4 ms·

FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that he was really only screwing insurance compani

FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that he was really only screwing insurance companies. I believe that he was trying to draw media attention to the outrageous, legally-allowed colluding practices of the insurance and pharma industries. It would have been in his best interest to not draw attention to himself and slowly raise the price of the drug over time rather than rock the boat and put himself in the spotlight. I think this agitated a lot of the established powers in the pharma industry, but we're getting into tin hat territory now, so I'll leave it at that.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 9y ago
> FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that he was really only screwing insurance companies. Screwing insurance companies means increased costs for everyone. I'd really rather not pay 20% higher premiums every year to pad someone like Shkreli's pocketbook.
- brianpgordon 9y ago
  If you make money on a trade, someone else is losing money. That's nothing new. Where he went wrong is going into the healthcare space with that attitude. Shkreli thought that he didn't care about the bad PR it would bring him, but the microscope on him ended up uncovering illegal behavior.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    I believe that's only true in flat or declining markets. Growth raises all boats, figuratively speaking.
    - brianpgordon 9y ago
      Any time you buy, there's a counterparty selling, and vice versa. If they had not bought or sold on their end, they would have made the money rather than you. That's all I was trying to say. Obviously this is simplistic and there are many reasons why someone might rationally be fine with being on the losing end- they might have something else better or less-risky to do with their capital, for example, or they might be a market maker that is not interested in holding anything long-term, etc.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  Sure, but the solution is not to wish that people like Shkreli don't raise prices on their drugs. Instead, we need to reform the US healthcare system to stop problems like this. Many drugs of similar kind, as Shkreli would point out, have a similar price. The difference is that those drugs are owned by faceless pharmaceutical companies with PR teams. Shkreli was an obnoxious person who was doing an obnoxious thing and as a result the government swatted him with some unrelated charges (Incidentally, I thought his defense of "I didn't commit fraud, because all investors made money" was a pretty good defense).
  - singtings 9y ago
    Why did you think his defense was a good one against fraud? He lied to people who gave him their money. That is what fraud is. The outcome does not matter.
    - ImSkeptical 9y ago
      Fraud has other components beyond just lying. For example, I could tell you that I'm Santa Claus, and, due to the rising complexity of children's toys, I need more money to hire additional elves this year, would you please donate? That wouldn't be fraud though, because, among other things, you aren't damaged by it. You might be damaged by it if you sent me your money, and I actually used it to buy myself sugar cookies, but you didn't. What I'm trying to get at is "harm" or "damage" is typically a component of a fraud case. In this case, the defense of "My investors didn't lose money, but actually made back multiples of their initial investment" seems very strong to me. Shkreli had a company which failed and lost investors money. Rather than break the bad news, he lied to them, started another company, made more money, and paid back his investors. I may have the details wrong, but from this article, that was my main takeaway. The point about damage goes to intent. Did Shkreli lie to people to take their money and make himself rich? Or did he lie to people to get a working productive business and pay off his investors? The fact that he did the latter implies his intent was the latter. If I were an investor, I'd be upset that the initial investment failed. I'd be litigious if I realized he had lied to me. If he lied to me and returned my money with profit, I'd just stop doing business with him in the future.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  Great, then get the FDA to approve more people to make lifesaving drugs? A system where you're counting on the generosity of companies to charge low prices seems rather flawed. Only a couple thousand people use Daraprim in the US. He claims 2/3rd of sales are to the USG at 1c per pill. So if there's 700 full price patients at $100K a course, that's an extra $70M on 3 trillion? Companies were doing this before he did, and keep doing it now. So get the FDA to change or have a "dire needs" import rule or fix the system.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    >A system where you're counting on the generosity of companies to charge low prices seems rather flawed. Oh, it is absolutely flawed and completely corrupt. It's so corrupt it's costing lives rather than just money. I'm not saying it's happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if the FDA's mandates and budget for approval aren't somehow related to keeping profits high.
- seiferteric 9y ago
  There are a lot of details that people seem to gloss over or haven't heard about. I am not sure if its to be believed or if he was just trying to repair his reputation, but he claims that jacking prices up on common drugs was to fund R&D into medicines for less common diseases where treatments are very expensive or don't exist at all. I found that to be a compelling argument because as far as I see it, at least he is (supposedly) trying to do something for these people, while others ignore them. Basically getting insurance companies to pay a lot for some drugs (even if it leads to premium hikes) will socialize the costs of developing other drugs.
- RunawayGalaxy 9y ago
  You'd rather let an entire industry continue to screw over millions of Americans out of money and access to healthcare, than let one troll and admittedly fraud profit from exposing said industry? Fair enough.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    Shkreli didn't "expose" anything except his own greed. I'd love to see the current health insurance situation go away - I'm an advocate of single-payer. That doesn't make Shkreli any less gross.
- FLUX-YOU 9y ago
  >Screwing insurance companies means increased costs for everyone. They already increased prices. And they've made an entire clusterfuck in terms of billing codes, bureaucracy, and negotiations before ACA anyway. Insurance company does poorly while my health improves? My rates go up. Insurance company does well? My rates stay steady. I had a car insurance agent tell me this exact reason today. Their underwriters simply increased the price because the company isn't doing well. Insurance prices can't always go up. Something is going to break. And we're all going to pay a shitload of money and have a bunch of fallout either way.
- 75dvtwin 9y ago
  >Screwing insurance companies means increased costs for everyone. I'd really rather not pay 20% higher premiums every year to pad someone like Shkreli's pocketbook.\ - Medical malpractice insurance cost (to cover punitive damages) - FDA approval process all increase cost for everyone, who is 'found guilty' for that? And what do you see public institutions of educations, from public schools to taxpayer funded universities do about that in their educational curriculum? How are children and students taught to analyze the causes of 'increasing costs'? And what are the journalists, those 'beacons of truth' are doing in that regard? Is the coverage of those legimate reasons for higher cost getting anywhere similar of attention compared to Shkreli's? (btw, not defending Shrkeli's actions ... have not studied this in detail, just surprised at this onesided moral outrage)
Lewton 9y ago
Find one person who got it for free
- Clubber 9y ago
  Patrick Rice gets it free for life after a Reddit AMA. Google not work for you, or were you trying to stonewall the discussion with Rush Limbaugh tactics? http://nypost.com/2016/02/02/i-was-a-victim-of-the-pharma-jackass/ http://nypost.com/2016/02/02/i-was-a-victim-of-the-pharma-ja...
  - Lewton 9y ago
    There's that one, very public, case. That happened after the entire ordeal blew up, and happened after shkreli had said that people got it for free if they needed it It's not nothing, but it's not exactly impressive either
    - Clubber 9y ago
      So maybe instead of saying, "Find one person who got it for free," you should have said, "Find one person who got it for free that I like even though the US has some serious medical privacy laws and therefore it's nearly impossible to find unless that sick someone (with HIV) voluntarily comes forward publicly, risking their career and future job prospects, to be on the side of a person that has been heavily vilified in the media circus."
      - samastur 9y ago
        Or find me a page on company's website that lists steps needed to qualify that are not too onerous and hopefully clear. Phone number would be appreciated too. You know, something that looks more like a deliberate program and not a one-off.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
Sangermaine 9y ago
>FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, Sorry, I find it hard to take the word of someone who was convicted of committing fraud. Fraud that was committed before these claims were made. I guess defrauding his investors was also some 11th dimensional chess move designed to show the weakness of the financial industry, right? Move over Jesus, we have a new martyr who suffers for our salvation.
- RunawayGalaxy 9y ago
  That's an extremely valid point. But there are documented cases of it being true.
  - gaadd33 9y ago
    Can you link to any documented cases? I searched and couldn't find any that weren't reported on by him or the company, not exactly independent sources.
    - bmelton 9y ago
      Here's at least one, and IIRC there were others sprinkled throughout this topic when it was much smaller. They're probably much harder to find now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14931689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14931689

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 9y ago

> FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that he was really only screwing insurance companies. Screwing insurance companies means increased costs for everyone. I'd really rather not pay 20% higher premiums every year to pad someone like Shkreli's pocketbook.

brianpgordon 9y ago
If you make money on a trade, someone else is losing money. That's nothing new. Where he went wrong is going into the healthcare space with that attitude. Shkreli thought that he didn't care about the bad PR it would bring him, but the microscope on him ended up uncovering illegal behavior.
- Clubber 9y ago
  I believe that's only true in flat or declining markets. Growth raises all boats, figuratively speaking.
  - brianpgordon 9y ago
    Any time you buy, there's a counterparty selling, and vice versa. If they had not bought or sold on their end, they would have made the money rather than you. That's all I was trying to say. Obviously this is simplistic and there are many reasons why someone might rationally be fine with being on the losing end- they might have something else better or less-risky to do with their capital, for example, or they might be a market maker that is not interested in holding anything long-term, etc.
ImSkeptical 9y ago
Sure, but the solution is not to wish that people like Shkreli don't raise prices on their drugs. Instead, we need to reform the US healthcare system to stop problems like this. Many drugs of similar kind, as Shkreli would point out, have a similar price. The difference is that those drugs are owned by faceless pharmaceutical companies with PR teams. Shkreli was an obnoxious person who was doing an obnoxious thing and as a result the government swatted him with some unrelated charges (Incidentally, I thought his defense of "I didn't commit fraud, because all investors made money" was a pretty good defense).
- singtings 9y ago
  Why did you think his defense was a good one against fraud? He lied to people who gave him their money. That is what fraud is. The outcome does not matter.
  - ImSkeptical 9y ago
    Fraud has other components beyond just lying. For example, I could tell you that I'm Santa Claus, and, due to the rising complexity of children's toys, I need more money to hire additional elves this year, would you please donate? That wouldn't be fraud though, because, among other things, you aren't damaged by it. You might be damaged by it if you sent me your money, and I actually used it to buy myself sugar cookies, but you didn't. What I'm trying to get at is "harm" or "damage" is typically a component of a fraud case. In this case, the defense of "My investors didn't lose money, but actually made back multiples of their initial investment" seems very strong to me. Shkreli had a company which failed and lost investors money. Rather than break the bad news, he lied to them, started another company, made more money, and paid back his investors. I may have the details wrong, but from this article, that was my main takeaway. The point about damage goes to intent. Did Shkreli lie to people to take their money and make himself rich? Or did he lie to people to get a working productive business and pay off his investors? The fact that he did the latter implies his intent was the latter. If I were an investor, I'd be upset that the initial investment failed. I'd be litigious if I realized he had lied to me. If he lied to me and returned my money with profit, I'd just stop doing business with him in the future.
MichaelGG 9y ago
Great, then get the FDA to approve more people to make lifesaving drugs? A system where you're counting on the generosity of companies to charge low prices seems rather flawed. Only a couple thousand people use Daraprim in the US. He claims 2/3rd of sales are to the USG at 1c per pill. So if there's 700 full price patients at $100K a course, that's an extra $70M on 3 trillion? Companies were doing this before he did, and keep doing it now. So get the FDA to change or have a "dire needs" import rule or fix the system.
- Clubber 9y ago
  >A system where you're counting on the generosity of companies to charge low prices seems rather flawed. Oh, it is absolutely flawed and completely corrupt. It's so corrupt it's costing lives rather than just money. I'm not saying it's happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if the FDA's mandates and budget for approval aren't somehow related to keeping profits high.
seiferteric 9y ago
There are a lot of details that people seem to gloss over or haven't heard about. I am not sure if its to be believed or if he was just trying to repair his reputation, but he claims that jacking prices up on common drugs was to fund R&D into medicines for less common diseases where treatments are very expensive or don't exist at all. I found that to be a compelling argument because as far as I see it, at least he is (supposedly) trying to do something for these people, while others ignore them. Basically getting insurance companies to pay a lot for some drugs (even if it leads to premium hikes) will socialize the costs of developing other drugs.
RunawayGalaxy 9y ago
You'd rather let an entire industry continue to screw over millions of Americans out of money and access to healthcare, than let one troll and admittedly fraud profit from exposing said industry? Fair enough.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  Shkreli didn't "expose" anything except his own greed. I'd love to see the current health insurance situation go away - I'm an advocate of single-payer. That doesn't make Shkreli any less gross.
FLUX-YOU 9y ago
>Screwing insurance companies means increased costs for everyone. They already increased prices. And they've made an entire clusterfuck in terms of billing codes, bureaucracy, and negotiations before ACA anyway. Insurance company does poorly while my health improves? My rates go up. Insurance company does well? My rates stay steady. I had a car insurance agent tell me this exact reason today. Their underwriters simply increased the price because the company isn't doing well. Insurance prices can't always go up. Something is going to break. And we're all going to pay a shitload of money and have a bunch of fallout either way.
75dvtwin 9y ago
>Screwing insurance companies means increased costs for everyone. I'd really rather not pay 20% higher premiums every year to pad someone like Shkreli's pocketbook.\ - Medical malpractice insurance cost (to cover punitive damages) - FDA approval process all increase cost for everyone, who is 'found guilty' for that? And what do you see public institutions of educations, from public schools to taxpayer funded universities do about that in their educational curriculum? How are children and students taught to analyze the causes of 'increasing costs'? And what are the journalists, those 'beacons of truth' are doing in that regard? Is the coverage of those legimate reasons for higher cost getting anywhere similar of attention compared to Shkreli's? (btw, not defending Shrkeli's actions ... have not studied this in detail, just surprised at this onesided moral outrage)

Lewton 9y ago

Find one person who got it for free

Clubber 9y ago
Patrick Rice gets it free for life after a Reddit AMA. Google not work for you, or were you trying to stonewall the discussion with Rush Limbaugh tactics? http://nypost.com/2016/02/02/i-was-a-victim-of-the-pharma-jackass/ http://nypost.com/2016/02/02/i-was-a-victim-of-the-pharma-ja...
- Lewton 9y ago
  There's that one, very public, case. That happened after the entire ordeal blew up, and happened after shkreli had said that people got it for free if they needed it It's not nothing, but it's not exactly impressive either
  - Clubber 9y ago
    So maybe instead of saying, "Find one person who got it for free," you should have said, "Find one person who got it for free that I like even though the US has some serious medical privacy laws and therefore it's nearly impossible to find unless that sick someone (with HIV) voluntarily comes forward publicly, risking their career and future job prospects, to be on the side of a person that has been heavily vilified in the media circus."
    - samastur 9y ago
      Or find me a page on company's website that lists steps needed to qualify that are not too onerous and hopefully clear. Phone number would be appreciated too. You know, something that looks more like a deliberate program and not a one-off.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Sangermaine 9y ago

>FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, Sorry, I find it hard to take the word of someone who was convicted of committing fraud. Fraud that was committed before these claims were made. I guess defrauding his investors was also some 11th dimensional chess move designed to show the weakness of the financial industry, right? Move over Jesus, we have a new martyr who suffers for our salvation.

RunawayGalaxy 9y ago
That's an extremely valid point. But there are documented cases of it being true.
- gaadd33 9y ago
  Can you link to any documented cases? I searched and couldn't find any that weren't reported on by him or the company, not exactly independent sources.
  - bmelton 9y ago
    Here's at least one, and IIRC there were others sprinkled throughout this topic when it was much smaller. They're probably much harder to find now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14931689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14931689