3 ms·

You have no clue what this court case was about, do you?

apsec112 9y ago
"Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""
- hellofunk 9y ago
  Please don't correct others' grammar and prose styles.
enraged_camel 9y ago
The court case doesn't have to be about that for the argument to still hold true.
- pyroinferno 9y ago
  1. The OP has nothing to do with the price hikes, so your argument might have been true if it was actually addressing a relevant topic 2. It's even arguable that his price hikes hurt anyone other than already rich insurance monopolies. The insurance companies would have had to cover the prices, and any people without insurance could have received the drug for free from their company. And of course the higher profits went into upgrading the drug.
  - hellofunk 9y ago
    > It's even arguable that his price hikes hurt anyone other than already rich insurance monopolies It is a uniquely American perspective to assume that insurance companies are some abstracted layer of infinite money that individual people needn't worry about. But then, everyone complains about insurance premiums and they wonder why they can't be lower. What irony.
    - pyroinferno 9y ago
      You think raising the price for a drug only used by about 2000 people raised insurance premiums at all? It's amazing how Europeans expect Pharmaceutical companies to invest R&D into rarely used drugs when they can't make a profit.
  - gaadd33 9y ago
    You do know that insurance companies are limited to the amount that they can spend on overhead and have to return excess premiums to those that paid them? So yes, it hurt the insurance monopolies, and since they didn't have as much to spend on overhead (aka profit/bonuses) would have to raise premiums. Also what upgraded version has been released? I haven't found any PubMed/FDA studies mentioning any improvements nor any studies funded by the company. Can you point me to some?

"Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

hellofunk 9y ago
Please don't correct others' grammar and prose styles.

enraged_camel 9y ago

The court case doesn't have to be about that for the argument to still hold true.

pyroinferno 9y ago
1. The OP has nothing to do with the price hikes, so your argument might have been true if it was actually addressing a relevant topic 2. It's even arguable that his price hikes hurt anyone other than already rich insurance monopolies. The insurance companies would have had to cover the prices, and any people without insurance could have received the drug for free from their company. And of course the higher profits went into upgrading the drug.
- hellofunk 9y ago
  > It's even arguable that his price hikes hurt anyone other than already rich insurance monopolies It is a uniquely American perspective to assume that insurance companies are some abstracted layer of infinite money that individual people needn't worry about. But then, everyone complains about insurance premiums and they wonder why they can't be lower. What irony.
  - pyroinferno 9y ago
    You think raising the price for a drug only used by about 2000 people raised insurance premiums at all? It's amazing how Europeans expect Pharmaceutical companies to invest R&D into rarely used drugs when they can't make a profit.
- gaadd33 9y ago
  You do know that insurance companies are limited to the amount that they can spend on overhead and have to return excess premiums to those that paid them? So yes, it hurt the insurance monopolies, and since they didn't have as much to spend on overhead (aka profit/bonuses) would have to raise premiums. Also what upgraded version has been released? I haven't found any PubMed/FDA studies mentioning any improvements nor any studies funded by the company. Can you point me to some?