20 ms·
There's an ever so slight difference between "we need to double the price to cover costs and keep the drug available" (which has now been done) and "we need to
by kjs3 11y ago
There's an ever so slight difference between "we need to double the price to cover costs and keep the drug available" (which has now been done) and "we need to raise the price by 22 times because fuck you we can".
- bsimpson 11y agoIn fairness it was: 1. "hey, this guy wants to buy this drug that we are producing as a public service but losing money on", 2. "oh shit - he raised the price to an astronomical figure and now we all look bad. oops", 3. "we're getting the rights back before this turns into a giant PR nightmare. while we're at it, let's raise the price to a sustainable level." The article doesn't make it sound like there was any malice on Purdue's part.
- kjs3 11y agoI think you're basically right. If you read between the lines, this looks like a matter of Purdue thinking "let's pass this off to a true private sector entity that will allow the market to fix the pricing/profitability issues we have with this product", only to find out they sold it to a pack of fucking inhuman scum who think "let's see if we can exploit the shit out a vulnerable, sick population" is a business plan. Purdue was clearly naive, but they are clearly not malicious.