# Turns out honesty isn't always the best policy



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 24, 2015)

Martin Shkreli admits to raising the price of a drug to make money, and people get mad at him. This article says the drug Daraprim cost $18 per pill, but I've seen other articles claim it cost $13.50, so who knows what the actual cost of it is. In any case, he raised the prices up to $750 per pill because he could. It's totally legal for him to do it. People get upset at this one guy because he is actually honest about how the drug industry works. There's a bunch of meds being ridiculously priced, and yeah, it's a jerk move, but why are people getting so riled up by what this one guy did? Why not get upset tat the whole pharma-industry?


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 24, 2015)

If you did, you'd be critiquing capitalism and be making a case for governments regulating industries. That is bad, m'kay?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 24, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If you did, you'd be critiquing capitalism and be making a case for governments regulating industries. That is bad, m'kay?



Strawman.  There's a difference between regulated capitalism and unfettered capitalism.  Government has a compelling interest to regulate the excesses of the market and this isn't controversial on either side.  The difference is the choice of what needs to be regulated, which is a political choice, not an economic one.  There are valid critiques of capitalism, but discussion if government regulation or lack thereof is not one of then.  Regulation exists on a scale between lassiez faire and socialism, but it's all capitalism.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 24, 2015)

I take more of an issue with anti-competitive practices enacted in concert with the price increase.

Absent substantial barriers to entry, a competing generic should arise which should cause the price to drop.  You would expect there to be a manufacturer who targets this specific industry segment taking advantage of these sorts of cases.  Or that the government would assist in small market areas to prevent this practice.

Except, this drug has a substantial artificial barriers: Distribution is being artificially constrained to increase the difficulty of certifying a generic competitor.

Generally, if prices remain unusually high in a market, that implies a constraint on the market, or that the market is a natural monopoly (and should be subject to regulation).

Also, generally speaking, markets can and should be regulated to achieve policy ends, or to overcome structural failures of the market.  For example, pollution costs are easy to externalize.  Therefore, regulation is necessary to reduce pollution.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 24, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> There's a difference between regulated capitalism and unfettered capitalism.



Of course.



> Government has a compelling interest to regulate the excesses of the market and this isn't controversial on either side.  The difference is the choice of what needs to be regulated, which is a political choice, not an economic one.  There are valid critiques of capitalism, but discussion if government regulation or lack thereof is not one of then. Regulation exists on a scale between lassiez faire and socialism, but it's all capitalism.



Yes, but you can also critique capitalism and advocates its replacement altogether. It is a bit of a taboo to do such a thing nowadays, but it is still a thing. But what I was saying is that today if you propose reform or regulation of capitalism some people will attack you because they think you oppose capitalism altogether. It is a position that comes from ignorance and ideological thinking, but it is a position that is pervasive none the less.

So, talking about regulating the price of medicine in the US is a tricky subject, as you risk being attacked and protrayed as someone who is against capitalism, whether that is true or not. Obama was labelled anti-capitalist early on. Even if it wasn't true, that, among other things, didn't help him govern.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 24, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I take more of an issue with anti-competitive practices enacted in concert with the price increase.
> 
> Absent substantial barriers to entry, a competing generic should arise which should cause the price to drop.  You would expect there to be a manufacturer who targets this specific industry segment taking advantage of these sorts of cases.  Or that the government would assist in small market areas to prevent this practice.
> 
> ...




The problem with Daraprim, previously to the price increase at least, is that the brand name drug was so cheap. Depending on what article you read, the price was somewhere between $13.50 and $18.00. I'm guessing that there wasn't much, if any profits to be made by having a generic to compete with the brand. When this guy decided he was going to make the price go through the roof, he actually opened the door for a generic to be a viable alternative.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> People get upset at this one guy because he is actually honest about how the drug industry works.




Not quite.  He claimed that he hiked up the price to fund research for new treatments.  But generally the industry does *not* up the price of a drug to fund new research - costs are recouped *after* the research is done.  If the research doesn't result in a drug on the market, the company writes it off as a loss.

As for him being honest - a previous company (Retrophin) replaced him as CEO over financial irregularities, and is now suing him for $65 million over misuse of corporate funds.  And this is not the first time he has bought rights to a drug, and then jacked up the price - while at Retrophin he did it with the drug Thiola, jacking up the price of the drug 20-fold.



> but why are people getting so riled up by what this one guy did? Why not get upset tat the whole pharma-industry?




Because:

1) As noted above, he wasn't operating in the way the whole pharma-industry operates.  We are talking about a drug that's been in the market since 1953 - if he wanted a cash-cow, this was not a good candidate.

2) This is a drug that is in low demand, but is pretty darned essential should you need it.  The typical customer is immune-suppressed, most often with HIV, so they are *already* paying a boatload for drugs.  Suddenly jacking up a lifesaving treatment from something like $1500 to $75,000 a month is going to raise eyebrows.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 24, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> The problem with Daraprim, previously to the price increase at least, is that the brand name drug was so cheap. Depending on what article you read, the price was somewhere between $13.50 and $18.00. I'm guessing that there wasn't much, if any profits to be made by having a generic to compete with the brand. When this guy decided he was going to make the price go through the roof, he actually opened the door for a generic to be a viable alternative.




Hi,

Yes, and we should normally see this, except that, raising the price was not the entirety of what he did.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...se-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?_r=0



> With the price now high, other companies could conceivably make generic copies, since patents have long expired. One factor that could discourage that option is that Daraprim’s distribution is now tightly controlled, making it harder for generic companies to get the samples they need for the required testing.
> 
> The switch from drugstores to controlled distribution was made in June by Impax, not by Turing. Still, controlled distribution was a strategy Mr. Shkreli talked about at his previous company as a way to thwart generics.




From that same article, there are other cases of drug price increases.  Mr. Shkreli may be an egregious case, but he is not unique.

His statements, however, as presented in several articles, are mostly BS and are indefensible.

Other markets have similar problems.  For example:

http://www.businessinsider.com/textbook-price-inflation-2014-4



> "In the textbook industry, no such system of checks and balances exist. The professor chooses the book, but the student is forced to pay the price. Because of this, the student is, in essence, a captive market. Without the ability of the student to choose a more affordable option, publishers are able to drive prices higher without fear of repercussion."




Doing some searches, I found this, which is a good read, but only related as a monopolization strategy:

http://www.academia.edu/6974733/PREDATORY_PRICING_AS_AN_ABUSE_OF_DOMINANT_POSITION

This is more on point (pricing of calls from prisons):

http://beta.tutor2u.net/economics/blog/monopoly-pricing-to-a-captive-market

Here is some commentary:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...kreli_and_other_monopolists_cornered_the.html

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 24, 2015)

The idea of a monopoly AND predatory pricing rankles my sense of right and wrong.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> The idea of a monopoly AND predatory pricing rankles my sense of right and wrong.




The issues of the drug are not, strictly speaking, a monopoly situation.  In fact, the patent on the drug has run out.  Anyone can make and sell it under a different name.  However, bringing a facility up to speed on production and testing, getting it inspected, and all, would take about six years.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The issues of the drug are not, strictly speaking, a monopoly situation.  In fact, the patent on the drug has run out.  Anyone can make and sell it under a different name.  However, bringing a facility up to speed on production and testing, getting it inspected, and all, would take about six years.




So an _effective_ monopoly rather than a monopoly.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The issues of the drug are not, strictly speaking, a monopoly situation.  In fact, the patent on the drug has run out.  Anyone can make and sell it under a different name.  However, bringing a facility up to speed on production and testing, getting it inspected, and all, would take about six years.




I dislike the cite game, but I can't find where you pulled this from.  Given the low margin of generics, it seems off for there to be a six year non-profitable expenditure period prior to the start of sales.  The FDA can process a generic application in as little as a few months, depending, and it doesn't take nearly that long to establish a line or testing, even from scratch, for anything else (Boeing built an entire airplane factory for a brand new airframe in my hometown in less than two years, frex), so I'm struggling to grasp where those numbers came from.  More than willing to accept I'm wrong, as this isn't exactly my field.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Not quite.  He claimed that he hiked up the price to fund research for new treatments.  But generally the industry does *not* up the price of a drug to fund new research - costs are recouped *after* the research is done.  If the research doesn't result in a drug on the market, the company writes it off as a loss.



Sure, generally that's how pharmaceutical companies do things. However, it isn't a requirement, and this guy is a former hedge fund manager. I'm thinking he would rather have the money to pay for R&D before doing the R&D. He could definitely be full of BS, but we won't know for sure until he fails to do any R&D with the funds he raises. Well, the funds he would have raised. He decided not to hike up the price to $750. It's not clear what the new price is, yet. 



> As for him being honest - a previous company (Retrophin) replaced him as CEO over financial irregularities, and is now suing him for $65 million over misuse of corporate funds.



Regarding him being honest, I meant that he was honest in saying that he was raising the cost because money. Seriously, when have you seen anyone be that honest about why they've increased the price of some product? It's rare to see someone do that. 


> And this is not the first time he has bought rights to a drug, and then jacked up the price - while at Retrophin he did it with the drug Thiola, jacking up the price of the drug 20-fold.



I wouldn't be surprised if he had done it with many other drugs while at Retrophin. Hell, I won't be surprised if he does it many more times with other companies and medications in the future. The thing is, he isn't the only one doing it. 





> Because:
> 
> 1) As noted above, he wasn't operating in the way the whole pharma-industry operates.  We are talking about a drug that's been in the market since 1953 - if he wanted a cash-cow, this was not a good candidate.



I disagree. This is the perfect cash cow. It's a drug that has already had all the R&D it needed done decades ago. They've more than paid off that cost by now. It's got a small production cost, and after that it's all profit. At $750 per pill, it's a hell of a cash cow. And yeah, it may not be a drug given to a huge population, but it's got enough demand to bring in a nice chunk of change.



> 2) This is a drug that is in low demand, but is pretty darned essential should you need it.  The typical customer is immune-suppressed, most often with HIV, so they are *already* paying a boatload for drugs.  Suddenly jacking up a lifesaving treatment from something like $1500 to $75,000 a month is going to raise eyebrows.



Some of the world's most expensive drugs are in very low demand.

My point is that everyone gets riled up and upset about this one guy doing it, but he isn't the only one that puts ridiculous prices for drugs. This is an industry that can do this type of thing because it's perfectly legal for them to do so. If he felt like it, he could hike up the price of this, or any other, drug to $2,000 per pill, and it's perfectly legal. 
Why does this guy get all the ire? My guess is it's because he looks and acts like a d-bag. Still, he isn't the only one doing it. He isn't he one that made it possible for this to happen, and continue to happen. People's anger seems to be somewhat misplaced. I think the only person I've heard come out with anything to do something about this is Hilary Clinton. You hear any other politician saying anything or suggesting any fixes? You hear any pharmaceutical company coming out saying that there should be some regulations to help curb this type of behavior? 
So yeah, you can get mad at this guy, but get mad at the industry and the politicians that allow this to happen as well.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 25, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Hi,



Hello,




> Yes, and we should normally see this, except that, raising the price was not the entirety of what he did.
> 
> From: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...se-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?_r=0



I'm sure it wasn't the only thing. He is in business to make money. I expect him to do as much as possible to make that money.



> From that same article, there are other cases of drug price increases.  Mr. Shkreli may be an egregious case, but he is not unique.
> 
> His statements, however, as presented in several articles, are mostly BS and are indefensible.
> 
> ...



That's my point. He isn't the only one. It's an industry-wide thing. Any company that thinks it can get away with it would probably do the same. The worst part? There is nothing to stop them. It's perfectly legal. So yeah, people can get angry at Shkreli, but they should get angry at a whole lot more people.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 25, 2015)

Well since he's the most recent and egregious actor, he's a viable target.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 25, 2015)

Of course he is a viable target. I'm just saying he shouldn't be the only target.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I dislike the cite game, but I can't find where you pulled this from.




I pulled it off my local NPR station this morning, and a check with a couple of my friends who work in biopharma QA.  While the formula for the drug is free, the *setup* for the drug still has to jump through FDA hoops to be sure it actually makes what you say it does, at proper levels of purity, so that the product will be safe.  This isnt' actually all that expensive, but it is time consuming.



> (Boeing built an entire airplane factory for a brand new airframe in my hometown in less than two years, frex)




Nobody is *swallowing* that airframe to help them beat off disease 

The thing being that the design of the airframe had already been through lots of testing for safety before manufacture begins.  The manufacturing process has quality controls, but is pretty much the same as for any other airframe - a weld is a weld, a rivet is a rivet.  The processes used to assemble a Boeing 747 is much the same as that used for an Airbus A320.  The manufacturing process for each drug is its own thing that must be vetted separately.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I pulled it off my local NPR station this morning, and a check with a couple of my friends who work in biopharma QA.  While the formula for the drug is free, the *setup* for the drug still has to jump through FDA hoops to be sure it actually makes what you say it does, at proper levels of purity, so that the product will be safe.  This isnt' actually all that expensive, but it is time consuming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We're talking last each other, but that's fine. 

On the plant side, yes, I had already assumed that the design was fine and that the only match was to build very complex things and have the extensively quality controlled throughout. That you swallow one and hurls through the air with hundreds of people in the other is a red herring -- they're both highly complex within their fields that require extensive quality control at every step. 

 On the approval side, the FDA has an abbreviated process for genetics that takes less than a year to accomplish.  Pretty sure you can retool a line or even build one in that approval process time, out slightly longer.  I'm still wondering where the six years timeframe came from as the long lead time is FDA approval and its not very long for generics.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> That you swallow one and hurls through the air with hundreds of people in the other is a red herring -- they're both highly complex within their fields that require extensive quality control at every step.




Yes, but the operating principles of all airframes are the same, and the construction methods are a limited, well-understood list.  The production line for each drug is a one-off for that drug that may not bear a whole lot of resemblance to the lines for other drugs.



> On the approval side, the FDA has an abbreviated process for genetics that takes less than a year to accomplish.  Pretty sure you can retool a line or even build one in that approval process time, out slightly longer.  I'm still wondering where the six years timeframe came from as the long lead time is FDA approval and its not very long for generics.




While I trust NPR to generally have its facts straight, you may take it with a grain of salt, if you wish.  My biopharma QA friends didn't think the timeline sounded off - it takes time to develop and qualify the QA process for the production lines.  There are a lot of picayune details, including things like, "how do we clean the production apparatus, and how do we certify that contamination of the vessels is below the required guidelines," and such.  Those apparently don't come in stock form, like inspection of welds in airframes do.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Sure, generally that's how pharmaceutical companies do things. However, it isn't a requirement, and this guy is a former hedge fund manager.




Being a former hedge fund manager says to me he is *less* likely to be operating in accordance with industry norms, not more.



> I'm thinking he would rather have the money to pay for R&D before doing the R&D.




Well, then perhaps he should find himself some venture capitalists or investors, rather than trying to take it out of the pockets of immune-suppressed patients.



> He could definitely be full of BS




Yeah, about that - having asked around a bit, it seems there's no *medical* reason to develop a new drug for toxoplasmosis.  The drug in question is 60 years old, and is still used because it works well and isn't very expensive.  So, his excuse that he wanted to develop new treatments seems to lack a solid basis.



> At $750 per pill, it's a hell of a cash cow.




Only if people can/will pay that price. Insurance companies may not cover the increased cost, and the patients, already on a rack of other expensive drugs, likely don't have the funds.  



> Some of the world's most expensive drugs are in very low demand.




And?  None of those cited drugs have been on the market for more than a decade.  The drug we are talking about now has been around for half a century longer than any of those.

And, are any of those drugs really comparable?  Politifact says, "No."



> My point is that everyone gets riled up and upset about this one guy doing it, but he isn't the only one that puts ridiculous prices for drugs.




No.  And this is *hardly* the only complaint about the high price of drugs.  

This is a particular case of a drug that has not been high priced in living memory, that jumped by 5000% in price.  This is not comparable to a drug that is fairly new, and has never been low-priced.  It is a new, slightly different case, and thus gets new, separate attention.  



> Why does this guy get all the ire? My guess is it's because he looks and acts like a d-bag.




I doubt his physical appearance has much to do with it.  It got attention because it was a *change*.  That drugs are expensive is nothing new, so it doesn't pop up on news unless there's something new to the story, like a political campaign, or a particularly egregious example like this one.



> People's anger seems to be somewhat misplaced. I think the only person I've heard come out with anything to do something about this is Hilary Clinton. You hear any other politician saying anything or suggesting any fixes?




Well, the price change came in August, and good policy changes take time to develop.  I hope/expect Clinton's policy was already in the works before this happened, as it is a realistic thing for her to have for her campaign, and she's nothing if not well-planned. So she could whip it out when the story hit.  And the GOP is not known for policies to curtail corporate overreach.



> You hear any pharmaceutical company coming out saying that there should be some regulations to help curb this type of behavior?




No, but since when do we ever expect to hear companies suggest reasonable self-regulation? 



> So yeah, you can get mad at this guy, but get mad at the industry and the politicians that allow this to happen as well.




I think you are mistaking, "This is the current example of people being mad at the industry" for "this is the *only* example of such".  And, you can lump many people's dislike for the GOP on their policies with regards to regulation of companies, and their approach to health care in general as lacking.  

So, really, your suggestion that folks are somehow off on this topic doesn't seem to hold water, to me.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 25, 2015)

Ah, I find your source.  The actual wrote is that the FDA is currently so backed up that it "could" take up to six years to bring a drug to market.  That's a tax different from what you presented, and make a good bit more sense.  As I was more curious in understanding why that was and that's the reason I asked, I'll call this a win.

On a side note, I think you are dramatically underestimating the complexity of building a modern airplane.  Just dealing with the new materials has radically changed and increased the complexity involved.  It's easily on par with the complexity of a drug manufacturing line.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 25, 2015)

From one of the linked articles:



> "You only need less than 100 pills so at the end of the day, the price for treatment – to save your life – was only $1,000," Shkreli told Bloomberg TV on Sept. 21, 2015. "These days, in modern pharmaceuticals, cancer drugs can cost $100,000 or more, rare disease drugs can cost half a million dollars. Daraprim is still underpriced, relative to its peers."




The conclusion of the article was that the comparison was false, but, I think the article gets the comparison wrong, at least in part.

The basis for the comparison was the price to value ratio, not the cost of production to price ratio.

In that sense, the drug is more closely aligned to the price of "drugs which are life saving and which have a very small market".  This seems to be pure value based pricing.

I find a similarity between this pricing and Uber's demand based pricing.  There are differences, sure: Uber's pricing does help to encourage supply, and is moderated by competition, but the underlying mechanism, which is for suppliers to increase price until otherwise moderated, the the same.

While I do think that there is something amiss in this drug pricing example, I am wondering what is the reasoned objection to this example?  And, what existing laws and legal theories apply?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Being a former hedge fund manager says to me he is *less* likely to be operating in accordance with industry norms, not more.



So what? Why does he have to operate like the rest of the industry? The rest of the industry has been charging exorbitant prices for drugs for far longer than this guy. Why does he have to do what they do? What he is doing is perfectly legal.



> Well, then perhaps he should find himself some venture capitalists or investors,



That would defeat the purpose. He would have to pay those guys back for their investment. He'd be in the hole from the start. Hiking up the price would get him funds he doesn't have to pay back. 


> rather than trying to take it out of the pockets of immune-suppressed patients.



Appeal to emotion. By that logic, people dying of cancer shouldn't have to pay high prices for their medications. 



> Yeah, about that - having asked around a bit, it seems there's no *medical* reason to develop a new drug for toxoplasmosis.  The drug in question is 60 years old, and is still used because it works well and isn't very expensive.  So, his excuse that he wanted to develop new treatments seems to lack a solid basis.



So what if it's been around for 60 years? It wouldn't matter if it had been around for 100 years. Hell, it doesn't even matter that doctors don't want a new drug. When you have an effective monopoly on a drug like this, you can do whatever you want. You can create the demand. He could develop a new drug and force it on people. With a new drug comes a new patent.



> Only if people can/will pay that price.



No, you're wrong. It's not if people can/will pay that price. It's if they _must_ pay that price. Whatever the price ends up being is the price that must be paid for the drug, or you just don't take the drug and possibly die.



> Insurance companies may not cover the increased cost, and the patients, already on a rack of other expensive drugs, likely don't have the funds.



Some insurance companies may not cover the drug. Others may cover the drug. You don't until insurance companies are forced to decide. 



> And?  None of those cited drugs have been on the market for more than a decade.  The drug we are talking about now has been around for half a century longer than any of those.



So what? Let's pretend that 100 years from now the number of people that use those expensive drugs remains the same as they are today. Do you believe that the price of those drugs will decreased based solely on the time the drug has been around?



> And, are any of those drugs really comparable?



Depends on your criteria for comparison. 


> Politifact says, "No."



Going by the criteria they used to determine if it was comparable, they opine that it isn't. It's just their opinion.



> No.  And this is *hardly* the only complaint about the high price of drugs.
> 
> This is a particular case of a drug that has not been high priced in living memory, that jumped by 5000% in price.  This is not comparable to a drug that is fairly new, and has never been low-priced.  It is a new, slightly different case, and thus gets new, separate attention.



[sblock=It's not new. It's not different.]


> There are also some extreme cases (17 drug groups) where price increases of more than 1000% were seen. One such product is tetracycline, which is commonly prescribed for bacterial infections. During the same period (between Nov’13 and Nov’14), it’s per tablet price increased from $0.0345 to $2.3632. That is a 67-fold increase in one year!






> Cycloserine, a drug used to treat dangerous multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, was just increased in price to $10,800 for 30 pills from $500 after its acquisition by Rodelis Therapeutics.



[/sblock]It's just the one being paraded around for public bashing. 



> I doubt his physical appearance has much to do with it.



Really? You truly believe that people's reaction to this aren't affected by the way this guy looks? This guy?




> It got attention because it was a *change*.  That drugs are expensive is nothing new, so it doesn't pop up on news unless there's something new to the story, like a political campaign, or a particularly egregious example like this one.



Drug increases may not pop up on your local news, but there are plenty of articles written about the increase in drug prices. People just don't read them or pass over them. 



> Well, the price change came in August, and good policy changes take time to develop.  I hope/expect Clinton's policy was already in the works before this happened, as it is a realistic thing for her to have for her campaign, and she's nothing if not well-planned. So she could whip it out when the story hit.  And the GOP is not known for policies to curtail corporate overreach.



You don't need to have a policy developed to give your opinion on whether you believe this is right or wrong. Look, here is Donald Trump giving his opinion. I'm not seeing anything regarding his policy on this. It's just his opinion.




> No, but since when do we ever expect to hear companies suggest reasonable self-regulation?



All the time. The problem is what they consider _reasonable_. This is the problem with _self-regulation_. You can come up with whatever you think is reasonable. 



> I think you are mistaking, "This is the current example of people being mad at the industry" for "this is the *only* example of such". And, you can lump many people's dislike for the GOP on their policies with regards to regulation of companies, and their approach to health care in general as lacking.
> 
> So, really, your suggestion that folks are somehow off on this topic doesn't seem to hold water, to me.



Nope, you're wrong. That's not what I'm saying. I've said it several times. People are taking it out on this guy when they should be taking it out on the industry and the politicians that have allowed the industry to do what it wants. As I've said, this guy is a perfectly viable target, but he shouldn't be the only target of people's anger. He isn't doing anything that other Pharmaceutical companies can't do, or haven't done in some way. He isn't doing anything that is illegal. Everything he has done has been perfectly legal, and if it wasn't because of it becoming widely known, no pharmaceutical company would have told him it was wrong or tried to stop him. Really, why are people focusing so much on a guy that is playing within the rules?


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 25, 2015)

This two articles seem to directly speak to the issue:

This article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which talks about the rising prices for generics:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1408376?viewType=Print&

This article talks about the difficulties of entering the market:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-difficulties-for-competitors-to-create-cheaper-Daraprim

I'm predicting a few new trips to Canada ... see:

http://www.pharmacychecker.com/brand/price-comparison/daraprim/25+mg/

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Martin Shkreli admits to raising the price of a drug to make money, and people get mad at him. This article says the drug Daraprim cost $18 per pill, but I've seen other articles claim it cost $13.50, so who knows what the actual cost of it is. In any case, he raised the prices up to $750 per pill because he could. It's totally legal for him to do it. People get upset at this one guy because he is actually honest about how the drug industry works. There's a bunch of meds being ridiculously priced, and yeah, it's a jerk move, but why are people getting so riled up by what this one guy did? Why not get upset tat the whole pharma-industry?




First, this looks like a case of patent trolling and that is becoming a big problem that we need to do something about. 

Second, it is entirely unethical to raise the price of a drug that was 13.50 to 750 when it has been on the market that long. The issue isn't that is costs money to produce, he is claiming they want to raise money to reinvest into research. Research is fine, but should they be using established medicines that are inexpensive to raise these costs?

Third, this only increases the overall cost of medical care in the US for everyone. 

Fourth, yes he is just a symptom of a much bigger problem. He was singled out because of his youth and obnnoxious personality.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> First, this looks like a case of patent trolling and that is becoming a big problem that we need to do something about.




It can't be patent trolling.  The drug's patent ran out *decades* ago.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> 1) As noted above, he wasn't operating in the way the whole pharma-industry operates.  We are talking about a drug that's been in the market since 1953 - if he wanted a cash-cow, this was not a good candidate.
> .




I could have sworn there was some reporting that what he did here with an old medication is actually becoming fairly common. I think increase was just bigger than it normally is under those circumstances. If that is the case, and I may be wrong on that front, I definitely think journalists should take a much closer look at this practice across the industry. It looks like what he did was perfectly legal, so I suspect there are others doing it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It can't be patent trolling.  The drug's patent ran out *decades* ago.




It is basically the same principle, but applied to marketing rights.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 25, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> First, this looks like a case of patent trolling and that is becoming a big problem that we need to do something about.



As pointed out, it isn't patent trolling as the patent ran out long time ago in a universe far far away. It's more like having a monopoly, but he doesn't actually have one. He basically has an effective monopoly on the drug, and can do as he pleases with it.



> Second, it is entirely unethical to raise the price of a drug that was 13.50 to 750 when it has been on the market that long. The issue isn't that is costs money to produce, he is claiming they want to raise money to reinvest into research. Research is fine, but should they be using established medicines that are inexpensive to raise these costs?
> 
> Third, this only increases the overall cost of medical care in the US for everyone.



And yet, it's all perfectly legal. It might be unethical, but ethics don't matter in this case. It may raise the cost of healthcare in the U.S., but that doesn't matter either. He hasn't broken any laws.It's a complete abuse of power, and it's totally legal. He could have raised the price to $5,000 per pill, and it would still be legal. That's a problem that people should be getting mad at. 



> Fourth, yes he is just a symptom of a much bigger problem. He was singled out because of his youth and obnoxious personality.



Agreed.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> As pointed out, it isn't patent trolling as the patent ran out long time ago in a universe far far away. It's more like having a monopoly, but he doesn't actually have one. He basically has an effective monopoly on the drug, and can do as he pleases with it.




I agree it technically isn't patent trolling. But it is the closest thing in my mind. They bought the marketing rights to something that has been on the market forever and did so soley to milk it for a quick burst of revenue. It is the same mindset and business strategy.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 25, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I agree it technically isn't patent trolling. But it is the closest thing in my mind. They bought the marketing rights to something that has been on the market forever and did so soley to milk it for a quick burst of revenue. It is the same mindset and business strategy.



I would assume that was his strategy. He is a former hedge fund manager. He is more interested in bringing in money than doing anything to help patients. Still, it's perfectly legal.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> And yet, it's all perfectly legal. It might be unethical, but ethics don't matter in this case. It may raise the cost of healthcare in the U.S., but that doesn't matter either. He hasn't broken any laws.It's a complete abuse of power, and it's totally legal. He could have raised the price to $5,000 per pill, and it would still be legal. That's a problem that people should be getting mad at.
> d.




That is a non-argument. It being legal doesn't mean we shouldn't say anything when someone tries to squeeze a broken system to make money of the sick. I'm all for putting pressure on him in the media to lower the price. No one is saying it isn't legal. No one is saying he should be arrested or charged. 

People are saying it is unethical. Which it is. And they are saying it is bad for society, so we probably want to do something if this is that easy to pull off. Obviously that is the first step toward doing talking about reform to stop this kind of behavior.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I would assume that was his strategy. He is a former hedge fund manager. He is more interested in bringing in money than doing anything to help patients. Still, it's perfectly legal.




You keep saying that like it adds anything to the conversation. So what that its legal. Everyone acknowledges that it is. It is still unethical and has huge consequences for people who need the drug. In your mind what is the correct response? Just shrug?


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 25, 2015)

Wait, how is it unethical? He us doing exactly what the system encourages.

TomB


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 25, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> You keep saying that like it adds anything to the conversation. So what that its legal. Everyone acknowledges that it is. It is still unethical and has huge consequences for people who need the drug.



You say that as if it should matter. So what if it's unethical? Ethics don't matter. People die because they can't get this drug? So what? Countless people die because they can't get this drug, other life saving drugs, food, water, and countless other things. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day, his _unethical_ behavior doesn't matter. The consequences of his _unethical_ behavior don't matter. Maybe pointing out that it is legal doesn't add to the conversation, but neither does saying that it's unethical. The fact is, it is perfectly legal. He can do as he pleases. So what? Their anger and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee. 


> In your mind what is the correct response? Just shrug?



Nope. I'm assuming you haven't read most of the other posts since you came late into this conversation. I've said it several times before. People should be getting upset with the politicians that allow this to continue to happen. You can complain about his unethical behavior until you're blue in the face, but that's not going to change anything. Now if you start pushing politicians on this, holding them accountable for doing nothing to fix this issue, you may just get the laws to change.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You say that as if it should matter. So what if it's unethical? Ethics don't matter. People die because they can't get this drug? So what? Countless people die because they can't get this drug, other life saving drugs, food, water, and countless other things. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day, his _unethical_ behavior doesn't matter. The consequences of his _unethical_ behavior don't matter. Maybe pointing out that it is legal doesn't add to the conversation, but neither does saying that it's unethical. The fact is, it is perfectly legal. He can do as he pleases. So what? Their anger and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee.




Are you serious? His behavior matters a great deal to the peoples' whose lives are impacted by his choices. Yeah, I am not getting where your coming from at all. I guess will just have to move on. Whatever HS, I am starting to really my interactions with you in the past. I don't think we are going to make a lot of headway with this back and forth. 



> Nope. I'm assuming you haven't read most of the other posts since you came late into this conversation. I've said it several times before. People should be getting upset with the politicians that allow this to continue to happen. You can complain about his unethical behavior until you're blue in the face, but that's not going to change anything. Now if you start pushing politicians on this, holding them accountable for doing nothing to fix this issue, you may just get the laws to change.




I've seen what you said. But I don't think you are making a lot of sense. I am all for reforming the system and pressuring politicians do act. That still doesn't mean we should ignore his terrible behavior. It isn't a choice between one or the other. And public critiques do seem to be having an effect, since he has been issuing responses. I am rarely in favor of using shame or aggression, but when someone is doing something that can lead to people dying or have a huge impact on the health care system, I am all for people letting him know how they feel and pressuring institutions and companies to do what they can to make it hard for him to do business this way.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Wait, how is it unethical? He us doing exactly what the system encourages.
> 
> TomB




Doing what the system encourages isn't the foundation of ethics. He pursuing his own self interest and greed at the expense of individuals who may really need this medication and at the expense of an already busted health care system. He is raising the price of a drug that up until now was very affordable. Either people who need the drug won't get it, or will have to pay more than they ought to for it, or insurance companies will front the cost and everyone's rates will go up (while he profits).


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 25, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> Doing what the system encourages isn't the foundation of ethics. He pursuing his own self interest and greed at the expense of individuals who may really need this medication and at the expense of an already busted health care system. He is raising the price of a drug that up until now was very affordable. Either people who need the drug won't get it, or will have to pay more than they ought to for it, or insurance companies will front the cost and everyone's rates will go up (while he profits).




Sure, it sucks to be one of the people that needs the medication.

But being ethical isn't the same as being nice.

So far, what I've heard as "unethical behavior" is really meaning "behavior which I think is mean", or perhaps "behavior of which I disapprove."

If the drug was being sold by a publicly traded company, where the board has a duty to achieve the corporate goals, and those were stated to be increasing dividends, then it would be unethical to *not* raise the price.  Outside of an additional value, e.g., company reputation, or the possibility of triggering regulatory scrutiny, a board member would have a *duty* to raise the price.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So what? Why does he have to operate like the rest of the industry?




Let us return, for a moment, to the point this originated with - you said, "People get upset at this one guy because he is actually honest about how the drug industry works."

That isn't correct.  What he did is *not* how the industry works.  So, anger at him is *not* the same as anger at the industry, as you contend.



> What he is doing is perfectly legal.




Irrelevant.  Nobody here is saying he should be arrested.  "Legal" doesn't mean "beyond reproach".  People can be justifiably angry at perfectly legal actions.  



> Really, why are people focusing so much on a guy that is playing within the rules?




Because there is more to ethical and reasonable behavior than staying within the letter of the law.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Sure, it sucks to be one of the people that needs the medication.
> 
> But being ethical isn't the same as being nice.
> 
> ...




We could have a whole debate on ethics and what that means. Here I think people are labeling behavior that they think causes harm to society and its members to be the standard. 

A company raising the price of a potentially lifesaving medication like that, that has been affordable for decades and decades, doesn't strike me as a good thing. Should any action that achieves corporate goals be acceptable and ethical? Particularly when they actions can be shown to create harm to the public and undermine a healthcare system that is already shaky? Sorry but part of this discussion is us trying to decide what sort of world we want to create for ourselves. If you want to live in a world where corporate revenue is the only measure of the good, I can't join you. I think there is a good in keeping medicine as affordable as possible. Most folks understand that putting a new drug on the market takes big investments and that means there will be a few years of prices being high. What people are having trouble understanding is why we're taking a medicine that has been affordable for a very long time and seeing the price skyrocket just because some company bought the marketing rights. That seems exploitative to me.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 25, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> We could have a whole debate on ethics and what that means. Here I think people are labeling behavior that they think causes harm to society and its members to be the standard.
> 
> A company raising the price of a potentially lifesaving medication like that, that has been affordable for decades and decades, doesn't strike me as a good thing. Should any action that achieves corporate goals be acceptable and ethical? Particularly when they actions can be shown to create harm to the public and undermine a healthcare system that is already shaky? Sorry but part of this discussion is us trying to decide what sort of world we want to create for ourselves. If you want to live in a world where corporate revenue is the only measure of the good, I can't join you. I think there is a good in keeping medicine as affordable as possible. Most folks understand that putting a new drug on the market takes big investments and that means there will be a few years of prices being high. What people are having trouble understanding is why we're taking a medicine that has been affordable for a very long time and seeing the price skyrocket just because some company bought the marketing rights. That seems exploitative to me.




Sure.  And I don't disagree with your conclusion.

But I disagree with the characterization of what was done re: raising the price.

At least here in the US, folks who compete in a market are expected to aggressively compete.  To take risks at the edges of the marketplace.  Not just to improve products and services, but also to achieve higher profits.  In the current example, we should *expect* that someone will step up and raise prices.  That this happens is a feature of the economic system, and arguably a desirable feature.

What behaviors are should be encouraged (or discouraged) is a policy question and a legal question.  What *should* happen is that when behavior reaches a level that is objectionable, then a policy discussion should be had, and laws and regulations changes to modify the behavior.  (I would expect policy makers to not always wait for an extreme failure.  Waiting for a power plant or a bridge to fail before enacting *some* regulation seems like a bad idea.)

What would be a failure here is a failure to policy makers to adjust laws and regulations as befits the public good.

I'm prepared not only to accept that there is a real failure, but also to propose that there is in fact severe dysfunction.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Sure.  And I don't disagree with your conclusion.
> 
> But I disagree with the characterization of what was done re: raising the price.
> 
> ...




All you are doing is saying it is legal, so it is legal for him to do. No one disputes the legality. What folks are saying is something ought to be done about it and that just because something is legal and/or encouraged by the system, that doesn't make it okay. We can still bring pressure on this guy to take a different course of action. And we can certainly judge his behavior privately. Using legality and profit margins as the sole measure of an actions moral value seems quite flawed. The economic and legal systems are not the only systems that help guide behavior (and that is a darn good thing). People are also guided by moral precepts from philosophy and religion. Here I think the man is in egregious violation of some basic moral principles that most people share. Pointing out that transgression is more than fair.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Sure.  And I don't disagree with your conclusion.
> 
> But I disagree with the characterization of what was done re: raising the price.
> B




well your argument amounts to "its okay to harm people if its legal and maximizes revenue." This simply isn't how we should encourage people to do business. That is why you have business ethics courses for example. Saying "its allowed so its okay" doesn't quite cut it for me. He is still responsible for his actions and the impact those actions have on other people. That would be like saying saying at the height of slavery that its perfectly acceptable to own slaves and we shouldn't judge slave owners because what they are doing is perfectly legal and it is how the economic system is supposed to work. Sure you would also want to law makers to enact laws eradicating slavery, but people who choose to own slaves in that scenario are still doing something wrong and causing harm.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 25, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> All you are doing is saying it is legal, so it is legal for him to do. No one disputes the legality.






Bedrockgames said:


> well your argument amounts to "its okay to harm people if its legal and maximizes revenue."




I think you need to read his post again.

He's saying it's legal but dysfunctional, and that the correct response is to alter legislation.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I think you need to read his post again.
> 
> He's saying it's legal but dysfunctional, and that the correct response is to alter legislation.




No I understand that. But he is saying that all that matters is the system and its shape, that individuals are not morally responsible for their actions within that system provided they follow the rules. I think he and other posters are making it sound like we have to choose between enacting new policies and encouraging people to behave ethically independent of government regulations. We can do both these things. I think most people see that we need to reform the system but understand that they system is never going to be perfect and that it will always require there be a basic expectation of human decency as well. Obviously the policies need to be changed. But that doesn't mean Mr Schkreli is free from judgment here.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I think you need to read his post again.
> 
> He's saying it's legal but dysfunctional, and that the correct response is to alter legislation.




This is quote below the mindset I was replying to. This is more than saying the system is dysfunctional and it should be repaired. It is saying the it was ethical to raise the price of the drug if it increases revenue because within the current system, that is what a company ought to do. It absolves anyone acting within the system, any person who runs a business or serves as a CEO from moral responsibility so long as the actions they take are not illegal and increase profits. I think this puts too much faith into a system to behave ethically on its own. I think it is crucial that the people who make up the system be expected to conduct themselves with basic human decency and not do things like charge people hundreds of dollars for a pill that should cost under 20 bucks: 



> If the drug was being sold by a publicly traded company, where the board has a duty to achieve the corporate goals, and those were stated to be increasing dividends, then it would be unethical to *not* raise the price. Outside of an additional value, e.g., company reputation, or the possibility of triggering regulatory scrutiny, a board member would have a *duty* to raise the price.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2015)

To continue on the matter, a US company is challenging Canada's drug price control law. Interesting angle. http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-s-patent-drug-price-controls-challenged-1.2581705


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 26, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Let us return, for a moment, to the point this originated with - you said, "People get upset at this one guy because he is actually honest about how the drug industry works."
> 
> That isn't correct.  What he did is *not* how the industry works.  So, anger at him is *not* the same as anger at the industry, as you contend.



I'll give you half a right. Yes, it isn't how the companies generally behave, but he is not doing something that other companies can't, or haven't used before. Did other companies raise the price as steeply as Shkreli did? I don't know. It's possible that they did. It's probable that they didn't. In any case, the ay that companies come up with a price is pretty much the same way as Shkreli did. 





> Irrelevant.  Nobody here is saying he should be arrested.  "Legal" doesn't mean "beyond reproach".  People can be justifiably angry at perfectly legal actions.



If you feel it's irrelevant, that's fine. I feel it's relevant. Should people be upset that this guy did this? Yes. I'm not denying that. Never have. I just feel that people should also be upset that it is legal to do what he is doing. People should feel upset that he did it, and that he can legally do it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 26, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> Are you serious? His behavior matters a great deal to the peoples' whose lives are impacted by his choices. Yeah, I am not getting where your coming from at all.



Eh... I'm kind of being serious... an adding some exaggeration to it. Yeah, it matters to the people that are impacted by this. It should matter to everyone, really. But unfortunately, as much as it matters to people, it doesn't matter much in the end and Shkreli, and anyone else in the pharmaceutical industry can keep doing the same. Does it matter to people? Of course it does. Does their concern make any difference? Not unless they get off their butts and push lawmakers to make pass regulations that make it so this can't continue to happen.



> I guess will just have to move on. *snip* *I am starting to really my interactions with you in the past*. I don't think we are going to make a lot of headway with this back and forth.



I'm not sure what you meant by that. I'm assuming you're referencing some interaction(s) we've had in the past. My intent wasn't to insult you or upset you. If you were upset or insulted by my posts, I apologize. 




> I've seen what you said. But I don't think you are making a lot of sense. I am all for reforming the system and pressuring politicians do act. That still doesn't mean we should ignore his terrible behavior. *It isn't a choice between one or the other.* And public critiques do seem to be having an effect, since he has been issuing responses. I am rarely in favor of using shame or aggression, but when someone is doing something that can lead to people dying or have a huge impact on the health care system, I am all for people letting him know how they feel and pressuring institutions and companies to do what they can to make it hard for him to do business this way.



I completely agree with the bolded part. That's my point. It shouldn't be one or the other. It should be both. Don't be upset with just Shkreli. Be upset with Shkreli and the pharmaceutical industry. Don't be upset with just Shkreli and the pharmaceutical industry. Be upset with Shkreli, the pharmaceutical industry and the politicians that allow this to continue. There is plenty of blame to go around. Shkreli seems to be getting an disproportionate amount.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 26, 2015)

goldomark said:


> To continue on the matter, a US company is challenging Canada's drug price control law. Interesting angle. http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-s-patent-drug-price-controls-challenged-1.2581705



Murica.


----------



## MechaPilot (Sep 26, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> People get upset at this one guy because he is actually honest about how the drug industry works. There's a bunch of meds being ridiculously priced, and yeah, it's a jerk move, but why are people getting so riled up by what this one guy did? Why not get upset tat the whole pharma-industry?




The truth doesn't absolve someone from the anger of others.

If I burn someone's house down and then tell them I did it and why, do they lose the right to be mad at me?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 26, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I completely agree with the bolded part. That's my point. It shouldn't be one or the other. It should be both. Don't be upset with just Shkreli. Be upset with Shkreli and the pharmaceutical industry. Don't be upset with just Shkreli and the pharmaceutical industry. Be upset with Shkreli, the pharmaceutical industry and the politicians that allow this to continue. There is plenty of blame to go around. Shkreli seems to be getting an disproportionate amount.




No, he is getting exactly as much blame as he deserves. I wouldn't give him any less blame than he is getting now. What he has done here is an awful thing. That there are others doing it as well, or that the industry is allowed to do it because of weak regulations and bad policy, doesn't reduce his culpability. Blame isn't a limited resource. We can give him the full amount of blame he is getting and still give a greater measure of blame to the industry, while demanding action from our representatives.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 26, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> No, he is getting exactly as much blame as he deserves. I wouldn't give him any less blame than he is getting now. What he has done here is an awful thing. That there are others doing it as well, or that the industry is allowed to do it because of weak regulations and bad policy, doesn't reduce his culpability. Blame isn't a limited resource. We can give him the full amount of blame he is getting and still give a greater measure of blame to the industry, while demanding action from our representatives.



And yet all the focus is on him. He's the bad guy. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's fine. He is getting a disproportionate amount of hate and blame.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 26, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> The truth doesn't absolve someone from the anger of others.



Never said it did.



> If I burn someone's house down and then tell them I did it and why, do they lose the right to be mad at me?



Yes, totally.


----------



## MechaPilot (Sep 26, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> MechaPilot said:
> 
> 
> > If I burn someone's house down and then tell them I did it and why, do they lose the right to be mad at me?
> ...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 26, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> And yet all the focus is on him. He's the bad guy. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's fine. He is getting a disproportionate amount of hate and blame.




It is a new story. It takes time for journalists to contextualize this. What people are trying to discern is how exceptional this price increase is (remember it wasn't just that a price increase occured that got people mad, its that it went from 13.50 to 700 dollars. If it comes to light that this is is actually a common increase, believe me, you'll see people express their outrage at the whole industry. What I think is starting to happen is now the conversation is turning to the industry itself. 

But again, we can blame this guy and blame the industry. Should we also be taking a harder look at at how these things are priced and the practice of buying market rights to raise prices? Absolutely. But he got exactly what he deserved for raising the price of life saving medicine that much just to make a profit. There is a lot of pressure on him to lower the prices now and that is good thing. The problem isn't that he got too much blame. It is that more needs to go around. Hopefully people will see this and understand just how messed up our healthcare system is. Frankly I am glad when this story broke that people didn't take the position that just because he could do something, he should have. That mentality has poisoned our economy for decades. I think seeing that it produces men like him is going to wake people up for once.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 26, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> View attachment 70643




Yes, excellent.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 26, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is a new story. It takes time for journalists to contextualize this.



It's a new story, but an old tale. He may have been the one to make the biggest price hike, but he did it in an industry that continues to raise the price of most, if not all, medication. Journalists have had plenty of time to contextualize this. Some have already done this. Some haven't. Politicians haven't done anything. Some have most likely helped push legislation that made this far easier to do. To me the public outrage is a bit misplaced, and quite frankly, too late. Hell, it'll probably be short-lived as well. 



> What people are trying to discern is how exceptional this price increase is (remember it wasn't just that a price increase occured that got people mad, its that it went from 13.50 to 700 dollars.



Just to be clear, are you suggesting that it's the magnitude of the increase that you're bothered by?



> If it comes to light that this is is actually a common increase, believe me, you'll see people express their outrage at the whole industry. What I think is starting to happen is now the conversation is turning to the industry itself.



Raising the price of medications is standard. Increasing it as Shkreli did may not be standard, but it does happen.  There is an article I linked somewhere in a previous post where a drug that cost $500 per pack went up to something like $10,500 per pack. That's a pretty nice jump in price, wouldn't you say?



> But again, we can blame this guy and blame the industry.



We can and we should blame him and the industry. We should also blame lawmakers that allowed this to happen. 


> Should we also be taking a harder look at at how these things are priced and the practice of buying market rights to raise prices? Absolutely.



Absolutely we should. Unfortunately the laws don't allow it. 


> But he got exactly what he deserved for raising the price of life saving medicine that much just to make a profit. There is a lot of pressure on him to lower the prices now and that is good thing.



He is supposedly going to lower the price of this drug. It isn't clear when or by how much it will be lowered. 



> The problem isn't that he got too much blame. It is that more needs to go around.



Excellent. You agree with me. 



> Hopefully people will see this and understand just how messed up our healthcare system is.



You know, while this would be a good thing, I doubt it will happen. There are plenty of politicians pushing to weaken the healthcare system that we have. 



> Frankly I am glad when this story broke that people didn't take the position that just because he could do something, he should have. That mentality has poisoned our economy for decades. I think seeing that it produces men like him is going to wake people up for once.



People have a short attention span. They will pay attention to this until Trump says somethign else about immigrants or women. Shkreli will probably slowly raise the price back up to $750 per pill, and no one will notice.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 26, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Just to be clear, are you suggesting that it's the magnitude of the increase that you're bothered by?




I am saying the magnitude matters. There is a difference between a company that chooses to raise the price of a medicine by a marginal amount and one that raises it to the extent that people can no longer afford it. The effect of the former has areal impact on peoples' access to the medication and upon on growing prices in our healthcare system. So while I would be wary of any increase, especially if there seems little real justification for it, I consider it a lot worse if the increase is enormous. 



> Raising the price of medications is standard. Increasing it as Shkreli did may not be standard, but it does happen.  There is an article I linked somewhere in a previous post where a drug that cost $500 per pack went up to something like $10,500 per pack. That's a pretty nice jump in price, wouldn't you say?




This story is definitely bringing that to light. I was aware of companies setting prices high initially due to research and investment costs, but was not aware of the practice of buying things like marketing rights then jacking up the price. In the first few stories I read on this topic, it appeared his was a particularly egregious case. But if there are others I welcome them all being put into focus and being made to answer to the public. One reason I think the treatment of Shkreli is exactly the right amount is it resulted in him being grilled and questioned on the subject by a reporter. That was a very illuminating discussion and I think he gave a lot of responses that left people scratching their heads. Hopefully we get more people like him in the spotlight. 



> We can and we should blame him and the industry. We should also blame lawmakers that allowed this to happen.
> Absolutely we should. Unfortunately the laws don't allow it.
> He is supposedly going to lower the price of this drug. It isn't clear when or by how much it will be lowered.




People need to keep the pressure on. If they do that, he is going to have to lower it, because this is doing real damage to his company's reputation. In fact, why not put the whole board of directors under scrutiny? There are people at this company making decisions that are harmful to the public. Put a light on it. That is how we used to deal with these issues. 





> People have a short attention span. They will pay attention to this until Trump says somethign else about immigrants or women. Shkreli will probably slowly raise the price back up to $750 per pill, and no one will notice.




They do and he might. Always a possibility. But that is why its important to keep in him the spotlight. Like it or not, he is a tangible image people can wrap their head around. People are responding in part because his actions are unconscionable. But also because he fits the bill of the perfect corporate villain. In an odd way, I think that will keep the focus on this issue. Again, normally I dislike these sorts of public floggings. In this case, given what is at stake, and that the guy tried to bilk people (or at least the healthcare system) out of hundreds of dollars per tablet, I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for him. The fact is people like him have been getting away with this kind of behavior for far too long and it is about time journalist started doing their job and hold these folks under a light.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 27, 2015)

Hi,

I wanted to say, I often disagree with a line of reasoning without disagreeing with the conclusion.  That just means that I'm finding a problem with the reasoning.  I'm a math guy, meaning, the proof is everything.

In the current case, I'm unconvinced by a statement that the pricing is unethical without identifying, clearly, the ethic which was broken.

Also, for the current case, I wholly agree that the raising of the drug prices is morally wrong.  Profiting from the disadvantage of others, to the degree shown, is, in my book, pretty awful behavior.

I don't that it's breaking the law (unless there is some law about drug pricing that I don't know about).  There *are* cases which are covered which are "close": Laws against price gouging during a natural disaster.  See, for example, http://www.keoghcrispi.com/blog/201...sonable-prices-during-natural-disasters.shtml, which has:



> The Elements of Price Gouging
> 
> The elements of the law section 396-r that are required to be present to show price-gouging are:
> 
> ...




So there is precedent for making a law against drug pricing of the character which is shown in this case.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Staffan (Sep 27, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> In the current case, I'm unconvinced by a statement that the pricing is unethical without identifying, clearly, the ethic which was broken.



Wheaton's Law, for one.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 27, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Hi,
> 
> I wanted to say, I often disagree with a line of reasoning without disagreeing with the conclusion.  That just means that I'm finding a problem with the reasoning.  I'm a math guy, meaning, the proof is everything.
> 
> ...




Wait a second. If you agree that this is an immoral act, but you just want people to present it to you in a proper logical form? How about, no. If you already agree its wrong, then construct the logical argument yourself. Otherwise it is like you are asking us to entertain you. I think if we all basically agree the price increase was wrong, there isn't a need for us to comb over the logic of it.

If you are just trying to find the professional ethical guidelines on the subject, I think it is pretty basic business ethics to price things in a way that minimize adverse affect on people. If you can raise the price of a good, with minimally adverse impact on the consumers, then it isn't an issue. If you can only raise the price by adversely affecting others (or the system in this case) then I think it is a problem. Raising the price of a drug from 13.50 to 700 bucks clearly isn't ethical pricing. It has been a while since I've taken a course on business ethics or looked into the subject, but it isn't like people are just supposed to do whatever the free market allows without bringing some amount of professional ethical standards or personal morality to the table. If you think there isn't an issue, ask yourself if you could do the same thing he did. If you think it is okay for you to make a huge profit by raising the price of a life saving drug to the point that either the insurance has to cover it or people can't afford it? If that doesn't persuade you put yourself in the shoes of a patient who suddenly can't afford this drug. Do you want to rely on 1) the good will of a guy who jacked up the price to give you free pills, or 2) your insurance company to okay it? Remember if you need this drug and you don't get it, it could have serious consequences for your health, including death.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 27, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Wheaton's Law, for one.



Wheaton doesn't follow his own law, largely because it's an empty platitude.  It's the easier and less rigid version of the Golden Rule wherein actions are replaced by civility.  It's truly indicative of these post modern times.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 27, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Wheaton doesn't follow his own law, largely because it's an empty platitude.  It's the easier and less rigid version of the Golden Rule wherein actions are replaced by civility.  It's truly indicative of these past modern times.




I think "an empty platitude" is itself becoming an empty platitude. I don't know, don't be a dick seems like a pretty handy rule of thumb to me. I would certainly hope most people can manage to go a bit beyond that, and humans being flawed, people will falter or be inconsistent occasionally. They'll also occasionally lose temper. But I would say a world where people attempted to follow Wheatons Law would be a better one than a world where they ignore it or view it with contempt. It would be an even better world if people tried to follow the golden rule in my view. In my experience it is when I believe I can dispense with the Golden Rule that I run into problems.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 27, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I'll give you half a right. Yes, it isn't how the companies generally behave, but he is not doing something that other companies can't, or haven't used before. Did other companies raise the price as steeply as Shkreli did? I don't know. It's possible that they did. It's probable that they didn't. In any case, the ay that companies come up with a price is pretty much the same way as Shkreli did.




I don't think you've come anywhere near demonstrating that.  "Some drugs have high prices" does not equate to, "companies come up with a price the same way he did here"

Again, taking an old formulation and jacking up the price by a couple orders of magnitude is not usual.  It is not what the drug business does.  

That they *could* do it, in theory, isn't particularly relevant, as they haven't made a habit of it.  We don't regulate away every "might be".  




> Should people be upset that this guy did this? Yes. I'm not denying that. Never have. I just feel that people should also be upset that it is legal to do what he is doing. People should feel upset that he did it, and that he can legally do it.




Who, other than yourself, has said that people are not upset at the drug industry?  Failure to make a specific statement against the industry at this instant does not mean people are not mad at them.  Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

And, when we look at the news, what do we find?  Gee, it is plans and stories about controlling drug prices.  Some (like the last few of the ones I list here) from well before this incident.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/u...osts-are-rising-as-a-campaign-issue.html?_r=0
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...paign-issue/tOlUbF6UBlAxj4ppnTgeSP/story.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/03/doctors-group-joins-fight-against-skyrocketing-drug-prices.html
http://www.cjr.org/the_second_opinion/what_do_you_mean_control_drug.php
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/10/17/how-to-control-cost-prescription-drugs/

So, really, I don't see your characterization of the response as an accurate characterization of what's going on.  Folks are, and have been, angry at the drug industry, for a long time.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 27, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I don't think you've come anywhere near demonstrating that.  "Some drugs have high prices" does not equate to, "companies come up with a price the same way he did here"



Let me ask you this: how do drug companies calculate the price of a drug? What variables do you think they consider when pricing a drug?



> Again, taking an old formulation and jacking up the price by a couple orders of magnitude is not usual.  It is not what the drug business does.
> 
> That they *could* do it, in theory, isn't particularly relevant, as they haven't made a habit of it.  We don't regulate away every "might be".



Actually, it seems to be far more common than you'd think. That's from 2011. Pharmaceutical companies jacking up the price of well established drugs seems to be what the industry does. That's not a good example for you? How about one from 2014 where a free drug went up to $80,000? So yeah, Shkreli raised the price by 4,00%-5,000%? Pffft. Total loser. That guy needs to take some lessons from Catalyst if he wants to make it in the drug industry.




> Who, other than yourself, has said that people are not upset at the drug industry?  Failure to make a specific statement against the industry at this instant does not mean people are not mad at them.  Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.



Well that's kind of my point. People may have been upset, but they aren't rally showing it. All the hate is directed at Shkreli. Are people upset with the pharmaceutical industry? I'm sure there are people who are. They just aren't showing it. They should. They should be just as angry, if not more so, with the pharmaceutical industry and the politicians that have pushed for reduced regulation and laws that allow this kind of behavior. 



> And, when we look at the news, what do we find?  Gee, it is plans and stories about controlling drug prices.  Some (like the last few of the ones I list here) from well before this incident.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/u...osts-are-rising-as-a-campaign-issue.html?_r=0
> https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...paign-issue/tOlUbF6UBlAxj4ppnTgeSP/story.html
> ...



Sure, you find stories, but where was the public outrage? I don't remember seeing this kind of hate being directed at those companies or executives. Do you?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 27, 2015)

I will say this in Squirrel's defense. He is right that this guy is a symptom of a much bigger problem that hasn't been under enough scrutiny from journalists or pressure from the public. I don't think any of that excuses Shkreli but we shouldn't dismiss examining the rest of the industry and other cases just because people want to focus their anger at one man. I think the amount of scrutiny and anger directed at him is appropriate. We should also be directing that kind of scrutiny and focus on the industry as a whole. I am in too much of a rush right now to find the exact medication or link, but I think earlier in the year there was a medication released that basically cures hepatitis C and it was outrageously expensive. I only recalled seeing one story on it and no real public outcry. Again, in a rush, maybe my info on that is wrong as I am going by memory. 



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Sure, you find stories, but where was the public outrage? I don't remember seeing this kind of hate being directed at those companies or executives. Do you?




This is just misdirection though Squirrel. That is like when I was a kid and got caught doing something wrong, I'd list off all the things my sister was doing wrong as well and say it was unfair. Someone else doing something wrong as well and not getting enough attention doesn't mean you deserve less focus and punishment.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 28, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> Wait a second. If you agree that this is an immoral act, but you just want people to present it to you in a proper logical form? How about, no. If you already agree its wrong, then construct the logical argument yourself. Otherwise it is like you are asking us to entertain you. I think if we all basically agree the price increase was wrong, there isn't a need for us to comb over the logic of it.
> 
> If you are just trying to find the professional ethical guidelines on the subject, I think it is pretty basic business ethics to price things in a way that minimize adverse affect on people. If you can raise the price of a good, with minimally adverse impact on the consumers, then it isn't an issue. If you can only raise the price by adversely affecting others (or the system in this case) then I think it is a problem. Raising the price of a drug from 13.50 to 700 bucks clearly isn't ethical pricing. It has been a while since I've taken a course on business ethics or looked into the subject, but it isn't like people are just supposed to do whatever the free market allows without bringing some amount of professional ethical standards or personal morality to the table. If you think there isn't an issue, ask yourself if you could do the same thing he did. If you think it is okay for you to make a huge profit by raising the price of a life saving drug to the point that either the insurance has to cover it or people can't afford it? If that doesn't persuade you put yourself in the shoes of a patient who suddenly can't afford this drug. Do you want to rely on 1) the good will of a guy who jacked up the price to give you free pills, or 2) your insurance company to okay it? Remember if you need this drug and you don't get it, it could have serious consequences for your health, including death.




Eh, I didn't object to anyone claiming that the behavior was immoral.  Although, I maintain that, in a discussion, one should be prepared to say _why_ a thing is immoral.  Or at least be up front and say that something seems immoral, but that explaining why is difficult.

I very much _was_ objecting to the statement that the behavior was _unethical_.  While I don't myself have a problem with the rule that you proposed, I don't think that businesses, in general, follow this rule.

To use your example as given, if the cost of a drug were to increase from $100 to $500 a dose, say, because a natural source became extinct, and the alternative simply cost that much more to make, one would be very justified to increase the price a commensurate amount, even though the increase would have a huge impact.

In fairness, I do think I'm leaving out unstated assumptions of your statements.  Yet, I think I'm fair to ask for those to be clarified.  Those unstated assumptions and how they relate to the problem are a big part of what there is here to discuss.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 28, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I will say this in Squirrel's defense. He is right



You make an excellent point.


----------



## J. L. Duncan (Sep 28, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> The idea of a monopoly AND predatory pricing rankles my sense of right and wrong.




We have a winner!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 28, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Eh, I didn't object to anyone claiming that the behavior was immoral.  Although, I maintain that, in a discussion, one should be prepared to say _why_ a thing is immoral.  Or at least be up front and say that something seems immoral, but that explaining why is difficult.
> 
> I very much _was_ objecting to the statement that the behavior was _unethical_.  While I don't myself have a problem with the rule that you proposed, I don't think that businesses, in general, follow this rule.
> 
> ...




Can you clarify what you mean by ethics. The word has some variances in usage and I am unclear if you are limiting it to a ethics of the industry he belongs to, or if you are extending it to the wider society. to be clear, in my original usage I didn't use it to mean these things----I just used it to refer to a well founded or reasonable standard of behavior, not one merely based on a persons feelings or declared by a religion). 

I also want to be clear the aim of your discussion. If you basically already agree that it is unethical but you just want to pull a reasoned and logical argument from me to verify that I can think or something, I am not going to play a long. If you genuinely think his behavior wasn't ethical, I'll happily continue the discussion and see if we can at least arrive at an understanding of each other's position by clarifying assumptions and refining points. But I am not going to participate if this is just a forum logic game for you, or about just about winning. 

If we are going to have a discussion, lets start here: how do you define ethical?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 28, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is just misdirection though Squirrel. That is like when I was a kid and got caught doing something wrong, I'd list off all the things my sister was doing wrong as well and say it was unfair. Someone else doing something wrong as well and not getting enough attention doesn't mean you deserve less focus and punishment.




Dingdingding!  We have a winner!  An excellent way of putting it, sir!

The dude is responsible for his own actions, no matter what the industry as a whole may be doing.  

I think we are also seeing the natural outgrowth of normal human social dynamics into the internet age - shame as applied through internet media.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 28, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> Can you clarify what you mean by ethics. The word has some variances in usage and I am unclear if you are limiting it to a ethics of the industry he belongs to, or if you are extending it to the wider society. to be clear, in my original usage I didn't use it to mean these things----I just used it to refer to a well founded or reasonable standard of behavior, not one merely based on a persons feelings or declared by a religion).
> 
> I also want to be clear the aim of your discussion. If you basically already agree that it is unethical but you just want to pull a reasoned and logical argument from me to verify that I can think or something, I am not going to play a long. If you genuinely think his behavior wasn't ethical, I'll happily continue the discussion and see if we can at least arrive at an understanding of each other's position by clarifying assumptions and refining points. But I am not going to participate if this is just a forum logic game for you, or about just about winning.
> 
> If we are going to have a discussion, lets start here: how do you define ethical?




I'm using these meanings:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethical

Generally, I avoid the term, since it tends to add an unnecessary layer or is too hard to use precisely.

In the discussion, what I was reading seemed to be that the pricing was morally offensive but was described as unethical.  The tie was confusing, so I was looking for additional clarifying comments.  I was objecting to the leap from a sense of moral outrage to the description "unethical".

With a claim of unethical conduct, in the sense of behavior which does not conform to a "set of guiding principles", there ought to be a clear underlying principle which is not being followed.

It's not clear (to me) that the pricing actually violates an ethic for a supplier.  Normally, a supplier is free to price a good as they see fit, and the market is supposed to cull bad pricing practices.  There are particular features of this pricing (as identified in previous posts: _effective_ monopoly*, zero or near zero possible substitution, necessary for life, exceptionally high markup) which are a part of the reasoning.  We should make those features clear.

I do tend to agree that, while an egregious case, this is _not_ a unique case.  I think attention to the industry as a whole is very appropriate.  A good measure of the outrage which is appearing for this case should be reserved for the industry.  That is, the sentiment expressed when the thread was created fits the pricing case: The pricing is an example of what others have been doing, but in more obscure ways.

* You can avoid the monopoly if you are willing to break the law and purchase the drug from Canada or elsewhere.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 28, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I'm using these meanings:
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethical
> 
> ...




I am still not clear, particularly since that is a very general definition you linked to. Do you limit ethics to professional ethical guidelines? (definition 2)

So if society has collectively decided it is immoral to unnecessarily price life saving drugs beyond the reach of patients in need, but the profession he belongs to has no such standard, you would consider his action to be ethical? Or do you treat ethics broadly but you simply want me to provide grounds for why I think this was an unethical act. I ask because in your response you seem to be shifting between an understanding of ethics as morals grounded in reason and as professional ethical guidelines.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 28, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am still not clear, particularly since that is a very general definition you linked to. Do you limit ethics to professional ethical guidelines? (definition 2)
> 
> So if society has collectively decided it is immoral to unnecessarily price life saving drugs beyond the reach of patients in need, but the profession he belongs to has no such standard, you would consider his action to be ethical? Or do you treat ethics broadly but you simply want me to provide grounds for why I think this was an unethical act. I ask because in your response you seem to be shifting between an understanding of ethics as morals grounded in reason and as professional ethical guidelines.




I have a feeling that his behaviour would run afoul of the teachings in any MBA business ethics class. I suppose I could always ask a prof, the next time I'm working in our Faculty of Business.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 28, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I have a feeling that his behaviour would run afoul of the teachings in any MBA business ethics class. I suppose I could always ask a prof, the next time I'm working in our Faculty of Business.




I took one business ethics course in college, so I am no expert here, but I do recall ethical pricing being a topic and if memory serves this exact sort of scenario was the go to example for what not to do (raising prices on some essential service or life saving drug so they are barely affordable purely to make a profit). So I don't think it is a crazy idea but it was just one business ethics course. It also came up in Ethics. I am sure people with more expertise could weigh in though.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 28, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I think we are also seeing the natural outgrowth of normal human social dynamics into the internet age - shame as applied through internet media.




I think this is a double edged sword. In this case, I think shame is warranted because we're talking about life saving medication for a drug the guy's company simply purchased the marketing rights to. I think shaming on the net can be harmful though and ought to be exercised with extreme caution. We have a long history of misusing shame as a species and I am reluctant to call upon its power both for fear of bringing harm and for fear of watering down its ability to alter behavior.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 28, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I took one business ethics course in college, so I am no expert here, but I do recall ethical pricing being a topic and if memory serves this exact sort of scenario was the go to example for what not to do (raising prices on some essential service or life saving drug so they are barely affordable purely to make a profit). So I don't think it is a crazy idea but it was just one business ethics course. It also came up in Ethics. I am sure people with more expertise could weigh in though.




I know that it's an issue in General Ethics, but I'm also pretty sure that it routinely comes up in Business Ethics classes. I've only had the former but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so..... In my tech position I get to have some good conversations with profs of various disciplines, while performing the work. It has come up in the past.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 28, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am still not clear, particularly since that is a very general definition you linked to. Do you limit ethics to professional ethical guidelines? (definition 2)
> 
> So if society has collectively decided it is immoral to unnecessarily price life saving drugs beyond the reach of patients in need, but the profession he belongs to has no such standard, you would consider his action to be ethical? Or do you treat ethics broadly but you simply want me to provide grounds for why I think this was an unethical act. I ask because in your response you seem to be shifting between an understanding of ethics as morals grounded in reason and as professional ethical guidelines.




My answer would be that the pricing was unethical to society but not to the profession.

But, my hesitance is less about that difference as it is about "ethical" being coupled with a well defined framework of rules, while "immoral" being more general.  I'm also conflicted because I didn't think there *were* actual rules for businesses to counter-indicate the pricing.  I'll accept that I'm simply wrong and such rules exists, as may be demonstrated as a followup to immediately preceding posts.  I'd wager, though, that there are practical guidelines, rather than actual rules, more along the lines of "things not to do so to avoid regulatory scrutiny and to avoid a poisoned relationship with a market".  I wouldn't consider rules of this sort to be a part of an ethical framework.

If there *are* clear ethical rules, then drug companies seem to have been breaking them quite a lot.  The whole "necessary to fund research" seems to be overly applied to justify drug pricing.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 28, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> My answer would be that the pricing was unethical to society but not to the profession.
> 
> But, my hesitance is less about that difference as it is about "ethical" being coupled with a well defined framework of rules, while "immoral" being more general.  I'm also conflicted because I didn't think there *were* actual rules for businesses to counter-indicate the pricing.  I'll accept that I'm simply wrong and such rules exists, as may be demonstrated as a followup to immediately preceding posts.  I'd wager, though, that there are practical guidelines, rather than actual rules, more along the lines of "things not to do so to avoid regulatory scrutiny and to avoid a poisoned relationship with a market".  I wouldn't consider rules of this sort to be a part of an ethical framework.
> 
> ...





I don't think rules and ethics are the same though. Ethics are about how people ought to conduct themselves, not necessarily about how they can conduct themselves. If you are just saying he didn't break any rules or laws, I think most folks are in agreement there. But pretty much everyone agrees, even business people I think who are routinely making similar calls about setting prices, that he ought not to have done this. Like I said before, I am no expert but when I took my business ethics course, the subject of ethical pricing came up and examples like this were used as almost cartoonish standards of what not to do. This is I think an example of supra competitive pricing, which is generally regarded as unethical.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 28, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think rules and ethics are the same though. Ethics are about how people ought to conduct themselves, not necessarily about how they can conduct themselves. If you are just saying he didn't break any rules or laws, I think most folks are in agreement there. But pretty much everyone agrees, even business people I think who are routinely making similar calls about setting prices, that he ought not to have done this. Like I said before, I am no expert but when I took my business ethics course, the subject of ethical pricing came up and examples like this were used as almost cartoonish standards of what not to do. This is I think an example of supra competitive pricing, which is generally regarded as unethical.




I think that gets to the heart of the matter.  In my example, I distinguish "practical rules" from "rules for deciding between right and wrong".  Not using the pricing because it invites regulatory scrutiny is a practical rule.  (Maybe, an ethical rule, considering harm to the business community.)  Not using the pricing because it relies on the possibility of very real harm is using an ethical rule (and, I would say, a moral rule).

I do get confused about differentiating "immoral" from "unethical".  Maybe I'm getting tripped up because I'm seeing "unethical" as being unnecessarily complicated.  I'd rather just say the pricing is wrong (in a moral sense), given the totality of the circumstances.  Then look to enumerating the circumstances to try to understand the situation better.

I'm curious as to any links to guidelines for this case.  I did some searches for "business" and "ethics", and the results were not at all helpful, other than to show that the area seems to be in poor shape.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 22, 2015)

An interesting turn, aka "the smack-down."


http://www.occupydemocrats.com/pric...ing-as-rival-creates-1-alternative-aids-drug/


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 22, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> An interesting turn, aka "the smack-down."
> 
> 
> http://www.occupydemocrats.com/pric...ing-as-rival-creates-1-alternative-aids-drug/




well good work Imprimis, and it seems that in this case the market really does correct itself. But it does show just how much of a prick the other guy is 

I still think you guys need a government buyer regime like Pharmac to encourage competitive prices between brands


http://www.imprimiscares.com/


----------

