3 ms·

That's what it looks like. Same thing with Martin Shkreli's price hikes, and he gave out those drugs for free to those who needed it.

revolvingocelot 5y ago
>Same thing with Martin Shkreli's price hikes, and he gave out those drugs for free to those who needed it. This appears to suggest that there are people who take enormously expensive theraputic drugs who don't need them, and that Martin Shkreli gave away those enormously expensive therapeutic drugs away to those who actually did. Whether propoganda, misinformation, or a bald-faced lie, that's not what happened. That never happens, and never will. Shame on you for implying that was the case.
- JamesBarney 5y ago
  I think your misinterpreting his use of the word need. He meant "needs it for free" not "needs the drug".
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    Given the prices at issue, that's most people. Worse yet, who decided the cutoff? When does one make enough money to pay insane life-improving drug prices? How much money is left over afterwards? "‘My other piece of advice, Copperfield,’ said Mr. Micawber, ‘you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."[0] [0] David Copperfield, Charles Dickens
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Don't worry, they only take all your money if you have any. If you don't have any money, they're happy to give it to you for free.
- joegahona 5y ago
  I don't think that person implied that at all. That's how I remember the whole Shkreli thing too -- there were about 3,000 people taking that drug he hiked the price on, and 60% of them got it for $1. The remainder got it through health insurance, and for those who couldn't afford it at all, he claims they got it for free. Note I have _not_ fact-checked any of that, but that goes against the typical narrative that people couldn't get the drug because of the price hike.
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    If your "_not_ fact-checked" description of his behaviour is correct, why did the price go up at all? Unless, prior to the price-hike, those who got it for $1 got it for 50 cents or something, it sounds like the price hike actually hurt the business's bottom line. Why would that happen? If you're correct about this, could it have been a result of the scrutiny? Are there ever any instances where drug costs skyrocket and patients are forced to bear the cost? Even if a highlighted instance of predatory behaviour was papered over due to said highlight, and even if that papering-over resulted in greater drug availability at lower cost, I think that might have been a result of the spotlight, rather than proof positive that the behaviour isn't awful and doesn't hurt those unlucky enough to fall ill.

revolvingocelot 5y ago

>Same thing with Martin Shkreli's price hikes, and he gave out those drugs for free to those who needed it. This appears to suggest that there are people who take enormously expensive theraputic drugs who don't need them, and that Martin Shkreli gave away those enormously expensive therapeutic drugs away to those who actually did. Whether propoganda, misinformation, or a bald-faced lie, that's not what happened. That never happens, and never will. Shame on you for implying that was the case.

JamesBarney 5y ago
I think your misinterpreting his use of the word need. He meant "needs it for free" not "needs the drug".
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  Given the prices at issue, that's most people. Worse yet, who decided the cutoff? When does one make enough money to pay insane life-improving drug prices? How much money is left over afterwards? "‘My other piece of advice, Copperfield,’ said Mr. Micawber, ‘you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."[0] [0] David Copperfield, Charles Dickens
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Don't worry, they only take all your money if you have any. If you don't have any money, they're happy to give it to you for free.
joegahona 5y ago
I don't think that person implied that at all. That's how I remember the whole Shkreli thing too -- there were about 3,000 people taking that drug he hiked the price on, and 60% of them got it for $1. The remainder got it through health insurance, and for those who couldn't afford it at all, he claims they got it for free. Note I have _not_ fact-checked any of that, but that goes against the typical narrative that people couldn't get the drug because of the price hike.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  If your "_not_ fact-checked" description of his behaviour is correct, why did the price go up at all? Unless, prior to the price-hike, those who got it for $1 got it for 50 cents or something, it sounds like the price hike actually hurt the business's bottom line. Why would that happen? If you're correct about this, could it have been a result of the scrutiny? Are there ever any instances where drug costs skyrocket and patients are forced to bear the cost? Even if a highlighted instance of predatory behaviour was papered over due to said highlight, and even if that papering-over resulted in greater drug availability at lower cost, I think that might have been a result of the spotlight, rather than proof positive that the behaviour isn't awful and doesn't hurt those unlucky enough to fall ill.