Sure, but the solution is not to wish that people like Shkreli don't raise prices on their drugs. Instead, we need to reform the US healthcare system to stop problems like this.

Many drugs of similar kind, as Shkreli would point out, have a similar price. The difference is that those drugs are owned by faceless pharmaceutical companies with PR teams. Shkreli was an obnoxious person who was doing an obnoxious thing and as a result the government swatted him with some unrelated charges (Incidentally, I thought his defense of "I didn't commit fraud, because all investors made money" was a pretty good defense).

>the solution is not to wish that people like Shkreli don't raise prices on their drugs

I can wish whatever the hell I want to wish. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right, and everyone here arguing that he's a good person because he's not doing anything illegal is inherently arguing that "legal" == "morally right".

No. He's still a shitty person and I can wish him the most painfully infected ingrown toenails and I will still sleep soundly at night.

I wish that people would do the right thing. I also wish Congress would fix our health care issues. I can do both, and they're both just as likely to happen. In the meantime, he deserves all the public shame in the world.

You can absolutely wish whatever you like. That doesn't change the fact that you wishing is not the problem to a poor healthcare system.

>Sure, but the solution is not to wish that people like Shkreli don't raise prices on their drugs. Instead, we need to reform the US healthcare system to stop problems like this.

The solution is both. Just because a broken system allows you to get away with being a monster doesn't justify you being a monster.

I disagree. Only one of those solves the problem. Reforming the healthcare system will (ideally) prevent harmful exploitation. Wishing will do nothing, even if it's your birthday wish.

Why did you think his defense was a good one against fraud? He lied to people who gave him their money. That is what fraud is. The outcome does not matter.

Fraud has other components beyond just lying. For example, I could tell you that I'm Santa Claus, and, due to the rising complexity of children's toys, I need more money to hire additional elves this year, would you please donate?

That wouldn't be fraud though, because, among other things, you aren't damaged by it. You might be damaged by it if you sent me your money, and I actually used it to buy myself sugar cookies, but you didn't.

What I'm trying to get at is "harm" or "damage" is typically a component of a fraud case. In this case, the defense of "My investors didn't lose money, but actually made back multiples of their initial investment" seems very strong to me.

Shkreli had a company which failed and lost investors money. Rather than break the bad news, he lied to them, started another company, made more money, and paid back his investors. I may have the details wrong, but from this article, that was my main takeaway.

The point about damage goes to intent. Did Shkreli lie to people to take their money and make himself rich? Or did he lie to people to get a working productive business and pay off his investors? The fact that he did the latter implies his intent was the latter.

If I were an investor, I'd be upset that the initial investment failed. I'd be litigious if I realized he had lied to me. If he lied to me and returned my money with profit, I'd just stop doing business with him in the future.

Do the early investors who made money from Madoff's funds not have a fraud case against him since they made money even though it was paid out from later investors and not from the actual investments claimed?

It seems like both cases are fraud, it's just that one has a better outcome for the victim than suing and hoping it wasn't all spent on Wu-Tang albums.

Did ALL of Madoff's investors get paid off, or just the "got-in-on-the-bottom-floor" investors? If it wasn't all it's not the same argument as Shkreli's defense.

Great, then get the FDA to approve more people to make lifesaving drugs? A system where you're counting on the generosity of companies to charge low prices seems rather flawed.

Only a couple thousand people use Daraprim in the US. He claims 2/3rd of sales are to the USG at 1c per pill. So if there's 700 full price patients at $100K a course, that's an extra $70M on 3 trillion?

Companies were doing this before he did, and keep doing it now. So get the FDA to change or have a "dire needs" import rule or fix the system.

>A system where you're counting on the generosity of companies to charge low prices seems rather flawed.

Oh, it is absolutely flawed and completely corrupt. It's so corrupt it's costing lives rather than just money. I'm not saying it's happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if the FDA's mandates and budget for approval aren't somehow related to keeping profits high.

There are a lot of details that people seem to gloss over or haven't heard about. I am not sure if its to be believed or if he was just trying to repair his reputation, but he claims that jacking prices up on common drugs was to fund R&D into medicines for less common diseases where treatments are very expensive or don't exist at all. I found that to be a compelling argument because as far as I see it, at least he is (supposedly) trying to do something for these people, while others ignore them. Basically getting insurance companies to pay a lot for some drugs (even if it leads to premium hikes) will socialize the costs of developing other drugs.

>Screwing insurance companies means increased costs for everyone. I'd really rather not pay 20% higher premiums every year to pad someone like Shkreli's pocketbook.\

- Medical malpractice insurance cost (to cover punitive damages)

- FDA approval process

all increase cost for everyone, who is 'found guilty' for that?

And what do you see public institutions of educations, from public schools to taxpayer funded universities do about that in their educational curriculum? How are children and students taught to analyze the causes of 'increasing costs'?

And what are the journalists, those 'beacons of truth' are doing in that regard? Is the coverage of those legimate reasons for higher cost getting anywhere similar of attention compared to Shkreli's?

(btw, not defending Shrkeli's actions ... have not studied this in detail, just surprised at this onesided moral outrage)

If you make money on a trade, someone else is losing money. That's nothing new.

Where he went wrong is going into the healthcare space with that attitude. Shkreli thought that he didn't care about the bad PR it would bring him, but the microscope on him ended up uncovering illegal behavior.

I believe that's only true in flat or declining markets. Growth raises all boats, figuratively speaking.

Any time you buy, there's a counterparty selling, and vice versa. If they had not bought or sold on their end, they would have made the money rather than you.

That's all I was trying to say. Obviously this is simplistic and there are many reasons why someone might rationally be fine with being on the losing end- they might have something else better or less-risky to do with their capital, for example, or they might be a market maker that is not interested in holding anything long-term, etc.

>Screwing insurance companies means increased costs for everyone.

They already increased prices. And they've made an entire clusterfuck in terms of billing codes, bureaucracy, and negotiations before ACA anyway.

Insurance company does poorly while my health improves? My rates go up.

Insurance company does well? My rates stay steady.

I had a car insurance agent tell me this exact reason today. Their underwriters simply increased the price because the company isn't doing well.

Insurance prices can't always go up. Something is going to break. And we're all going to pay a shitload of money and have a bunch of fallout either way.

You'd rather let an entire industry continue to screw over millions of Americans out of money and access to healthcare, than let one troll and admittedly fraud profit from exposing said industry? Fair enough.

Shkreli didn't "expose" anything except his own greed.

I'd love to see the current health insurance situation go away - I'm an advocate of single-payer. That doesn't make Shkreli any less gross.