the future of mankind.
Or as the Street Meme puts it:
Get rich, or die trying.
----
[ link to this | view in chronology ]