https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/commen...gs/cvab97p


Speculation is now that he has been intentionally manipulating the market to facilitate insider trading.

 

I hope it's true and this snot gets taken down

---

;

;

There are problems with the healthcare system in America but I thought the ACA would fix those issues.

 

I ve had government healthcare (The VA) and I ve had private health care.

Trust me you do not what the government to control the health care system in this country.

If the government cannot run the VA just imagine what it would be like if the government controlled everyone's healthcare.

Scary.

---

There are problems with the healthcare system in America but I thought the ACA would fix those issues.

 

I ve had government healthcare (The VA) and I ve had private health care.

Trust me you do not what the government to control the health care system in this country.

If the government cannot run the VA just imagine what it would be like if the government controlled everyone's healthcare.

Scary.

 

C'mon man. You can totally trust the government with your most basic personal interests. They never ever ever use that kind of thing against the population. They'll do it cheaper and with higher quality than any other possible means of production, just like they do with everything else. That's why we always hold up government as the penultimate means of production and innovation.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/commen...gs/cvab97p


Speculation is now that he has been intentionally manipulating the market to facilitate insider trading.

 

So reddit is the source?  Really?

 

I would point out this article by FOX News that references this article from CBS News.  This isn't "big pharma" doing this, it's a startup company.  Perhaps it's a startup company that is actually creating jobs, you know, something that has been pretty stagnant over the last 7 years.

 

A couple of quotes from the CBS News article.

 

The company obtained rights to sell the drug, the only U.S.-approved treatment for toxoplasmosis...

 

Perhaps that points to regulation?

 

Further from the article.

 

Turing had said it would use profits to improve the drug's formulation and develop new, better drugs for the infection. It also stressed that some patients can get financial aid from the company to obtain the drug.

 

So in order to develop a better drug, they have to make money.

 

More from CBS News.

 

"Why was it necessary to raise the price of Daraprim so drastically?" CBS News correspondent Don Dahler asked Shkreli.

 
"Well, it depends on how you define 'so drastically.' Because the drug was unprofitable at the former price, so any company selling it would be losing money. And at this price it's a reasonable profit. Not excessive at all," Shkreli responded.

 

So taking a drug that loses money for a company and trying to profit off of it is a bad thing?  Should they just give it away?  Another point to look at is in the former quote from the article that I posted.  How is a company supposed to survive and develop new and better drugs if they aren't allowed to earn a profit?  One other aspect to look at is why does it cost so much to develop and bring new and/or better drugs to market?  Could it be because of regulation?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Private competition doesn't work in a market such as healthcare as there is no alternative.


You would think American healthcare would be the most affordable given the free market nature compared to those pesky socialist healthcare systems.

---

agreed..

Only advantages in the US is the ability to get next day surgeries and extremely specialized treatment.  I think there should be a base level of care provided with the ability to get private care as well at an additional cost.  I don't see why there cannot be both systems at play at the same time.

There isn't, you have pretty much described the Australian system.

---

Private competition doesn't work in a market such as healthcare as there is no alternative.


You would think American healthcare would be the most affordable given the free market nature compared to those pesky socialist healthcare systems.

 

Private healthcare would have plenty of competition if it weren't for third party payment schemes and over-regulation by the federal government. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So reddit is the source?  Really?

 

I would point out this article by FOX News that references this article from CBS News.  This isn't "big pharma" doing this, it's a startup company.  Perhaps it's a startup company that is actually creating jobs, you know, something that has been pretty stagnant over the last 7 years.

 

A couple of quotes from the CBS News article.

 

Perhaps that points to regulation?

 

Further from the article.

 

So in order to develop a better drug, they have to make money.

 

More from CBS News.

 

So taking a drug that loses money for a company and trying to profit off of it is a bad thing?  Should they just give it away?  Another point to look at is in the former quote from the article that I posted.  How is a company supposed to survive and develop new and better drugs if they aren't allowed to earn a profit?  One other aspect to look at is why does it cost so much to develop and bring new and/or better drugs to market?  Could it be because of regulation?

 

One thing the people here citing other countries ignore is that other countries regulate the price of drugs. In order to research and develop new drugs companies have to charge a lot more than the manufacturing cost. Right now the US is the only country that doesn't regulate drug prices. If we do so, there will be no place where the drug companies can sell their products and still afford to research and develop new and better drugs.


 

Basically, US citizens through their higher health care costs are subsidizing the socialist systems in other countries. The price of health care in other countries would be a lot higher without the US, and there would be a lot less new drugs coming to market.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

One thing the people here citing other countries ignore is that other countries regulate the price of drugs. In order to research and develop new drugs companies have to charge a lot more than the manufacturing cost. Right now the US is the only country that doesn't regulate drug prices. If we do so, there will be no place where the drug companies can sell their products and still afford to research and develop new and better drugs.


 

Basically, US citizens through their higher health care costs are subsidizing the socialist systems in other countries. The price of health care in other countries would be a lot higher without the US, and there would be a lot less new drugs coming to market.

 

Naw man, we could just import our drugs from Canada.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes.

I really don't even know what to say to this, so let's try it another way:


Your child is dying. There's a pill that will save them, but it costs $100k. You're willing to give the manufacturer every penny you have, but it's not nearly that much. The manufacturer refuses, and your child dies.


Are the manufacturer's actions ethical? Would you simply nod your head and get on with life, holding no ill will, because the manufacturer chose to put the pursuit of profits above your child's life?

---

I really don't even know what to say to this, so let's try it another way:


Your child is dying. There's a pill that will save them, but it costs $100k. You're willing to give the manufacturer every penny you have, but it's not nearly that much. The manufacturer refuses, and your child dies.


Are the manufacturer's actions ethical? Would you simply nod your head and get on with life, holding no ill will, because the manufacturer chose to put the pursuit of profits above your child's life?

Of course I would hold ill will, that doesn't mean they should be forced to even discount their product. There is no reason one person should have the right to something someone else owns, even if it means life or death. Business is not a social program and medicine is, above all else, a business.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Of course I would hold ill will, that doesn't mean they should be forced to even discount their product. There is no reason one person should have the right to something someone else owns, even if it means life or death. Business is not a social program and medicine is, above all else, a business.

 

The good news is he got a rather large public shaming and is now in hiding

---

;

;

Further proof that our health care system is jacked up. This is what happens when you have a capitalist health care system. It doesn't work. And I'm not trying to make this one example bigger than what it is. The whole system is screwed. You realize we have over 700,000 people go bankrupt every year because of health care related bills. That's criminal.

When you inject third party payment be it insurance or government subsides it's not a capitalist system anymore.

---

medicine is, above all else, a business.

Google "hippocratic oath"

---

Actually, most manufacturers give significant discounts to those uninsured individuals who pass the means test. You get a card that you take to the retail pharmacy and they process it like insurance.

 

 

These "means tests" are often unfair to those who barely make enough to survive. They cater to parasites who live off grandma and make no money, but if someone like myself is merely earning unemployment and unable to pay their bills, the amount taken in with unemployment is typically too much to qualify for any means test forcing the patient to pay the max or do without. Their only real option is to do without and suffer no matter how dire the consequences may be.


 

I have to pay over $300 a month to have private insurance, and my wife does the same, but it's quickly coming to a head where one of us will probably have to stop having insurance because it's too tough to afford. The costs of some of these medicines are getting unreal. I have this one prescription tube of an athlete's foot cream that costs $300 for a month's supply. Fortunately with the insurance it's only $15, but still that's just insane. The medical industry costs are out of control, and it's obvious that Obama care is doing nothing to curb the tide.

---

'02

One thing the people here citing other countries ignore is that other countries regulate the price of drugs. In order to research and develop new drugs companies have to charge a lot more than the manufacturing cost. Right now the US is the only country that doesn't regulate drug prices. If we do so, there will be no place where the drug companies can sell their products and still afford to research and develop new and better drugs.


 

Basically, US citizens through their higher health care costs are subsidizing the socialist systems in other countries. The price of health care in other countries would be a lot higher without the US, and there would be a lot less new drugs coming to market.

 

 

Why should the U.S. be the world's guinea pig?

---

'02

Why should the U.S. be the world's guinea pig?

 

It shouldn't. The claim of the corporate crowd is that if the US government passes price controls similar to every other country then drug companies will severely cut back on research and people will not get the cures they need.


 

I personally would favor a law that says a company can charge no more than the lowest price it charges among the ten other countries with the highest GDPs. If a company believes it needs to charge (say) $1000 per pill, then it has to charge that price in at least ten other countries. That spreads the cost of research among the 11 richest countries rather than just having the US fund it. While I'm opposed to government regulation, this does not limit the ability of a drug company to charge whatever it wants. It's more of a defense against a form of foreign economic attack on the the US.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I'd be all in favor of such a bill.

---

'02

"pro life" but saying screw life its all about the $$$... Not sure how people deal with those mental gymnastics.

---

"pro life" but saying screw life its all about the $$$... Not sure how people deal with those mental gymnastics.

Fetuses are cute. Minorities on welfare are not. Problem solved.

---