Live data from Hacker News

Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

washingtonpost.com

211–220 of 633 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good, more people should do this until it breaks and reforms. And not just do it, but do it with his face and smile. Because companies have been doing this for a long time, but there's no one to direct the anger onto.

You sound quite a lot like Trump. "Just let it fail..."

Versus what? Relying on the goodwill of pharmaceutical companies? Seeing as this has been going on for a while but there haven't been lots of airtime about it until now, I'd say Martin's on the right path.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#212
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding? He's human garbage, let him rot. It's astounding how people are being taken in by this con man.

Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage? You felt strongly enough to reply, maybe you can muster the effort to explain why you think that?

The price increase for Retrophin from 12.50 to 750 was NOT for no apparent reason. The previous owners of the rights sold the rights cheaply because they were unable to make money selling Retrophin, and in fact had large losses for years, despite multiple large price hikes. Businesses that continually lose money shut down. Most of the costs are large fixed regulatory costs for each drug manufactured that a business owner cannot cut, so the only realistic alternative is to raise the price dramatically.

A USD 750 list price for a drug does NOT result in most people paying the list price. Most people get it via insurance, insurance companies pay a negotiated rate and you pay the copay (frequently higher than what the insurance company actually pays). Retrophin isn't a widely used drug so the effect on overall premiums was also tiny. His company literally offered the drug for free to anyone who for whom insurance didn't pay for it and who couldn't afford it. He also had a publicly stated business plan whereby he would use profits from Retrophin to invest in research into similar drugs which pharmaceutical companies have not been doing since Retrophin had been losing money.

Given the byzantine manner in which payments are actually made in the US, there simply isn't any other way to price an orphan drug, i.e. a drug that very few people actually need. The only way to make a business that produces life-and-death drugs needed by very few people sustainable is to price the drug very high due to very high fixed regulatory costs per drug manufactured. If you want to change this, it needs legislation and FDA reform. Demonizing businesses that raise prices to ensure they make a reasonable profit, will only result in drugs that are life-and-death for a small number of people either getting taken off the market or not coming to the market in the first place.

What's FAR more concerning is things like the recent increases in pricing for things like the Epi-Pen. Prices were raised 10x but also the expiration date on Epi-Pens is artificially short, so hospitals, schools etc are forced to throw away perfectly usable Epi-Pens for no good reason. Nobody talks about that because that price hike was by order of a senator's daughter. Shrekili just happens to be a bit of a PR nincompoop.

What we really need is a populace that thinks carefully and independently and a press that actually spends money on investigative reporting instead of relying on what politicians tell them to report, which helps their bottom line since it's much cheaper.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#213
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's true, but the article seems to suggest that his brash persona/public conduct made it hard for him to win the case.

There was a joke floating around somewhere (Matt Levine I think?) that one strategy to avoid a jury trial proceeding was to become so publicly infamous that it would be impossible to select an unbiased jury. Clearly didn't work out for Shkreli in this case.

Yes, matt levine. Curious what his thoughts are on this case on Monday.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. My initial perception of Shkreli was the commonly accepted one of revulsion and hatred. After watching the Vice piece, plus a lot of Shkreli's finance talks and live streams, I find him pretty charming and unbelievably intelligent.

>I find him pretty charming and unbelievably intelligent. Isn't that part of why people claim he is a psychopath? Smart, lack of empathy, easily gains people's trust, and charm all bang on for traits for psychopathy.

I have a hard time psychopaths are quite as… blunt, frankly.

He pumps a lot of money into medicine research. He gave away drugs for free to people who couldn't afford it. Neither seem particularly likely for a psychopath, and even if they are, then it's a psychopath having a net positive impact.

He is, largely, just a regular but intelligent asshole. I'm getting kinda tired of seeing "charismatic, smart, has money" == "psychopath" lately.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said "Del Rio noted that while hospitals treat many patients initially, most are then treated at home for a couple of months, so the lower hospital price doesn’t help." This just states that people at home, after being treated at a hospital, still need the medicine. Hospitals get 50% off, which is what your unrelated statement is about. The medicine is a cure, you need to go through about 100 pills of it. The co…

[0] "... it says that the drug is available for free to people with deep financial need. But Dr. Aberg has watched her patients have to "jump through the hoops" to get it. Patients have to prove both financial need and health status, something that's difficult to focus on when their lives are in danger. In June, one of her patients gave up on the process. The patient switched therapies, only to suffer a negative side…

Well damn

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#216
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage. Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you?

> Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you? This case isn't about that. Are you suggesting we should convict and punish people on trial for one crime because we don't like their past activities and behaviors? Even if those other behaviors were illegal, they should be considered during a separate trial that's actually pertainin…

Al Capone wouldn't have been prosecuted for tax evasion if he wasn't an infamous mobster.

This is how society's immune system functions.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh so his only two flaws are trolling and he lies. But he's OK sure. How about the fact that he caused the suffering of patients needing the drug that he was raised prices on?

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.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#218
post #170
post #99

I think it's fair to say that Shkreli would be left to his own devices had he not shown the audacity to charge what the market will bear. Meanwhile another person who similarly jacked up the price of a lifesaving drug beyond what many could afford, Heather Bresch, received no negative legal attention whatsoever. Ever wonder why? Because her dad is Joe Manchin. The swamp needs draining so bad.

Bumping the price of a drug is not illegal. Shkreli was found guilty for fraud unrelated to the drug price hike.

Did I say otherwise? Is there any doubt in your mind as to why they went after him though? How many other hedge fund managers do you know of that have ever seen the inside of a jail cell?

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#219
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that he was really only screwing insurance companies. I believe that he was trying to draw media attention to the outrageous, legally-allowed colluding practices of the insurance and pharma industries. It would have been in his best interest to not draw attention to himself and slowly raise the price of the d…

Find one person who got it for free

Patient assistance programs are pretty common.

I'm on a $10k once every three months medication, and the drug company called to offer to pay any out-of-pocket costs up to $20k/year (deductible, copay, coinsurance etc.) I might have had, regardless of income.

The med probably costs them a couple hundred dollars in manufacturing, so they're happy to pay $20k/year to get $40k/year from my insurance.

(I turned them down - I have no deductible and a $15 copay, but plenty of others aren't in that situation.)

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). I don't live in the US, but being convicted by a "jury of your peers" is frankly, ridiculous. When has the average person been able to grasp complex matters relating to say, securities fraud? Most people aren't even able to stay out of debt. A panel of judges with specialised experience…

It's a check/balance against state power, i.e. the judicial system. Many countries have used this method for centuries. It's not ridiculous because the idea is that (the diverse selection of) your peers are equal to you in most ways, so are able to fairly judge you. A judge still has a lot of power and usually ultimately the decision goes to them as far as sentencing etc.

Right. But thing is, they are not actually equal on specialised matters? I understand that it works when you're dealing with things like murder. That can be relatively clear.

But how about hacking? Securities fraud? Money laundering? Tax fraud? These are all highly specialised issues that the average person knows nothing about. No average person, unless they have an interest in it, will be able to make a good call on such a case.

Post reply on HN