Why not both? What he's doing, creating outrage legally, is one of the most effective ways to create positive change that actually affects the whole industry. And hes making money too! Win-win?

He committed early on to give financial aid to those that could not afford the new drug's price. His conscious is rather clean. I see it no different to what most private schools do - charge a huge sticker price then offer aid, so that everyone gets charged as much as they can afford, even if barely.

> Why not both?

Because doing so would kill people?

> He committed early on to give financial aid to those that could not afford the new drug's price.

Did he actually do this or just say he would? As has been noted by others through this thread, including by folks who like him, he's prone to lying.

Also, are you really claiming that people of all incomes have equal access to expensive private schools?

Also by increasing the cost for people with insurance, insurance eats the cost and raises the premiums for everyone. Someone definitely lost, and it was basically everyone on an insurance plan that needed those drugs

Schooling still has a minimum price that needs to be charged to be sustainable. Teachers are not cheap, among other costs. Drugs do not. Drugs are very cheap to produce after the R&D. Financial aid (price discrimination) would work rather well for drugs (but we'd all end up paying more, generally, just like higher education).

As for whether he has implemented financial aid yet, I do not know. Bear in mind that only tens of people buy this drug a year, so implementing financial aid is almost as easy as just having an email account for requests.