Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 461 posts

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#301

Post by mason240 »

mvanvoorden wrote: post #179
if_by_whisky wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your solution would stop innovation in any industry

Innovation happens because people are curious and want to make their (or other's) lives easier, this has nothing to do with patents, or if it's private or government run. Want to see real innovation? See for example the home made radio receivers people made in WWII, that fit in a small tin can, or visit an Amish settlement ( http://kk.org/thetechnium/amish-hackers-a/ ). Not to mention hacker/maker spaces and fablabs,…

Anecdotes aside, they still require massive amounts of capital in order to create useful applications.

Hobbyists tinkering in a hanger did not create modern airlines - giant corporations like Boeing managed the capital required to make it happen.

Hobbyists tinkering in a garage are not going to be able to carry out years of dedicated research followed by years of study followed by years of clinical trials.

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#302

Post by supercanuck »

nickff wrote: post #267
infamouscow wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we've agreed that the public can't hunt these people down and kill them for this kind of nonsense.

I have re-read your comment a dozen times, trying to grasp what you mean, and come up short each time. Do you mean to say that whenever a business makes a decision that you disagree with, you (or someone else) should feel morally entitled to go a kill the individuals working there? Or do you mean that whenever a business makes a decision that you disagree with, the state is entitled to focibly take the company? I per…

>I have re-read your comment a dozen times, trying to grasp what you mean, and come up short each time

Keep trying, don't give up

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#304

Post by Lawtonfogle »

Kalium wrote: post #295
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>to save lives It pretty much does assume it there. And it does matter because of how one would react. If your end goal is saving lives, you wouldn't spend a lot working for a cure to baldness and you wouldn't buy rights to a drug and then jack up the price just because you could.

OK. Then what do you think is the correct course of action for someone whose goal is to save lives? As opposed to making money, adopting temporarily your implicit contention that the two are opposed. Preferably a sustainable course of action that allows for future actions to take place. A one-shot is generally useless on any kind of real timescale.

Act like a non-profit instead of a for-profit.

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#305

Post by [deleted] »

Bluestrike2 wrote: post #210
nhstanley wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they need samples when the chemical structure is so widely known[1]? It's not like it's a biologic where sequence and other formulation details are critically important. Can you explain? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimethamine Edit: I noticed that paulmd, further down, explained why this is important. I didn't realize the rules were this stupid. The FDA should be able to force companies to make thei…

Formulating the generics isn't the hard part (well, beyond the chemistry but that's straightforward enough - once you know something can be done, it's just a matter of time and effort). Once a generics company does that, they have to perform bioequivalence testing. It makes a lot of sense, because generics can have different inactive ingredients (fillers, etc.) that can still affect the patient. But in order to perfo…

[deleted]

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#306

Post by blumkvist »

robotresearcher wrote: post #265
ctlby wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drugs are a complex good created through the intensive efforts of highly intelligent, trained human beings. They are anything but a natural right.

That is absolutely true, and is also true of clean drinking water, sewage treatment and security of the person. We can choose to make these things available by our common efforts.

And who is going to be in charge of them? Will they not become corrupt? That's a rhetorical question, of course.

When they do get corrupt what do we do, since it's the same guys with the guns and court houses?

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#308

Post by [deleted] »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #304
Kalium wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. Then what do you think is the correct course of action for someone whose goal is to save lives? As opposed to making money, adopting temporarily your implicit contention that the two are opposed. Preferably a sustainable course of action that allows for future actions to take place. A one-shot is generally useless on any kind of real timescale.

Act like a non-profit instead of a for-profit.

[deleted]

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#309

Post by Kalium »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #304
Kalium wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. Then what do you think is the correct course of action for someone whose goal is to save lives? As opposed to making money, adopting temporarily your implicit contention that the two are opposed. Preferably a sustainable course of action that allows for future actions to take place. A one-shot is generally useless on any kind of real timescale.

Act like a non-profit instead of a for-profit.

Thank you for your answer.

Re: Drug Goes from $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight

#310

Post by varelse »

Frondo wrote: post #286
tmd83 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand the point about economics being about utility vs. wealth. If its free market then aren't people free to choose between utility vs. wealth and in such case pure free market don't have much defense against a few sciopaths trampling all over the not so sociopaths?

Since all markets are human inventions--there's no "free market" particle--what you're getting at is: Let's invent a system that makes explicit the choice of dollars over human lives, and let's call that "the free market". And of course, since freedom is one of those ideas that, in popular use, has been oversimplified to uselessness (e.g. freedom is good, more freedom is more good, without nuance), this "free market"…

I hate to agree that this sort of manipulation is inevitable in a free market, but I do. It's either that, or broadly, no more cheap #$%^ on Amazon. So what do you pick? Occasional sociopaths or social good at the expense of everything else getting more expensive?

Because assuming the majority loves buying cheap #$@!, this seems like an absolute poster child for the US government to step in and countergame him by directly funding and fast-forwarding new generics. Just announcing such intent ought to be be enough to ruin Martin Shkreli's career, no?

Post reply on HN