4 ms·

> Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage. Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other th

> Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage. Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you?

kbenson 9y ago
> Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you? This case isn't about that. Are you suggesting we should convict and punish people on trial for one crime because we don't like their past activities and behaviors? Even if those other behaviors were illegal, they should be considered during a separate trial that's actually pertaining to them.
- wfunction 9y ago
  > This case isn't about that. That wasn't your question, was it? You asked why he's human garbage, I explained why. I wasn't defending or attacking this case, I was explaining why some think he is human garbage.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Edit: Whoops, different person. See bottom. > Nowhere was I (or you) saying anything about this case. Your specific words in your original response were "He's human garbage, let him rot." That response was to me saying I think the details of the case lead me to believe that I think he should a light sentence. You very specifically noted through that euphemism that you think he shouldn't get a light sentence in this case because he's human garbage. Edit: Sorry. That was someone else. I was specifically asking in context, but that wasn't you originally. Mea Culpa. Leaving it here with this note so people that saw it previously can see me retraction.
    - wfunction 9y ago
      For what it's worth, I've colored the usernames on my HN discussions so I don't make mistakes like this. Maybe HN should do that natively.
- amyjess 9y ago
  Al Capone wouldn't have been prosecuted for tax evasion if he wasn't an infamous mobster. This is how society's immune system functions.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Al Capone wouldn't have had to evade taxes if he wasn't obtaining his income through illegal means. I also see a distinction between Capone and Shkreli in that Capone's other actions which may have influenced his trial were myriad illegal activities that they couldn't get evidence for. Shkreli is just believed to be an asshole.
    - croon 9y ago
      Is the illegality of the other activities really relevant if they can't be prosecuted? The justice system is meant to punish specific crimes, which it did done in both cases, but that doesn't prohibit you as a human to see it as karmic justice, for someone being a garbage human, wether legally or illegally.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        > Is the illegality of the other activities really relevant if they can't be prosecuted? Normally, no (which I said explicitly in another comment here). In this case, the activities are linked. There's no need to evade taxes if your income isn't illegal. Even so, I don't subscribe to the argument that it's entirely a good thing that we prosecuted Capone for tax evasion. We were unable to prove the actual criminal activities, so we instead looked at the fruits of those activities and used that. Another way to look at it is that the justice system completely failed initially. We couldn't build a case for the major crimes, but we could for the lesser crimes. He was still guilty of both (this is of course assuming his guilt). In Shkreli's case, we failed to prosecute originally because it's not a crime. The current case isn't related in the same way, and linking them and punishing in the latter because of people's perception of the former is akin to levying a harsher sentence on someone because of their interracial marriage in a region and time when that was legal but frowned upon. Social pressure unrelated to the issue at hand should not be relevant in court. Even if it's related to the issue at hand in the case, it should be restricted to sentencing (where it likely can't be removed anyway).
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > This case isn't about that No. It was about fraud. Why should we NOT punish people for fraud? The ways that question are answered in this thread prove your assertion is false. This case IS about that, because without that, he'd just be one more pennyless felon.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > Why should we NOT punish people for fraud? Who said he shouldn't be punished? I simply stated that since he made restitution prior to charges being brought, perhaps that should factor into sentencing. I don't know who you're arguing against, or what you're really arguing, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I've been talking about.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > I simply stated that since he made restitution prior to charges being brought, perhaps that should factor into sentencing. Restitution isn't the only reason for punishment. > I don't know who you're arguing against, or what you're really arguing That he's clearly unapologetic and simply got lucky, and that this should factor into sentencing.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
MichaelGG 9y ago
And what's wrong with that? Be upset that the FDA only approved one company to make the drug. And it's not like anyone was hurt. Overall, insurers ended up paying a bit more (drugs are only 10-15% of US health care costs, and very few people need Daraprim). Big deal. If more people did this, then the system would get this issue addressed, maybe. On top of that, he said he was investing the profits into researching better drugs, though of course that's not a requirement.
- Osmose 9y ago
  It is possible to be upset with both the system and the people using it.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    True, and if it comes out that Turing knowingly blocked people from getting it despite knowing their eligibility, then he deserves derision. But so far he's just pointed out the huge issues and laughed, driving up awareness. At some point if your system is so terribly busted and no one is fixing it, eh, maybe you lose the right to hate people abusing it. Or maybe his wit and charisma is making me blind to the issue here.
    - croon 9y ago
      I found a rule loophole that allowed me to wear an Iron Man suit while playing in the NFL, so I made a career making millions of dollars a year. Aint I brave and admirable for pointing out the issue? I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the culture of praising exploiters of the system instead of promoting constructive players (who are less profitable, ie less sexy). I understand that the contrarian view to "The Man" is the easiest one to take, even if I think the identified "Man" is the diametrical opposite.
      - manquer 9y ago
        The actual equivalent is that The loophole should only allow you and no one else.. so if rule is set like that who is to blame ?
KekDemaga 9y ago
Can I presume you offer your skills to anyone who asks at a wage that reflects a minimum cost of living (ie no iPhone or other luxuries the bare minimum cost of living). If not what is your reasoning beyond apparent greed?
- wfunction 9y ago
  I don't understand your comment.
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    Take a look at wealth globally, if GDP was evenly distributed every year everyone would get roughly ten thousand dollars. That's pretax, thus the total average spend per human being be in direct cash payments or via governmental programs should not exceed that number in a fair system. In western nations the poor see double that number on average in cash compensation, and more than triple that number when you include government services. My point is fairness and accusations of greed cut both ways, if fairness was truly the concern of the poster he would also cut his standard of living in order to benefit those much worse off than him. As he more than likely does not his argument is not "let's increase fairness" but rather "people in my class and I deserve more" and that's the same argument the people raising the drug prices are making.
    - wfunction 9y ago
      It seems like you are completely missing the point. This has little to do with economic inequality. The issue is not that this guy had a random product and raised its price. If this had been a car or an iPhone, we could not have cared less if he had been "greedy" and selling it for $1M/piece. The issue is that this is medicine we're talking about. People don't view healthcare and medicine like they view ordinary services and products. Many people (perhaps not you) have a much higher threshold for what kind of practice is moral/ethical/acceptable in medicine. That's why even in the middle of a battlefield people think it is inhumane to prevent doctors from treating injured soldiers, the war be damned. There is more to humanity than money.
jamra 9y ago
I believe he reinvests 80% back into R&D. That's a pretty large sum. It's a lot more than the big companies. If a better drug for toxoplasmosis is developed that doesn't kill people, it would have been a great achievement.

> Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage. Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you?

kbenson 9y ago

> Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you? This case isn't about that. Are you suggesting we should convict and punish people on trial for one crime because we don't like their past activities and behaviors? Even if those other behaviors were illegal, they should be considered during a separate trial that's actually pertaining to them.

wfunction 9y ago
> This case isn't about that. That wasn't your question, was it? You asked why he's human garbage, I explained why. I wasn't defending or attacking this case, I was explaining why some think he is human garbage.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Edit: Whoops, different person. See bottom. > Nowhere was I (or you) saying anything about this case. Your specific words in your original response were "He's human garbage, let him rot." That response was to me saying I think the details of the case lead me to believe that I think he should a light sentence. You very specifically noted through that euphemism that you think he shouldn't get a light sentence in this case because he's human garbage. Edit: Sorry. That was someone else. I was specifically asking in context, but that wasn't you originally. Mea Culpa. Leaving it here with this note so people that saw it previously can see me retraction.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    For what it's worth, I've colored the usernames on my HN discussions so I don't make mistakes like this. Maybe HN should do that natively.
amyjess 9y ago
Al Capone wouldn't have been prosecuted for tax evasion if he wasn't an infamous mobster. This is how society's immune system functions.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Al Capone wouldn't have had to evade taxes if he wasn't obtaining his income through illegal means. I also see a distinction between Capone and Shkreli in that Capone's other actions which may have influenced his trial were myriad illegal activities that they couldn't get evidence for. Shkreli is just believed to be an asshole.
  - croon 9y ago
    Is the illegality of the other activities really relevant if they can't be prosecuted? The justice system is meant to punish specific crimes, which it did done in both cases, but that doesn't prohibit you as a human to see it as karmic justice, for someone being a garbage human, wether legally or illegally.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      > Is the illegality of the other activities really relevant if they can't be prosecuted? Normally, no (which I said explicitly in another comment here). In this case, the activities are linked. There's no need to evade taxes if your income isn't illegal. Even so, I don't subscribe to the argument that it's entirely a good thing that we prosecuted Capone for tax evasion. We were unable to prove the actual criminal activities, so we instead looked at the fruits of those activities and used that. Another way to look at it is that the justice system completely failed initially. We couldn't build a case for the major crimes, but we could for the lesser crimes. He was still guilty of both (this is of course assuming his guilt). In Shkreli's case, we failed to prosecute originally because it's not a crime. The current case isn't related in the same way, and linking them and punishing in the latter because of people's perception of the former is akin to levying a harsher sentence on someone because of their interracial marriage in a region and time when that was legal but frowned upon. Social pressure unrelated to the issue at hand should not be relevant in court. Even if it's related to the issue at hand in the case, it should be restricted to sentencing (where it likely can't be removed anyway).
throwawayjava 9y ago
> This case isn't about that No. It was about fraud. Why should we NOT punish people for fraud? The ways that question are answered in this thread prove your assertion is false. This case IS about that, because without that, he'd just be one more pennyless felon.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > Why should we NOT punish people for fraud? Who said he shouldn't be punished? I simply stated that since he made restitution prior to charges being brought, perhaps that should factor into sentencing. I don't know who you're arguing against, or what you're really arguing, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I've been talking about.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > I simply stated that since he made restitution prior to charges being brought, perhaps that should factor into sentencing. Restitution isn't the only reason for punishment. > I don't know who you're arguing against, or what you're really arguing That he's clearly unapologetic and simply got lucky, and that this should factor into sentencing.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

MichaelGG 9y ago

And what's wrong with that? Be upset that the FDA only approved one company to make the drug. And it's not like anyone was hurt. Overall, insurers ended up paying a bit more (drugs are only 10-15% of US health care costs, and very few people need Daraprim). Big deal. If more people did this, then the system would get this issue addressed, maybe. On top of that, he said he was investing the profits into researching better drugs, though of course that's not a requirement.

Osmose 9y ago
It is possible to be upset with both the system and the people using it.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  True, and if it comes out that Turing knowingly blocked people from getting it despite knowing their eligibility, then he deserves derision. But so far he's just pointed out the huge issues and laughed, driving up awareness. At some point if your system is so terribly busted and no one is fixing it, eh, maybe you lose the right to hate people abusing it. Or maybe his wit and charisma is making me blind to the issue here.
  - croon 9y ago
    I found a rule loophole that allowed me to wear an Iron Man suit while playing in the NFL, so I made a career making millions of dollars a year. Aint I brave and admirable for pointing out the issue? I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the culture of praising exploiters of the system instead of promoting constructive players (who are less profitable, ie less sexy). I understand that the contrarian view to "The Man" is the easiest one to take, even if I think the identified "Man" is the diametrical opposite.
    - manquer 9y ago
      The actual equivalent is that The loophole should only allow you and no one else.. so if rule is set like that who is to blame ?

KekDemaga 9y ago

Can I presume you offer your skills to anyone who asks at a wage that reflects a minimum cost of living (ie no iPhone or other luxuries the bare minimum cost of living). If not what is your reasoning beyond apparent greed?

wfunction 9y ago
I don't understand your comment.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  Take a look at wealth globally, if GDP was evenly distributed every year everyone would get roughly ten thousand dollars. That's pretax, thus the total average spend per human being be in direct cash payments or via governmental programs should not exceed that number in a fair system. In western nations the poor see double that number on average in cash compensation, and more than triple that number when you include government services. My point is fairness and accusations of greed cut both ways, if fairness was truly the concern of the poster he would also cut his standard of living in order to benefit those much worse off than him. As he more than likely does not his argument is not "let's increase fairness" but rather "people in my class and I deserve more" and that's the same argument the people raising the drug prices are making.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    It seems like you are completely missing the point. This has little to do with economic inequality. The issue is not that this guy had a random product and raised its price. If this had been a car or an iPhone, we could not have cared less if he had been "greedy" and selling it for $1M/piece. The issue is that this is medicine we're talking about. People don't view healthcare and medicine like they view ordinary services and products. Many people (perhaps not you) have a much higher threshold for what kind of practice is moral/ethical/acceptable in medicine. That's why even in the middle of a battlefield people think it is inhumane to prevent doctors from treating injured soldiers, the war be damned. There is more to humanity than money.

jamra 9y ago

I believe he reinvests 80% back into R&D. That's a pretty large sum. It's a lot more than the big companies. If a better drug for toxoplasmosis is developed that doesn't kill people, it would have been a great achievement.