You need to start questioning what you see on TV & the Huffington Post.

As has been stated previously, the drug was available free to those who needed it.

I believe he corrected the price of a drug. & no one went without. Those unable to pay for insurance got the drug for free.

Also, I said two major flaws. Obviously, ppl have many flaws.

Edit: It's economic illiteracy if you don't understand that. If you have evidence which says otherwise(?), I'm happy to look at it.

One thing to consider is: why is he the one who decides who can afford the drug or gets a free version? Seems horrible to me - we have laws to protect equal access to services like this (Medicare, Medicaid).

Another argument of his I found extremely disgusting is that he claims he's reinvesting profits from the price raise to further drug research. Ok, but again, we only have his word for that (and he's been convicted of fraud(!)). You can only claim you're smarter than the system and more responsible so much before people realize what's going on.

Because it's his drug. He bought it. It's his property.

Exactly. If one does not like this particular part of the story perhaps they should write the politicians who stopped giving a shit the second the news moved on, and who seem to have accomplished nothing related to healthcare in the 2 years since.

It's insurance that pays, I believe . So it's a function of price. He changed the price based on market condition.

Agree on the second point. Personally, I don't think that's relavent.

And who pays insurance?

Pricing something correctly isn't immoral

Sure maybe you can explain what you mean by the phrase: "pricing something correctly"

At the price which will maximize total profits.

What someone will pay & what someone will sell @. Normal basic econ.

Edit: (I can't seem to reply) I think non-gov monopolies are ok. You'd make a ton of money in your example, & then be able to create more drugs. Generally, I think it's good for talented people to get resources. Superior resource allocation.

There's nothing talented at all about buying rights to a drug and then raising the price of it. Monopolies hurt consumers, why would you think that's okay? Especially in a field like pharmaceuticals where peoples lives are literally on the line?

This isn't normal basic econ. This is a monopoly market.

Let's say I create a cure for a truly horrible disease like Huntington's. Let's say it cost me absolutely zero dollars of R&D, I just happened upon it in some weird stroke of happenstance and the FDA does a rush approval and gives me a grant for even those costs, basically fantasyworld but $0 expenditure by me so everything I make is pure profit. And let's say I bring this drug to market and I give it a very controversial price. Which is that I will cure you of Huntington's if and only if you pay me 1 million dollars or all of your worldly possessions, whichever is higher. Do you believe I should be able to do this?

Got a source for the "suffering"?

also, iirc the patients that need that drug are literally low triple digits if not lower. making sure they all get it one way or another is not exactly a challenging logistics problem. imo it's more of a marvel that something so niche is available at all.