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

Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 446 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#221

Post by [deleted] »

wpietri wrote: post #180
rayiner wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not it doesn’t. Our legal framework doesn’t oblige you to save someone’s life just because you have the means to do so. If it did, we’d all be in big trouble—for the cost of a fully loaded MacBook Pro, you could save someone from malaria in Africa. The fact that people think a particular unpopular thing shouldn’t be legal doesn’t change that. There are a lot of things people believe should be illegal that aren’t ille…

You mistakenly compare a failure to act ("save someone from malaria") with a clear purposeful action ("extorted sick poor people"). And there's no particular "higher purpose" of the law here that prevents us from making Shkreli's behavior illegal. Price gouging is illegal under other circumstances [1]; as far as I can tell his actions were legal just because nobody thought someone would be this awful. If you'd like t…

[deleted]

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#222

Post by nate_meurer »

brucephillips wrote: post #174
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the outrage was ever about Shkreli not saving someone's life. It was about Shkreli making lots of money from people's suffering, after artificially inflating the price of a drug that he controlled. In other words, getting rich from increasing the amount of misery in this world.

AFAIK, only the insurance companies paid his exorbitant prices.

And to whom do you think the insurance companies pass those costs?

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#223

Post by Broken_Hippo »

brucephillips wrote: post #174
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the outrage was ever about Shkreli not saving someone's life. It was about Shkreli making lots of money from people's suffering, after artificially inflating the price of a drug that he controlled. In other words, getting rich from increasing the amount of misery in this world.

AFAIK, only the insurance companies paid his exorbitant prices.

That's not entirely true.

If it was billed to insurance, they would pass those costs over to the people paying the premiums.

Some insurance policies are self-funded: Meaning they have plans, but the insurance company is really just the administrator. The actual costs are paid by the company employing the people buying the insurance. They can both pass the costs onto the employees paying health insurance premiums plus add in that cost to the goods they sell.

A great deal of insurance plans have a co-payment for drugs. If you had to pay 20% of the cost of this drug, that is still quite an increase for the patient.

Not everyone needing these drugs has insurance. Luckily, some charities exist to try to pay the bills for these folks and sometimes there are other discounts available for the uninsured.

Some people are on government insurance plans, both in the US and in places with state health care. In these cases, the costs are passed onto tax payers.

Sorry, but pretty much everyone pays for this sort of thing.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#224

Post by supreme_sublime »

ergothus wrote: post #50
yodsanklai wrote: post #11

I used to watch some of his investment tutorials on youtube as well as other videos. For someone called the "most hated man in America", he actually seemed like a nice person. I also enjoyed his trollish sense of humor.

> I also enjoyed his trollish sense of humor. I think that makes the title that much easier to understand. I'm an old-fuddy-duddy (for example, I say things like 'fuddy-duddy'), but to me there are two forms of trolling. One where you're doing it to get their reaction and entertainment when they get it. I find this usually fun - the person doing it has fun, any audience has fun, and the person has that anguish-relief…

The second is really the original essence of trolling. Evoking a reaction from people by pretending to be something you're not. Ken M is a classic example of this.

I don't mind it that much because I think it is a good reminder to people that they shouldn't take the internet too seriously.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#225

Post by rayiner »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #152
rayiner wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not it doesn’t. Our legal framework doesn’t oblige you to save someone’s life just because you have the means to do so. If it did, we’d all be in big trouble—for the cost of a fully loaded MacBook Pro, you could save someone from malaria in Africa. The fact that people think a particular unpopular thing shouldn’t be legal doesn’t change that. There are a lot of things people believe should be illegal that aren’t ille…

I don't think the outrage was ever about Shkreli not saving someone's life. It was about Shkreli making lots of money from people's suffering, after artificially inflating the price of a drug that he controlled. In other words, getting rich from increasing the amount of misery in this world.

> In other words, getting rich from increasing the amount of misery in this world.

This is the fallacy. He didn't get rich from increasing the amount of misery in the world. He didn't give people toxoplasmosis. He got rich from not doing something he could do (i.e. sell drugs more cheaply) to decrease the amount of misery. Which is the exact same thing you do when you buy a Macbook Pro instead of donating the money to save a life from malaria: you forgo the opportunity to decrease the amount of misery in the world in return for your own personal benefit.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#226

Post by Clubber »

irunbackwards wrote: post #87
Clubber wrote: post #20

Here's what we just witnessed. 1. Companies were cornering certain drugs, then hiking their prices up significantly. Shkrelli did the same thing (but stated he was willing to give it free for anyone who asked). Note, that this is not illegal in any way, but news was all over it and citizens were pissed. 2. Shkrelli, being outspoken, became the focus of this issue. He dug a hole for himself, but concerning drug prices…

bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered

Unless you donate to politicians, the pigs and politicians get really fat.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#227

Post by theo775 »

brucephillips wrote: post #165
bhouston wrote: post #5

He was so obnoxious that I guess it is easy to be happy about that, but he was so small time in the grand scheme of things. But nearly no bankers responsible for the 2008 financial crisis ever went to jail: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wal...

Nowhere in that article does it describe an actual crime that went unprosecuted. Shkreli broke the law. The financiers causing the financial collapse did not. Perhaps the laws should be changed.

"The financiers causing the financial collapse did not."

They weren't prosecuted. That doesn't mean they didn't break the law.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#228

Post by rayiner »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #205
brucephillips wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shkreli did not increase epipen prices.

It's amazing to watch the amount of mental contortions you're going through. I guess it's very important for you to maintain the consistency of your current worldview, and seeing the likes of Shkreli in a favorable light is an integral part of that. Ayn Rand would be proud.

Shkreli literally did not increase EpiPen prices. That was Mylan.

Re: Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to seven years in prison

#230

Post by danso »

roymurdock wrote: post #79

Really recommend watching Shkreli's interview with The Breakfast Club where he's attacked for all the things he's become infamous for in the public sphere (drug price hikes, wu-tang album, etc.) The guy gets it, and played the game the way it was presented to him. He actually comes across as a very smart, thoughtful, and respectful guy that can roll with the punches and dish back when needed. Sure he's a bit of a tro…

I agree he's very smart. But you argue that, besides being a boy genius, he is a very thoughtful and respectful guy -- yet he's too dumb and ignorant to recognize the consequences of extreme trolling? Even when he was warned repeatedly against such trolling, and that it was clear to everyone that such trolling would be absolutely a detriment to his own welfare?

If we agree that he is very smart, how does being thoughtful and respectful play into his trolling behavior post-conviction?

Post reply on HN