4 ms·

Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions, I can't help but wonder whether or not I'm missing something or if people are just intent on driving a false narra

by bmelton 11y ago

Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions, I can't help but wonder whether or not I'm missing something or if people are just intent on driving a false narrative into the ground. Yes, he jacked the prices up, but only after getting it on a co-pay schedule, which means that like most drugs, you'll pay your insurance co-pay for it, but not the sticker price. For those without insurance, or who cannot afford it, they've stated (and has been corroborated) that they're happy to give Daraprim away for free. At the end of the day, the cost of the drug to the insured doesn't really go up by a whole lot, and the cost of the drug to the uninsured (but not 1 percenter) has actually gotten cheaper. In the meantime, Shkreli will be able to funnel Daraprim profits into research for the drug to keep it from becoming irrelevant, as it currently will be if left alone because the disease that it prevents supposedly evolves, and if left alone, would eventually slide from 70% effective to 60%, to 50%, etc. Meanwhile, for anybody to which that isn't an acceptable solution, these guys have released an alternative for $1 a pill. It may set back drug-parasitic relations in the process, but it's there, it's cheap, and people won't be dying as a result of the price hike. http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/23/news/companies/imprimis-daraprim-turing-martin-shkreli/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/23/news/companies/imprimis-dara...

programmarchy 11y ago
You're not considering the long term effects. The extra cost placed on the insurance company will get passed on to the consumer in the form of increased premiums. He's just using the fascist, anti-competitive, anti-consumer U.S. insurance economic model to his advantage. It's scum heaped upon scum.
- Retric 11y ago
  A dirty secret of the insurance industry is they don't actually want to lower prices. They act like cost plus defense contractors and are happy to maximize any systemic costs that are spread around the industry.
  - abalashov 11y ago
    This. And they see plenty of private lucre for it.
  - nradov 11y ago
    This isn't really true anymore. The large medical "insurance" companies are increasingly getting out of the insurance business and shifting the risk to employers (self insured plans), patients (high-deductible health plans, HSAs), and providers (ACOs). So the payers don't actually work on a cost-plus basis. They're actually trying to drive down systemic prices as that would bring in more customers and higher volumes for their claims administration businesses.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
>Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions What light? Can you point to it?
- x5n1 11y ago
  All I see is the cold darkness of reality, Bob...
- bmelton 11y ago
  Certainly. Here are my claims, and links to affirmations. * He jacked the prices up I don't think I need a source for that one. * After getting it on a co-pay schedule Can't find a handy, direct citation, but it's pretty easy to find in other articles - it was shifted to certain pharmacies and added to copay schedules. * they're happy to give Daraprim away for free. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/daraprim-turing-pharmaceuticals-martin-shkreli/406546/ CTRL+F "free to anyone" * Shkreli will be able to funnel Daraprim profits into research http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/turing-pharmaceuticals-martin-shkreli-response/ CTRL+F for "research into this disease" * if left alone, would eventually slide from 70% effective to 60%, to 50%, etc. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11882281/American-hedge-funder-Martin-Shkreli-increases-price-of-Aids-related-drug-by-5000pc.html Toxoplasmosis evolves, and Daraprim is currently toxic. Moreover, the people that need Daraprim tend to only need it for a very short time, like an anti-biotic. * These guys have released an alternative for $1 a pill Worth noting, I intended to provide a link in my other post, and in making this reply, realize that I failed to do so. So, caveat: the $1 alternative is being provided by a competitor. Regardless, here's the source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/10/23/imprimis-pharmaceuticals-turing-pharmaceuticals-daraprim/74452030/
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    You haven't shown any light here; only given a description of events so far. >CTRL+F "free to anyone" Complete the context for, " who can't afford it". Do you know where I can find Shkreli's rationing guidelines?
FireBeyond 11y ago
Where do you think the balance beyond the co-pay is coming from, though? Magical wish-granting insurance fairies? Sorry for the sarcastic tone, but your argument, as stated by Shkreli himself, seems to think that people believe that the hundreds (or more) dollars a month they pay in insurance premiums has absolutely nothing to do with this. "But your copay will only be $20 and you won't pay a cent more!" No, you (or your employer, who could otherwise be paying you that money) will be paying -every last cent- of the price rise. Just largely as an amortized monthly premium, not an out-of-pocket co-pay at the time you pick up your script. Shkreli seems to believe that people would fall for his argument that somehow the balance of the cost of the drug would be paid by ... I don't know who, exactly, hence those magical fairies ... and not by us. And in a lot of cases, he's right.
- drcode 11y ago
  Well, usually insurance companies get some sort of discount on full prices... but the heft of your argument remains valid.
  - abalashov 11y ago
    Yes, but probably not a 98% discount.
- bmelton 11y ago
  Sarcastic tone forgiven, because I was there once too, but it seems like it's mostly liberals and progressives who are upset by this, while conservatives and capitalists more willing to forgive it. That seems backwards to me, as the progressive argument is that costs should be spread throughout society, from the haves to the have nots, and that if this is already the shell game of insurance anyway, it seems silly that Daraprim wasn't already playing it. Either way, the capitalists had the right of it -- if the price was too high, there's a $1 per pill alternative right now. Assuming that all else holds true, I just don't see the harm here any more than I see the harm in Motorola charging $800 for their top of the line cell phones while Wal-Mart has one for a small fraction of that.
  - 11y ago
linkregister 11y ago
What about the many Americans who have HDHP policies and pay everything through their health savings account? Until they hit their $6k deductible, they pay full price.
robotresearcher 11y ago
> the cost of the drug to the insured doesn't really go up by a whole lot. Nonsense. The insured are paying the full inflated price of the drug. The cost is spread around the whole insured cohort, not just the subset that needs this drug. It's a bare-faced cynical exploit of insurance. No one feels like they are paying more, but in fact huge numbers of people are paying a little bit more for no good reason. Insurance companies don't care much, since they pass on the costs to customers. Diabolically clever and a terrible waste of money.

by bmelton 11y ago

programmarchy 11y ago

You're not considering the long term effects. The extra cost placed on the insurance company will get passed on to the consumer in the form of increased premiums. He's just using the fascist, anti-competitive, anti-consumer U.S. insurance economic model to his advantage. It's scum heaped upon scum.

Retric 11y ago
A dirty secret of the insurance industry is they don't actually want to lower prices. They act like cost plus defense contractors and are happy to maximize any systemic costs that are spread around the industry.
- abalashov 11y ago
  This. And they see plenty of private lucre for it.
- nradov 11y ago
  This isn't really true anymore. The large medical "insurance" companies are increasingly getting out of the insurance business and shifting the risk to employers (self insured plans), patients (high-deductible health plans, HSAs), and providers (ACOs). So the payers don't actually work on a cost-plus basis. They're actually trying to drive down systemic prices as that would bring in more customers and higher volumes for their claims administration businesses.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

>Having "seen the light" on Shkreli's actions What light? Can you point to it?

x5n1 11y ago
All I see is the cold darkness of reality, Bob...
bmelton 11y ago
Certainly. Here are my claims, and links to affirmations. * He jacked the prices up I don't think I need a source for that one. * After getting it on a co-pay schedule Can't find a handy, direct citation, but it's pretty easy to find in other articles - it was shifted to certain pharmacies and added to copay schedules. * they're happy to give Daraprim away for free. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/daraprim-turing-pharmaceuticals-martin-shkreli/406546/ CTRL+F "free to anyone" * Shkreli will be able to funnel Daraprim profits into research http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/turing-pharmaceuticals-martin-shkreli-response/ CTRL+F for "research into this disease" * if left alone, would eventually slide from 70% effective to 60%, to 50%, etc. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11882281/American-hedge-funder-Martin-Shkreli-increases-price-of-Aids-related-drug-by-5000pc.html Toxoplasmosis evolves, and Daraprim is currently toxic. Moreover, the people that need Daraprim tend to only need it for a very short time, like an anti-biotic. * These guys have released an alternative for $1 a pill Worth noting, I intended to provide a link in my other post, and in making this reply, realize that I failed to do so. So, caveat: the $1 alternative is being provided by a competitor. Regardless, here's the source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/10/23/imprimis-pharmaceuticals-turing-pharmaceuticals-daraprim/74452030/
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  You haven't shown any light here; only given a description of events so far. >CTRL+F "free to anyone" Complete the context for, " who can't afford it". Do you know where I can find Shkreli's rationing guidelines?

FireBeyond 11y ago

Where do you think the balance beyond the co-pay is coming from, though? Magical wish-granting insurance fairies? Sorry for the sarcastic tone, but your argument, as stated by Shkreli himself, seems to think that people believe that the hundreds (or more) dollars a month they pay in insurance premiums has absolutely nothing to do with this. "But your copay will only be $20 and you won't pay a cent more!" No, you (or your employer, who could otherwise be paying you that money) will be paying -every last cent- of the price rise. Just largely as an amortized monthly premium, not an out-of-pocket co-pay at the time you pick up your script. Shkreli seems to believe that people would fall for his argument that somehow the balance of the cost of the drug would be paid by ... I don't know who, exactly, hence those magical fairies ... and not by us. And in a lot of cases, he's right.

drcode 11y ago
Well, usually insurance companies get some sort of discount on full prices... but the heft of your argument remains valid.
- abalashov 11y ago
  Yes, but probably not a 98% discount.
bmelton 11y ago
Sarcastic tone forgiven, because I was there once too, but it seems like it's mostly liberals and progressives who are upset by this, while conservatives and capitalists more willing to forgive it. That seems backwards to me, as the progressive argument is that costs should be spread throughout society, from the haves to the have nots, and that if this is already the shell game of insurance anyway, it seems silly that Daraprim wasn't already playing it. Either way, the capitalists had the right of it -- if the price was too high, there's a $1 per pill alternative right now. Assuming that all else holds true, I just don't see the harm here any more than I see the harm in Motorola charging $800 for their top of the line cell phones while Wal-Mart has one for a small fraction of that.
- 11y ago

linkregister 11y ago

What about the many Americans who have HDHP policies and pay everything through their health savings account? Until they hit their $6k deductible, they pay full price.

robotresearcher 11y ago

> the cost of the drug to the insured doesn't really go up by a whole lot. Nonsense. The insured are paying the full inflated price of the drug. The cost is spread around the whole insured cohort, not just the subset that needs this drug. It's a bare-faced cynical exploit of insurance. No one feels like they are paying more, but in fact huge numbers of people are paying a little bit more for no good reason. Insurance companies don't care much, since they pass on the costs to customers. Diabolically clever and a terrible waste of money.