Shkreli’s infamous 4,000% price hike gets him a lifetime pharma ban

New York's attorney general celebrated with Wu Tang Clan references.

Read the whole story

 

[Torbjörn Larsson OM]

Wait, what!? I notice that Shkreli and his infamous gloat has "just separate". "That will be the day".

 

[SFC]

While Shkreli deserves this, it's such an obvious distraction. How much are epi-pens? How many people are in prison and required to return their ill-gotten gains? How's the Sackler family? Still free, and billionaires?

What I've taken away from this story is Shkreli just didn't get big enough. It's not that he is a horrible person, it's that he's a horrible person that *only* made 8 figures.

 

[fixate]

“But Americans can rest easy because Martin Shkreli is a pharma bro no more… The rich and powerful don’t get to play by their own set of rules, so it seems that cash doesn’t rule everything around Mr. Shkreli," Attorney General James continued.

Americans can rest easy? Really, Attorney General James. The rules of the game are still in play, all that's happened here is that a small player has been taken out of the game.

 

[Benovite]

Judge Cote further elaborated on her ruling by issuing the following statement:
"Shimmy shimmy ya shimmy yam shimmy yay"

 

[fknuckles]

Why is anyone talking about pricing of a drug that was discoverd in 50's and should be out of patent since about 50 years?

Why aren't there multiple generics available for about 2c/pill in every pharmacy and why don't medicare, medicaid and insurances automatically enforce using the practically free generics that obviously should be available everywhere?

Seems like the is a relatively simple supply side fix available here?

edit: oh, wiki tells me that a generic was approved 2020. Why on earth didn't one appear like 40-50 years ago?

I think the market for a drug like this is much smaller than say paracetamol. Therefore, much less competition, which is perhaps why it became the target of this dastardly scheme.


Remember that even generics manufacturers need to turn a profit in order to stay in business.

 

[bilditup1]

Screw him but like. Look at what happened to insulin, whose inventors are now rolling over in their graves. Will those profiteers ever see justice?

 

[Magog14]

The sad thing is that if he "only" tripled the price no one would have batted an eye.

 

[bilditup1]

I think the market for a drug like this is much smaller than say paracetamol. Therefore, much less competition, which is perhaps why it became the target of this dastardly scheme.


Remember that even generics manufacturers need to turn a profit in order to stay in business.

I wonder: if an essential yet nonetheless hardly used product of this kind naturally leads to a situation where such schemes are heavily incentivized, and it doesn't make financial sense for generic mfrs to compete, then, wouldn't a publicly owned and operated manufacturer of such products be better than either a) spotty enforcement actions that really only target the most high profile and egregious offenders, and usually not enough to discourage such nonsense b) having a government-subsidized or government owned insurer paying whatever ridiculous price is being asked for c) contracting directly with some manufacturer, who will invariably fleece the government (so very similar to (b)). I guess setting up a manufacturer of this kind would pose some technical challenges, but, politics aside (not just from the perspective of market doctrinarianism--also, like, potentially such a government-run concern could manufacture the drug cocktails used to execute prisoners) is there any reason this is a bad idea?

 

[@etabeta@]

I would like to see this psychopath fraudster behind bars for life!

 

[rmgoat]

I applaud this outcome. But this happens all the time from other more traditional pharma companies. Why do they get a free pass?

(Honest question - I am genuinely curious)

They own more legislators.

 

[rmgoat]

I know that drugs like these get patents so that the inventors can enjoy some profit-making before others can compete with them, but in practice, should we even encourage profit-making in the healthcare industry?

We need some better way to incentivize researchers to find cures and treatments than just a pure market model. As-is, there are people who profit off scenarios where patients go into debt for life because of the developed treatments' exorbitant costs, and in terms of where we are now, it's not even the doctors and scientists who end up with the majority of that money, it's corporate VIPs and investors.

An alternative would be to have a system where the payer can actually negotiate a realistic price for treatment, even in the event there is no competition for it. A system where the seller has no choice but to sell to the payer, because there aren't any other payers. One might call that a single-payer system...

The FDA does have a system in place for that. Which is precisely what Shkreili's scam took advantage of (along with others, he was certainly not the only jerk in this space).

Basically, if you are willing to do the paperwork to keep the drug's manufacturing up to modern standards, you get an exclusive license to produce the drug. Sort of a mini patent. It has worked for some drugs and some companies, but left with some loopholes to drive trucks filled with money through.

No good deed goes unpunished...

"have a system where the payer can actually negotiate a realistic price for treatment"

Like a single-payer system? Like Canada and every other industrialized country in the world?

Where Medicare is not only allowed but encouraged to negotiate drug prices (Which was in the 'Build Back Better Bill' Thanks for nothing Manchin)

Grammar fix

 

[Bloater51]

Good. One greedy f*ck down. Now how about universal healthcare?

Universal healthcare alone won't solve the problem except for covering everyone. The much larger problem is that costs are too high, as compared to any and every country on earth. The fact that the US pays many times the cost (think Shkreli multiples) for the same drug that all other countries, including first world countries, is a place to start.

Legalize and encourage going to other countries for expensive procedures. The fact that you can travel, stay and get a procedure done and still save insurance companies money tells me something is f'd. Also fix prices of drugs to the average of what the rest of the first world countries are paying. The US is basically subsidizing the entire world and it needs to stop. If Pharma can't make a profit by signing on to this, then don't make the drug. Simple.

I agree with you 100%. Right up to the last bit. While I agree the US is subsidizing the entire world for health research, the alternative is ceding that lead to China, which in itself isn't a problem, until you consider that the Chinese government might decline to share their advances with the rest of the world. Otherwise, yes, big pharma needs regulation to bring the industry in line with it's actual purpose.

Edit: type, then click

Since the claim about the US subsidising the rest of the world is often raised, it does need some qualification. Whilst often used by US lobbyists to justify drug prices, that is far from the full story. For a start, a lot of costs are in marketing and advertising that are not incurred elsewhere, and expenditures besides R&D. For another, countries like the UK do consider that they pay a fair share, not least as a policy because they have their own pharmaceutical industry. The UK also encourages research in areas like antibiotics which are not considered profitable, and committed billions to Covid vaccines whilst Trump was still publicly denying that the disease was a problem for the US. There are certainly plenty of free riders internationally, many of whom cannot of course afford to do otherwise.

The reality is that whilst the US remains the most profitable market, companies will commit their biggest efforts to satisfy it. That is frequently accused of distorting research because the priority is often to match the competition, not find novel treatments.

And along the way, the UK still manages to obtain generics, like insulin, a lot cheaper than the US whilst paying world market prices.

 

[brewejon]

Why is anyone talking about pricing of a drug that was discoverd in 50's and should be out of patent since about 50 years?

Why aren't there multiple generics available for about 2c/pill in every pharmacy and why don't medicare, medicaid and insurances automatically enforce using the practically free generics that obviously should be available everywhere?

Seems like the is a relatively simple supply side fix available here?

edit: oh, wiki tells me that a generic was approved 2020. Why on earth didn't one appear like 40-50 years ago?

For all his faults, and there are many, he and his partner were rather clever.

From TFA:

"Shkreli and Mulleady allegedly set up a complex scheme that kept the drug out of the hands of competitors, restricted suppliers from selling critical drug ingredients to competitors, and blocked the release of sales data that would reveal the market size to competitors."

They actually had to do a lot of work to get this fraud going.

Derek Lowe has followed him for some time. This post can get you started and then you can wander down the rabbit hole if you're interested.

TL;DR - this gets you pretty far:

By various means, old generic compounds have ended up as protected species, and several companies have made it their business to take advantage of these situations to the maximum extent possible. The FDA grants market exclusivity to companies that are willing to take "grandfathered" compounds into compliance with their current regulatory framework, and that's led to some ridiculous situations with drugs like colchicine and progesterone. (Perhaps the worst example is a company that's using this technique to get ahold of a drug that's currently being provided at no charge whatsoever). There are also loopholes that companies are trying to exploit when competitors try to prove generic equivalence: whatever it takes to keep competition away and get unlimited pricing power.

It's almost nice to see a criminal making some effort. It stings more when criminals are so bloody stupid but only get slaps on the wrist for massive financial crimes, that's when you start asking why you bother being a good person. You like to think you'd be an excellent criminal if it weren't for the morals, know what I mean?

 

[Bloater51]

Why is anyone talking about pricing of a drug that was discoverd in 50's and should be out of patent since about 50 years?

Why aren't there multiple generics available for about 2c/pill in every pharmacy and why don't medicare, medicaid and insurances automatically enforce using the practically free generics that obviously should be available everywhere?

Seems like the is a relatively simple supply side fix available here?

edit: oh, wiki tells me that a generic was approved 2020. Why on earth didn't one appear like 40-50 years ago?

For all his faults, and there are many, he and his partner were rather clever.

From TFA:

"Shkreli and Mulleady allegedly set up a complex scheme that kept the drug out of the hands of competitors, restricted suppliers from selling critical drug ingredients to competitors, and blocked the release of sales data that would reveal the market size to competitors."

They actually had to do a lot of work to get this fraud going.

Derek Lowe has followed him for some time. This post can get you started and then you can wander down the rabbit hole if you're interested.

TL;DR - this gets you pretty far:

By various means, old generic compounds have ended up as protected species, and several companies have made it their business to take advantage of these situations to the maximum extent possible. The FDA grants market exclusivity to companies that are willing to take "grandfathered" compounds into compliance with their current regulatory framework, and that's led to some ridiculous situations with drugs like colchicine and progesterone. (Perhaps the worst example is a company that's using this technique to get ahold of a drug that's currently being provided at no charge whatsoever). There are also loopholes that companies are trying to exploit when competitors try to prove generic equivalence: whatever it takes to keep competition away and get unlimited pricing power.

It's almost nice to see a criminal making some effort. It stings more when criminals are so bloody stupid but only get slaps on the wrist for massive financial crimes, that's when you start asking why you bother being a good person. You like to think you'd be an excellent criminal if it weren't for the morals, know what I mean?

Most other countries do not think it necessary to jail some for 20 years and reward the rest, though. Much of America's problem is that greed is not seen as immoral, but admirable.

 

[SixDegrees]

Happy about the verdict (except the part about "don't do this odious, illegal activity again for ten years," like it somehow gets better with time) but unfortunately it validates Mylan's "Boil the frog" approach to a slower, steadier increase in epipen prices to hundreds of dollars per unit, for a medication that's been off patent for nearly a century and costs roughly a nickle per pen. And that's just one example of enormous pharmaceutical price increases justified only by "because we can."

 

[SixDegrees]

I know that drugs like these get patents so that the inventors can enjoy some profit-making before others can compete with them, but in practice, should we even encourage profit-making in the healthcare industry?

We need some better way to incentivize researchers to find cures and treatments than just a pure market model. As-is, there are people who profit off scenarios where patients go into debt for life because of the developed treatments' exorbitant costs, and in terms of where we are now, it's not even the doctors and scientists who end up with the majority of that money, it's corporate VIPs and investors.

An alternative would be to have a system where the payer can actually negotiate a realistic price for treatment, even in the event there is no competition for it. A system where the seller has no choice but to sell to the payer, because there aren't any other payers. One might call that a single-payer system...

The FDA does have a system in place for that. Which is precisely what Shkreili's scam took advantage of (along with others, he was certainly not the only jerk in this space).

Basically, if you are willing to do the paperwork to keep the drug's manufacturing up to modern standards, you get an exclusive license to produce the drug. Sort of a mini patent. It has worked for some drugs and some companies, but left with some loopholes to drive trucks filled with money through.

No good deed goes unpunished...

"have a system where the payer can actually negotiate a realistic price for treatment"

Like a single-payer system? Like Canada and every other industrialized world?

Where Medicare is not only allowed but encouraged to negotiate drug prices (Which was in the 'Build Back Better Bill' Thanks for nothing Manchin)

I don't care for Manchin, but let's face it: the failure of BBB was as much due to congressional overreach as anything else. Better to split it into a dozen or more separate bills and lose on one or two, rather than to bundle everything together for no significant gain and lose it all. Medicare negotiations is a good example - peel that off and pass it separately. Manchin didn't object to that bit, so if he starts roadblocking that and other items after the fact it makes him look that much worse. Dems should focus on introducing a new bill once a week, rather than waste their powder on massive mega-bills and getting nothing for it.

Also, let's remember that control of the Senate was a huge surprise to the dems. No one thought that was ever going to happen, not even a little bit, and it was only the surprise defeats of gop candidates in Georgia that tipped the scales in a shocking turnabout. It's nice that the dems control the Senate for the moment, but it's completely unexpected.

 

[betam4x]

I know that drugs like these get patents so that the inventors can enjoy some profit-making before others can compete with them, but in practice, should we even encourage profit-making in the healthcare industry?

We need some better way to incentivize researchers to find cures and treatments than just a pure market model. As-is, there are people who profit off scenarios where patients go into debt for life because of the developed treatments' exorbitant costs, and in terms of where we are now, it's not even the doctors and scientists who end up with the majority of that money, it's corporate VIPs and investors.

An alternative would be to have a system where the payer can actually negotiate a realistic price for treatment, even in the event there is no competition for it. A system where the seller has no choice but to sell to the payer, because there aren't any other payers. One might call that a single-payer system...

This has nothing to do with patents. Also,if pharma companies can’t make money, they will be less inclined to make new drugs.

We need to go after insulin next.

 

[Jiggers]

That's some justice, sentencing a car thief to pay for the cars he stole and a court order that to prevent him from coming within 12 feet of a Chevy.

No jail time, courts treat rich white males tenderly.

 

[azazel1024]

Why is anyone talking about pricing of a drug that was discoverd in 50's and should be out of patent since about 50 years?

Why aren't there multiple generics available for about 2c/pill in every pharmacy and why don't medicare, medicaid and insurances automatically enforce using the practically free generics that obviously should be available everywhere?

Seems like the is a relatively simple supply side fix available here?

edit: oh, wiki tells me that a generic was approved 2020. Why on earth didn't one appear like 40-50 years ago?

My understanding is because there wasn't much demand. It was only prescribed on the order of tens of thousands of courses of treatment a year. I forget prescriptions, but we are talking only around like 10,000 or so total per year. Note, the judge issued an order for disgorgement of $64 million in profits. 10,000 prescriptions at, I think it is 10 doses typically (based on toxo if I am remembering the course of treatment for it) per year at $17.50 is only $1.75 million. If a generic is half the price, that is only around $800,000 a year. Even if that is 100% profit, I'd imagine the process of getting FDA approved for a generic would eat about 2 years of profits at 100% profit margins. At 25% profit margins that would eat up 8 years of profits.

A generic likely only came about BECAUSE of the massive gouging on it. I mean, if you can safely charge $15 a dose, there is likely some profit in there when your competitor is charging 5000% more.

 

[Chester Rico]

Somebody needs to pirate and leak that album, stat.

 

[ZippyPeanut]

Judge Cote further elaborated on her ruling by issuing the following statement:
"Shimmy shimmy ya shimmy yam shimmy yay"

Ha!

I encourage you to contact the hiring folks at Saturday Night Live. Weekend Update could use your talent.

 

[azazel1024]

Good. One greedy f*ck down. Now how about universal healthcare?

Universal healthcare alone won't solve the problem except for covering everyone. The much larger problem is that costs are too high, as compared to any and every country on earth. The fact that the US pays many times the cost (think Shkreli multiples) for the same drug that all other countries, including first world countries, is a place to start.

Legalize and encourage going to other countries for expensive procedures. The fact that you can travel, stay and get a procedure done and still save insurance companies money tells me something is f'd. Also fix prices of drugs to the average of what the rest of the first world countries are paying. The US is basically subsidizing the entire world and it needs to stop. If Pharma can't make a profit by signing on to this, then don't make the drug. Simple.

I agree with you 100%. Right up to the last bit. While I agree the US is subsidizing the entire world for health research, the alternative is ceding that lead to China, which in itself isn't a problem, until you consider that the Chinese government might decline to share their advances with the rest of the world. Otherwise, yes, big pharma needs regulation to bring the industry in line with it's actual purpose.

Edit: type, then click

Since the claim about the US subsidising the rest of the world is often raised, it does need some qualification. Whilst often used by US lobbyists to justify drug prices, that is far from the full story. For a start, a lot of costs are in marketing and advertising that are not incurred elsewhere, and expenditures besides R&D. For another, countries like the UK do consider that they pay a fair share, not least as a policy because they have their own pharmaceutical industry. The UK also encourages research in areas like antibiotics which are not considered profitable, and committed billions to Covid vaccines whilst Trump was still publicly denying that the disease was a problem for the US. There are certainly plenty of free riders internationally, many of whom cannot of course afford to do otherwise.

The reality is that whilst the US remains the most profitable market, companies will commit their biggest efforts to satisfy it. That is frequently accused of distorting research because the priority is often to match the competition, not find novel treatments.

And along the way, the UK still manages to obtain generics, like insulin, a lot cheaper than the US whilst paying world market prices.

Yup, total US spending by pharmaceutical companies in 2020 was approximately $91 billion, up a little from last year.

Direct to consumer advertising was $6.58 billion. Now, that doesn't seem TOO bad. Though, again, why the FUCK are companies advertising something that MUST be prescribed by a doctor, who should know best what to prescribe?

But that doesn't capture the roughly $25 billion per year in NON-direct to consumer marketing they do. About $20 billion of that is spend on direct to PRESCRIBER marketing to influence doctors (IE bribes).

So about 1/3rd of the R&D budget in the US.

If you want to get really steamed about it, the US pharmaceutical MARKETING budget for one year is sufficient to fully fund UK R&D pharmaceutical efforts for about 5 years (~4.7 billion GBP in 2019)

 

[Bloater51]

Good. One greedy f*ck down. Now how about universal healthcare?

Universal healthcare alone won't solve the problem except for covering everyone. The much larger problem is that costs are too high, as compared to any and every country on earth. The fact that the US pays many times the cost (think Shkreli multiples) for the same drug that all other countries, including first world countries, is a place to start.

Legalize and encourage going to other countries for expensive procedures. The fact that you can travel, stay and get a procedure done and still save insurance companies money tells me something is f'd. Also fix prices of drugs to the average of what the rest of the first world countries are paying. The US is basically subsidizing the entire world and it needs to stop. If Pharma can't make a profit by signing on to this, then don't make the drug. Simple.

I agree with you 100%. Right up to the last bit. While I agree the US is subsidizing the entire world for health research, the alternative is ceding that lead to China, which in itself isn't a problem, until you consider that the Chinese government might decline to share their advances with the rest of the world. Otherwise, yes, big pharma needs regulation to bring the industry in line with it's actual purpose.

Edit: type, then click

Since the claim about the US subsidising the rest of the world is often raised, it does need some qualification. Whilst often used by US lobbyists to justify drug prices, that is far from the full story. For a start, a lot of costs are in marketing and advertising that are not incurred elsewhere, and expenditures besides R&D. For another, countries like the UK do consider that they pay a fair share, not least as a policy because they have their own pharmaceutical industry. The UK also encourages research in areas like antibiotics which are not considered profitable, and committed billions to Covid vaccines whilst Trump was still publicly denying that the disease was a problem for the US. There are certainly plenty of free riders internationally, many of whom cannot of course afford to do otherwise.

The reality is that whilst the US remains the most profitable market, companies will commit their biggest efforts to satisfy it. That is frequently accused of distorting research because the priority is often to match the competition, not find novel treatments.

And along the way, the UK still manages to obtain generics, like insulin, a lot cheaper than the US whilst paying world market prices.

Yup, total US spending by pharmaceutical companies in 2020 was approximately $91 billion, up a little from last year.

Direct to consumer advertising was $6.58 billion. Now, that doesn't seem TOO bad. Though, again, why the FUCK are companies advertising something that MUST be prescribed by a doctor, who should know best what to prescribe?

But that doesn't capture the roughly $25 billion per year in NON-direct to consumer marketing they do. About $20 billion of that is spend on direct to PRESCRIBER marketing to influence doctors (IE bribes).

So about 1/3rd of the R&D budget in the US.

If you want to get really steamed about it, the US pharmaceutical MARKETING budget for one year is sufficient to fully fund UK R&D pharmaceutical efforts for about 5 years (~4.7 billion GBP in 2019)

What national figures for drug R&D spending do not capture, of course, is the fact that companies try to recover those costs from worldwide sales. So UK residents pay indirectly for R&D which takes place in the US on the drugs they use. [How they do so is complicated, because the UK does not regulate prices directly, but does negotiate a price which the NHS will reimburse dispensers. Only hospital drugs are bought directly by the NHS.]

There are plenty of countries which set drug prices at a level to cover only manufacturing and distribution plus a small profit margin, or which companies argue do not cover full development and licensing expenditure. That is a hard one to crack - if the position were reversed I am not sure how many populist politicians in the US would be publicly supporting increasing drug prices to cover R&D in, say, China.

 

[whquaint]

Oh no, the poor fella had to give up his $2 million Wu-Tang album? That's just so... hilarious.

How is there a Wu-Tang album with only one existing copy?

Sorry for the unrelated question, but I literally don't know how else to ask: why does every meincmagazine.com page load zoomed in on my iPhone safari, such that I can only see 2/3rds of the text width? I have to pinch zoom out every page. No other website does that in that browser, and Arstech loads fine on all my other devices. I don't know how to contact Arstech website admin.

 

[brendang2021]

The settlement also required the companies to make Daraprim available to competitors at cost and barred them from entering into any similar scheme for 10 years.

Wait.......what?!?!?

 

[whiteknave]

good he'll never be a ceo again.

He'll never be a CEO of a Pharma company. There are plenty of other industries out there where he can still be a CEO.

 

[laserman5000]

They aren't afraid because of what he did (what he did was small potatoes in comparison to his pharma peers)

They are afraid because he did it all so publicly, blatantly, and honestly.

 

[Oldmanalex]

I'd call this a win but their claim that the rich can't play by their own rules is factually false. It has been proven beyond a doubt that they totally do play by their own rules and that they do so with impunity. He didn't get in this mess because anything of what he did was illegal the whole thing started because he BRAGGED about it then went and flaunted his privilege all across the senate faces in a hearing. Had he not basically tea-bagged senators in such a shameless way no scrutiny would have happened. Its entirely possible that his actual crime of securities fraud would have gone completely unnoticed. The rich do get away with anything.

Just ask Trump. In his own words "He grabs them by the pussy" exclusively because "When you are rich, they let you do anything" He also got away with sneaking into the dressing rooms of minors and 18 year old on the pageants he used to own.

This is why that AG's words ring hollow, we know and seen too much proof already that the rich are the ruling class in the US and thus get away with things the average citizen will never be able to.

As an optimistic pessimist, I would like to think that the rich get away with many things the average citizen would never want to do.

 

[Artiste212]

Just want to give a shout out to Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York. Not only did she play a vital role in this suit, but she declined an offer to run for NY State Governor. She might have won, but her decision not to run is laudable because:

1. She has important cases to finish as AG, including those against the Trump organization

2. The current governor, Kathy Hochul, has been doing a good job and it's refreshing to have a governor in office who has not been involved in all the nasty things that caused Andrew Cuomo to resign (and other nasty things he was only accused of, but probably weren't provable). Her decision supports Gov. Hochul.

3. It's also cool to see a really competent and popular elected offical place duty and responsibility over political opportunity.

I suspect that we are all going to read more about Letitia James in the coming year or two.

 

[graylshaped]

They aren't afraid because of what he did (what he did was small potatoes in comparison to his pharma peers)

They are afraid because he did it all so publicly, blatantly, and honestly.

I think "aghast" is a better word than afraid.

 

[Firefool125]

Anyone who thinks that this is justice must surely be joking. The only practice on display is homeostatic maintenance of the underlying exploitation engine. Systems of enslavement seek to produce slaves, not the enslaved. Consequently, anything that could undo said conversion must be punished, which sufficiently harsh exploitation does. Which is why we don't practice chattel slavery anymore, it's just not very effective. It being evil had nothing to do with it. There is no such thing as justice in the US

 

[Abulia]

“ The settlement also required the companies to make Daraprim available to competitors at cost and barred them from entering into any similar scheme for 10 years.”
Wait. So they can jack up the price again in 10 years? That’s not solving the problem, that’s just kicking the can down the road.

 

[ColdWetDog]

Anyone who thinks that this is justice must surely be joking. The only practice on display is homeostatic maintenance of the underlying exploitation engine. Systems of enslavement seek to produce slaves, not the enslaved. Consequently, anything that could undo said conversion must be punished, which sufficiently harsh exploitation does. Which is why we don't practice chattel slavery anymore, it's just not very effective. It being evil had nothing to do with it. There is no such thing as justice in the US

Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

 

[jimisawesome]

Cheese ball references don’t cover for the fact Shkreli was a slam dunk case. Its nice to see justice but the scale of the crime is beans compared to the big boys. Shkreli got caught for flaunting, not the crime. The titans are happy to see a smug little shit catch some charges for being brash. They can all pretend to be aghast, the prosecutors look like heroes, the public gets its schadenfreude, and nothing fundamentally changes.

If America’s chickenshit (Jim Comey’s words, not mine) prosecutors recovered their spines, and remembered they could prosecute corporations & cases when they aren’t 100% sure they could win, then they can claim to be on the shaolin path.

This right here. This is what all the high profile cases seem to be anymore. Operation Varsity Blues the feds used the mastermind to go after Aunt Becky for the crime of writing the check to the wrong person. But, the public ate it up and every president at a top tier University breathed a sigh of relief that the real scam of donation for admission can continue. Or the basketball case where I am still trying to figure out how the University of Louisville is the victim of fraud when they moved to the ACC and directly had a 25 million dollar media right bonus plus how much money from increased ticket sales due to more marketable opponents.

 

[orwelldesign]

They aren't afraid because of what he did (what he did was small potatoes in comparison to his pharma peers)

They are afraid because he did it all so publicly, blatantly, and honestly.

I think "aghast" is a better word than afraid.

Better for the context, surely.

But I think it's also a better word in general -- you can fight ghasts in D&D, but not fraids. Plus, ghasts have charm resistance, so they're immune to social media.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

Oh no, the poor fella had to give up his $2 million Wu-Tang album? That's just so... hilarious.

How is there a Wu-Tang album with only one existing copy?

Because the Wu-Tang Clan printed exactly one album copy and sold it at auction.

In a somewhat hilarious twist, the Justice Department sold it in July 2021 to an NFT collector.

 

[graylshaped]

There is no such thing as justice in the US

Oooh, what a giveaway.

 

[aerogems]

Good. One greedy f*ck down. Now how about universal healthcare?

Universal healthcare alone won't solve the problem except for covering everyone. The much larger problem is that costs are too high, as compared to any and every country on earth. The fact that the US pays many times the cost (think Shkreli multiples) for the same drug that all other countries, including first world countries, is a place to start.

Legalize and encourage going to other countries for expensive procedures. The fact that you can travel, stay and get a procedure done and still save insurance companies money tells me something is f'd. Also fix prices of drugs to the average of what the rest of the first world countries are paying. The US is basically subsidizing the entire world and it needs to stop. If Pharma can't make a profit by signing on to this, then don't make the drug. Simple.

I agree with your overall sentiment, but the US healthcare system is the product of around a century of total neglect, exploitation, and ad-hoc solutions that become permanent. At this point we practically need to burn the entire thing to the ground and start from scratch. If it didn't mean that a lot of people would likely not get life-saving care as a result, I'd say that's what we should do.

Back when Obamacare was being debated the show This American Life did an episode where they looked at some of the things driving up costs and possible ways to fix it... all of which quickly ran into situations of things being far more complex than they seem from the outside.

Getting rid of private insurance would be a good start. The whole industry is just a giant pyramid scheme. You can keep some kind of private insurance for like strippers and porn stars who want to get boob jobs and purely elective procedures that are in no way medically necessary. It'd also be good to decouple health insurance from employment. A practice that started around WWII as a way to get around wage caps and just kind of stuck.

 

[numerobis]

“ The settlement also required the companies to make Daraprim available to competitors at cost and barred them from entering into any similar scheme for 10 years.”
Wait. So they can jack up the price again in 10 years? That’s not solving the problem, that’s just kicking the can down the road.

If they break the law within ten years, in addition to getting prosecuted for the new crime, they’ll get hit for charges relating to this old crime as well.

The settlement agreement is that they don’t get charged but they suffer some consequences anyway.