4 ms·

I'm also seeing something else here too, with the "screw you, raise price by *1000" executives, schrekli (sic) being one of many. What many of these comes down

by kefka 10y ago

I'm also seeing something else here too, with the "screw you, raise price by *1000" executives, schrekli (sic) being one of many. What many of these comes down to, is they own a right of patent on something that allows them to set the price at will. Or, if they choose, to not license or sell it at all. Stated differently, why should someone or government tell me how much I should set my price on a patent I own? An answer, which I am not aware of being used, is eminent domain. We do as such for public good when it comes to roads, buildings, and similar. I know the Supreme Court had to rule back with Wilbur and Orville Wright because they kept avionics back for a decade whilst Europe was booming... because someone wouldn't sell the rights to do aircraft. Of course, the underlying problem is public institutions pay for the research, and drug companies get access to this and extract. The drug co's aren't researching; the public institutions do; and we do.

jostmey 10y ago
Except the drug "schrekli" priced gouged was out of patent. It should have been a commodity, so why weren't any competitors allowed on the marketplace? Take a look at Washington for your answer. There are lots of amazing companies trying to invent cures that don't otherwise exist, and need compensation for their work. Then you have Epipen and "schrekli" jacking up prices on 30 year old drugs.
- kefka 10y ago
  Indeed. Whatever his name is, used the fact that the FDA has to "authorize" a drug, which is more akin to an indefinite patent. Then again, the deeper we dig, the more idiocy we see. How can we expect anyone to fix: insurance, pharmaceutical, device companies, FDA, AMA, government interference, medical schools - everyone has a part in the current system. And it is the combination of the worst that capitalism and socialism have to offer. And yes, I misspelled his name, because a google search was too much work to get his name correct (marque of disregard). But admittedly, probably was not the best case to explain.

by kefka 10y ago

jostmey 10y ago

Except the drug "schrekli" priced gouged was out of patent. It should have been a commodity, so why weren't any competitors allowed on the marketplace? Take a look at Washington for your answer. There are lots of amazing companies trying to invent cures that don't otherwise exist, and need compensation for their work. Then you have Epipen and "schrekli" jacking up prices on 30 year old drugs.

kefka 10y ago
Indeed. Whatever his name is, used the fact that the FDA has to "authorize" a drug, which is more akin to an indefinite patent. Then again, the deeper we dig, the more idiocy we see. How can we expect anyone to fix: insurance, pharmaceutical, device companies, FDA, AMA, government interference, medical schools - everyone has a part in the current system. And it is the combination of the worst that capitalism and socialism have to offer. And yes, I misspelled his name, because a google search was too much work to get his name correct (marque of disregard). But admittedly, probably was not the best case to explain.