3 ms·

>It absolutely does, though. If he's able to exploit a pricing inefficiency as a producer, then the press can exploit him by hanging him out to dry in the publi

by ikeboy 11y ago

>It absolutely does, though. If he's able to exploit a pricing inefficiency as a producer, then the press can exploit him by hanging him out to dry in the public eye. Companies can, and should, face public relations campaigns against them for unethical, if legal, behavior. What does bad PR mean for them? Nobody's going to refuse treatment if they would otherwise afford it.

pixl97 11y ago
I don't know much about monopolies, but, didn't Microsoft get in trouble for creating one? Also, back in the days of trustbusting were there not penalties for such actions? Is it in anyway against the law to do what they did? I can't answer these questions... but what the eye of the press can do is look deep into all of his practices and if there is anything illegal going on it my get noticed far quicker.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Merely making a product that no other companies are interested in making isn't illegal.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Microsoft got in trouble for using a monopoly in a market (OS) to prop up a product in another market (Browsers), not just for having a monopoly.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  >didn't Microsoft get in trouble for creating one? Sort of. Their competitor-plaintiffs are no longer going concerns, and MS are still going relatively strong; so one might argue that the "trouble" was of little consequence. The length of time all of that took to wind its way through the courts means that patients will die waiting for the market/courts to sort itself out.
learc83 11y ago
Enough bad PR can mean things like congressional investigations and eventually even regulation.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  So what specific regulation would fix this? The medical industry is too heavily regulated (see http://fdareview.org/harm.shtml http://fdareview.org/harm.shtml).
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    Actually, this is perfect evidence that it isn't heavily regulated enough. No one should be allowed to come into an established market, buy up life-saving drugs, jack up the prices hugely for no good reason, and kill those who can't afford the increased prices in the process. This is one of the best arguments for more regulation I can think of. He's a multi-multi-millionaire literally killing people to make even more profit, and he's doing it in an entirely rent-seeking manner that adds no value to humanity whatsoever.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      Actually, this is perfect evidence that it isn't heavily regulated enough. Technically, both are possible, but you're describing the situation inaccurately: and kill those who can't afford the increased prices in the process. The article says that they're providing the drug for free for those who can't afford it. So no one is dying due to the price being raised. Anyway, one poor outcome doesn't mean more regulation is needed. You need to weigh the costs against the benefits, and when that is done, the costs end out higher, even on the existing regulation regime. Can you propose specific regulations that would fix this, and not cause more harm elsewhere?
cjlars 11y ago
It impacts him at the margin. More eyeballs on articles like this one mean a faster market response and more patients doing a little extra digging to find fair treatment for their ailment. He also wouldn't want this article to come up as the top result for his name. A shady business reputation makes it harder to find investors, partners and employees.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- angdis 11y ago
  Yes, in the short-term, being up written up in the NY times for what they are is the best way to deal with most egregious unethical behavior from scum like Turing Pharmaceuticals. It will be interesting to see if the prices goes back down as a result of this exposure. Sadly, that can't prevent pharma companies from arbitrarily jacking up prices less dramatically on many other drugs and going "under the radar" as far as public outrage is concerned. For that, you need careful and assiduous regulation. But in an era where people run companies that do real things like a hedge fund, I am doubtful things will get better anytime soon.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    For that, you need careful and assiduous regulation. Do you have any particular proposal to solve the problem? Saying "regulate!" doesn't help unless you can provide specifics.

by ikeboy 11y ago

pixl97 11y ago

I don't know much about monopolies, but, didn't Microsoft get in trouble for creating one? Also, back in the days of trustbusting were there not penalties for such actions? Is it in anyway against the law to do what they did? I can't answer these questions... but what the eye of the press can do is look deep into all of his practices and if there is anything illegal going on it my get noticed far quicker.

ikeboy 11y ago
Merely making a product that no other companies are interested in making isn't illegal.
icebraining 11y ago
Microsoft got in trouble for using a monopoly in a market (OS) to prop up a product in another market (Browsers), not just for having a monopoly.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>didn't Microsoft get in trouble for creating one? Sort of. Their competitor-plaintiffs are no longer going concerns, and MS are still going relatively strong; so one might argue that the "trouble" was of little consequence. The length of time all of that took to wind its way through the courts means that patients will die waiting for the market/courts to sort itself out.

learc83 11y ago

Enough bad PR can mean things like congressional investigations and eventually even regulation.

ikeboy 11y ago
So what specific regulation would fix this? The medical industry is too heavily regulated (see http://fdareview.org/harm.shtml http://fdareview.org/harm.shtml).
- CydeWeys 11y ago
  Actually, this is perfect evidence that it isn't heavily regulated enough. No one should be allowed to come into an established market, buy up life-saving drugs, jack up the prices hugely for no good reason, and kill those who can't afford the increased prices in the process. This is one of the best arguments for more regulation I can think of. He's a multi-multi-millionaire literally killing people to make even more profit, and he's doing it in an entirely rent-seeking manner that adds no value to humanity whatsoever.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Actually, this is perfect evidence that it isn't heavily regulated enough. Technically, both are possible, but you're describing the situation inaccurately: and kill those who can't afford the increased prices in the process. The article says that they're providing the drug for free for those who can't afford it. So no one is dying due to the price being raised. Anyway, one poor outcome doesn't mean more regulation is needed. You need to weigh the costs against the benefits, and when that is done, the costs end out higher, even on the existing regulation regime. Can you propose specific regulations that would fix this, and not cause more harm elsewhere?

cjlars 11y ago

It impacts him at the margin. More eyeballs on articles like this one mean a faster market response and more patients doing a little extra digging to find fair treatment for their ailment. He also wouldn't want this article to come up as the top result for his name. A shady business reputation makes it harder to find investors, partners and employees.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
angdis 11y ago
Yes, in the short-term, being up written up in the NY times for what they are is the best way to deal with most egregious unethical behavior from scum like Turing Pharmaceuticals. It will be interesting to see if the prices goes back down as a result of this exposure. Sadly, that can't prevent pharma companies from arbitrarily jacking up prices less dramatically on many other drugs and going "under the radar" as far as public outrage is concerned. For that, you need careful and assiduous regulation. But in an era where people run companies that do real things like a hedge fund, I am doubtful things will get better anytime soon.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  For that, you need careful and assiduous regulation. Do you have any particular proposal to solve the problem? Saying "regulate!" doesn't help unless you can provide specifics.