• Martin Shkreli's deadline for a Daraprim price reduction has passed, and it's still the exact same p
    65 replies, posted
[url]http://www.techinsider.io/martin-shkreli-update-on-daraprim-price-2015-10[/url] [QUOTE]In September, he told ABC News, “We’ve agreed to lower the price of Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit." That hasn't happened yet. A 30-day, 30-pill supply of Daraprim would cost me $27,006 at my local pharmacy. That boils down to about $900 a pill, which includes the wholesale cost, along with specific pharmacy fees based on the zip code I gave the pharmacy. So while the price of the drug hasn't gotten any higher since Shkreli hiked it 5,000%, it hasn't gotten any lower since he promised to reduce it either. Turing did not respond to Business Insider's request for clarification about this price.[/QUOTE] [img]http://static6.techinsider.io/image/5602ee17dd0895200e8b4693-1280-880/martin%20shkreli.png[/img]
Kill him
How would most people even afford this? Even if a few people do, is that really still going to get them a reasonable profit?
scum was hoping to wait for controversy to blow over
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48859342]How would most people even afford this? Even if a few people do, is that really still going to get them a reasonable profit?[/QUOTE] It's basically scamming money out of insurance companies.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48859342]How would most people even afford this? Even if a few people do, is that really still going to get them a reasonable profit?[/QUOTE] those without insurance will not but most have insurance, and the insurance gets most directly screwed the most leading to further abuse on individuals under the insurance plans
I think this would be one of damn few cases where I would approve of someone shooting him.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48859342]How would most people even afford this? Even if a few people do, is that really still going to get them a reasonable profit?[/QUOTE] his reasoning is that people will be forced to pay to get the drug at his inflated price if they want to go on living, and he doesnt really care if it puts them into a financial hole he's just a piece of shit who wanted to make a quick buck and nothing more
Fucking asshole.
What a huge wanker.
I'm literally waiting for him to act like the cunt he is on twitter and say "See what I did there? Oh wait I did nothing."
These are the people we need to be fighting, these are the people who we need to protest against and make a huge shit storm. But instead we're to busy fighting about who is black and who is white.
People, let's stop for a moment and consider how this completely obliterates the Mises/Austrian/A.Capitalist argument of how prices will help people: No doubt this is a non-discriminating monopolist. He just charges a fixed price to everyone no matter if they are Rockefeller or the guy who is about to die and lives in debt since he was born. Supposedly, this price tag, will signal other companies that the product is extremely profitable and therefore they will start producing it, which in turn leads to competition ASSUMING THEY DON'T CARTEL AMONG THEMSELVES (See: Nestle in Canada for example) which in turn leads to lower prices. Now, the argument makes sense. But there's a thing that's missing from the argument and can't be accepted: [B]TIME[/B] How many weeks or even months will pass before a competitor launches a product into the market? In that time lapse, MANY people will have died or suffered the consequences of paying 900$ per pill. Because let's face it, it's FUCKING retarded to assume everyone who needs that can dish out 20k PER month in order to fight it. In my opinion, from a purely utilitarian point of view, it's WAAAY better to allow the government to regulate and force this sicko son of bitch to lower the prices. Even from a deontologist point of view were we should save as many lives as possible for the sake of them being lives, it's also allowed. So case made. Kill this psycho.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48859571]People, let's stop for a moment and consider how this completely obliterates the Mises/Austrian/A.Capitalist argument of how prices will help people: No doubt this is a non-discriminating monopolist. He just charges a fixed price to everyone no matter if they are Rockefeller or the guy who is about to die and lives in debt since he was born. Supposedly, this price tag, will signal other companies that the product is extremely profitable and therefore they will start producing it, which in turn leads to competition ASSUMING THEY DON'T CARTEL AMONG THEMSELVES (See: Nestle in Canada for example) which in turn leads to lower prices. Now, the argument makes sense. But there's a thing that's missing from the argument and can't be accepted: [B]TIME[/B] How many weeks or even months will pass before a competitor launches a product into the market? In that time lapse, MANY people will have died or suffered the consequences of paying 900$ per pill. Because let's face it, it's FUCKING retard to assume everyone who needs that can dish out 20k PER month in order to fight it. In my opinion, from a purely utilitarian point of view, it's WAAAY better to allow the government to regulate and force this sicko son of bitch to lower the prices. Even from a deontologist point of view were we should save as many lives as possible for the sake of them being lives, it's also allowed. So case made. Kill this psycho.[/QUOTE] Your entire argument falls apart because the government literally doesn't allow competition. This has nothing to do with the free market. It's silly to even talk about the US medical market as free.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48859611]Your entire argument falls apart because the government literally doesn't allow competition. This has nothing to do with the free market. It's silly to even talk about the US medical market as free.[/QUOTE] Elaborate?
[QUOTE=sgman91;48859611]Your entire argument falls apart because the government literally doesn't allow competition. This has nothing to do with the free market. It's silly to even talk about the US medical market as free.[/QUOTE] My argument was a counter argument to their argument....so if you see any fail in my prepositions...its not my fault, it's their fault. This is a case of free market doing whatever the fuck they want.... Does he have any constraints in what he does? No. Is what he's doing regulated by the state? No. There's a CLEAR lack of government interference here. And ANY government interference here wouldn't do any more damage than the current situation.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;48859625]Elaborate?[/QUOTE] Protective laws. If Company A produces a new drug they can patent it, Company B cannot produce it for X years (20 IIRC) when the patent expires. Company A can charge whatever they want for the drug because they have a government-mandated monopoly on the drug. Shkreli's company didn't actually make a drug, but they bought the [I]rights[/I] to the drug and are the only manufacturer of it. The patent is, AFAIK, technically expired but they come up with a new ever-so-slightly formula every couple decades to keep the exclusivity rights. If the protective laws didn't exist or were at least more lax, any company could come in and make any drug. Of course, there would be much less drive for innovation and R&D spending if another company could swoop in and copy your drug with no cost, so the laws need [I]reform[/I] rather than being removed entirely.
[QUOTE=Saber15;48859696]Protective laws. If Company A produces a new drug they can patent it, Company B cannot produce it for X years (20 IIRC) when the patent expires. Company A can charge whatever they want for the drug because they have a government-mandated monopoly on the drug. Shkreli's company didn't actually make a drug, but they bought the [I]rights[/I] to the drug and are the only manufacturer of it. The patent is, AFAIK, technically expired but they come up with a new ever-so-slightly formula every couple decades to keep the exclusivity rights. If the protective laws didn't exist or were at least more lax, any company could come in and make any drug. Of course, there would be much less drive for innovation and R&D spending if another company could swoop in and copy your drug with no cost, so the laws need [I]reform[/I] rather than being removed entirely.[/QUOTE] Completely agree. There's a social cost to patents, and it needs to be inmediately adressed.
can't wait for the market to crash on biomedical stocks
This guy plays League of Legends, so if you're a LoL player go kick his ass constantly until he has no choice but to lower it or abandon his favorite game.
[QUOTE=Saber15;48859696] Shkreli's company didn't actually make a drug, but they bought the [I]rights[/I] to the drug and are the only manufacturer of it. The patent is, AFAIK, technically expired but they come up with a new ever-so-slightly formula every couple decades to keep the exclusivity rights. .[/QUOTE]If they patent a slightly changed formula, can't someone else make a copy of old formula since it's no longer covered by patent?
[QUOTE=sgman91;48859611]Your entire argument falls apart because the government literally doesn't allow competition. This has nothing to do with the free market. It's silly to even talk about the US medical market as free.[/QUOTE] This certainly makes little to no sense. For any given drug there are indeed competitors releasing their version of the drug. For example, Norfloxacin, an antibiotic. [URL="http://www.poulvet.com/bulk_drugs/product_companies.php?sclid=1074"]This link[/URL] is a list of all the manufacturers of this particular chemical formula. I'm not sure where you got the notion that the "government doesn't allow competition".
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;48859313][img]http://static6.techinsider.io/image/5602ee17dd0895200e8b4693-1280-880/martin%20shkreli.png[/img][/QUOTE] he's like a bond villain's awkward teenage phase
[img]http://i.imgur.com/00bjlWE.jpg[/img] Okay, somebody shoot this psychopath.
[IMG]http://static6.techinsider.io/image/5602ee17dd0895200e8b4693-1280-880/martin%20shkreli.png[/IMG] I swear i have never seen a face so punchable in my life.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;48859450]I'm literally waiting for him to act like the cunt he is on twitter and say "See what I did there? Oh wait I did nothing."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Smug Bastard;48859908][img]http://i.imgur.com/00bjlWE.jpg[/img] Okay, somebody shoot this psychopath.[/QUOTE] Ok he didn't say those exact words I said he might say, but fuck I called it because he's implying it with that. Someone please destroy everything he has online, he doesn't deserve the right to be such a sarcastic shit weasel.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;48859804]This certainly makes little to no sense. For any given drug there are indeed competitors releasing their version of the drug. For example, Norfloxacin, an antibiotic. [URL="http://www.poulvet.com/bulk_drugs/product_companies.php?sclid=1074"]This link[/URL] is a list of all the manufacturers of this particular chemical formula. I'm not sure where you got the notion that the "government doesn't allow competition".[/QUOTE] Pyrimethamine is under closed distribution, which means that Turing are probably abusing some FDA loophole to prevent generic manufacturers from obtaining samples to show bioequivalence. Also, no one really wants to bother manufacturing a drug that few patients need each year.
I looked at the guy's twitter and I really feel he and his white knights should be very, very dead [editline]8th October 2015[/editline] [img]http://i.imgur.com/UDMaSQK.png[/img] Jesus christ. The dumbfuck just bought the rights, and the pill was $14 before, still making profit, and then jacks it up 5000% "because hurr costs of making it"
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;48860075] I swear i have never seen a face so punchable in my life.[/QUOTE] Bullshit. Without context he looks like an average young adult.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/bieExan.png[/img] What about the people without insurance you fuck? They could've bought a months' supply for $420, versus $27,000. Fuck off.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.