Posted on Sep 23, 2015
SrA Edward Vong
7.32K
34
41
5
5
0
8d0392ae
I am neither for, nor am I against capitalism. I am for a moderation of how things should work ethically. This is a perfect example of using loopholes to exploit capitalism.

I believe at this point the CEO has change the price back over threats and an outrage. But what do you guys think?
Edited 10 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 13
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
6
6
0
Little info on this.

The guy is what can be best called a "profiteer" as in someone who is intentionally driving the price up to make an "unfair or excessive profit."

He believes that saving someone's life should cost "at a minimum $100,000" and the drug as previously sold was doing it for about $1000.00. So, he bought an existing "Patent Process" and jacked up the prices.

I'm all for capitalism. Very Pro-Capitalism. Make your money, make a profit. Don't bleed people to do it. That's the line, and this guy crossed it.

Now, the problem we run into is that there are LOTS of these type drugs that were developed in the 50s-70s, and they are dirt cheap to make if you have the production capability. Not many companies make them, because they're dirt cheap to make, and hence slim profits, and why compete and drive the profits down. So what you do is you buy up the competitors (licenses) and you become a monopoly. Now you are the only one with the capability of making it.

This created a "barrier of entry" even though the patent is expired on the drug itself (not the process), which means that even if someone else copies the drug, and tries to compete at the new higher price, this yahoo, can tank the market and effectively kill his competition.

Example: Pill costs $20.00. 5 companies on market that make it. Buy all patent processes. Raise price to $1000.00. New company comes in, after R&D to develop new process, they have to market pill at $50.00+ to make money. First company just drops price back to original $20.00 if second company even attempts to sell it. Second company is effectively barred from entry. We see it a lot with telecommunication companies as well.

So what's the cure? US Government has to step in. I hate that answer. But this is where we need a "Referee" to call foul.
(6)
Comment
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Capt Seid Waddell
10 y
SGT Jeremiah B., both monopolies and government regulation distort the free market and work against capitalism's natural function.

An interesting paper on the arguments over capitalism over time is here:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html
(0)
Reply
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Capt Seid Waddell
10 y
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, "You can have a singular supply point without abuse of pricing."
I disagree. Without competition there is no free market. That the government does this as well is not capitalism either - quite the reverse is true.

That there can be high barriers to entry in a market is not necessarily a refutation of competition in a free market - it may simply reflect the fact that someone has found a way to drive the prices lower than others can compete with. Where it is a problem is in the case that government regulation artificially limits competition.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
10 y
Capt Seid Waddell Demand is the primary consideration. A company or person can only "exploit" the demand so much. Raise the price too much and demand disappears. You essentially price yourself out of the market with less expensive alternatives, including the free one of "nothing at all."

Most of us aren't buying this drug. Those who can't afford it won't buy it. This person is betting he has a large enough market of people who view it as a necessity (and hence are willing to pay for it) AND can afford it compared to the much lower price point model that previously existed. Those are competing forces within capitalism, which are neither good nor bad. The fact that it is medicine, and cannot be viewed as a luxury is what changes the ethics of this situation.

Monopolies themselves are still tools, and as tools have neutral ethics by default. It's the person that exploits them that makes them good or bad.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Capt Seid Waddell
10 y
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, I disagree. Monopolies by their very nature restrict supply to increase prices. There is no free market when there is no competition.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Cpl James Waycasie
2
2
0
I think greedy people will not hesitate to stoop to any level to make a dollar.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Pedro Meza
1
1
0
I do not know what the medication is used for, but I am sure that there are alternative medications that a doctor can prescribe which can easily replace this expensive drug. In fact medication combined with a healthy diet and exercise will work wonders.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SGT Jeremiah B.
10 y
In this particular case, there is no alternative because this one has been available cheaply for so long. This guy is just trying to make as much money as possible before his business model gets stepped on.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
CPT Pedro Meza
10 y
SGT Jeremiah B. - There must be away to replace his drug that is now expensive and boycott him. Also like said time for doctors to look at better diet combined with exercise and another alternative med.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SGT Jeremiah B.
10 y
CPT Pedro Meza - This drug is mostly used by the HIV-infected or pregnant to deal with a very specific problem as quickly as possible. I'm sure there are alternatives but they might be very expensive or much less effective. Diet and exercise certainly help, but the patients are already immuno-compromised in ways that are largely unaffected by alternative treatments.

Mostly I think this guy just needs to be made an example of so other young, brash sociopaths think twice about trying something like it.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Avatar feed
Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
1LT Christopher Sorge
1
1
0
The real issue is foreign governments and their inability or/and lack of policing copywrite, trademarks, and patents infringements. Why make anything if your hard work will be stolen?
(1)
Comment
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SGT Jeremiah B.
10 y
Not really the issue at all. Drugs have a limited patent life by design and this one has long expired. This guy doesn't own anything but the process used to make the drug, which he purchased legally.

As Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS pointed out above, he just made it completely impractical to compete against him.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MCPO Roger Collins
1
1
0
It may not be the Christian was of thinking, but it would be terrible if that little weasel got some exotic disease that had a cure he couldn't afford. It's all about the patent laws regarding Pharmaceutical companies, they do need to cover the humongous costs of development and testing of the new drugs or they will stop doing research. That being said, Congress or the
FDA should be able to determine the costs associated with those activities and ensure they are recovered during the seven years they hold exclusive patent rights or have some metric that says how much the taxpayer needs to kick in.
(1)
Comment
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
10 y
MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; Considering that the drug companies include the cost of advertising and free samples in their "research costs" and considering that MOST of the 'research' being carried out is into ways to get around some other company's drug patent, there really isn't very much "original research" being done by the drug companies these days.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
MCPO Roger Collins
10 y
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LCDR Deputy Department Head
1
1
0
In theory I support capitalism, and in most forms I actually do. However as you mentioned in this case ethics are involved. That doesn't mean we aren't supportive of capitalism, it means we aren't supportive of someone KILLING people to make more money. That is exactly what would happen in this situation.

Also there is a reason price gouging laws are in place and if he hadn't changed the price back he would have eventually gone to prison. He still may.
(1)
Comment
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
10 y
LCDR (Join to see) - Commander; I'm not so sure that he will run afoul of any "price gouging" legislation. He wasn't colluding with anyone else to hike the prices nor was he creating an artificial shortage in order to hike the prices.

There doesn't appear to be any LEGAL reason why someone shouldn't charge whatever they feel like when they are selling something that they own legally.

After all, the people who would have some use for this medication aren't being FORCED to purchase it - they are perfectly free to forego the drug if they don't feel that the price is worth the potential benefit. Face it, GM is perfectly free to charge $1,000,000 per car and you can either buy one or not as you feel inclined and this situation isn't any different - right?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Intermediate Care Technician
1
1
0
Ok, yea I read about this guy. Pretty much a worm. Yes I am all about getting yours and being successful. But, even if he wanted to ensure a profit, even tagging the pills at 50 bucks a pop would certainly gain him a healthy profit. He just wants to be as rich as possible as soon as possible and obviously doesn't care about people. Only himself. Worm.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Professor Of Military Science / Department Chair
1
1
0
Edited 10 y ago
First - he came out yesterday stating he will lower the price (which wasn't mentioned) to a "reasonable" price in which he can still make profit. Not sure what "reasonable" is in his mind, since he thought an increase of $736.50 was reasonable overnight.

Secondly, I don't see this as a capitalism fail...I see it as a greedy individual exploiting a popular item vs gradually increasing cost to be competitive. Greedy individuals will always exploit loopholes, cut corners and circumvent standards - regardless of what regulations or sanctions are in place.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SrA Edward Vong
SrA Edward Vong
10 y
Rephrased the fail comment.
(1)
Reply
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
10 y
LTC (Join to see) - Captain; The drug wasn't a "popular" one, it was one that was the only known treatment for an otherwise fatal condition - not only that, but there is no "competing" drug [nor any likelihood of one].

As far as some other poster's comment that "The Affordable Healthcare Act strikes again!" is concerned, this doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the ACA and they probably knew that but couldn't resist blaming President Obama for everything from the heartbreak of psoriasis to the heat death of the universe.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC Professor Of Military Science / Department Chair
LTC (Join to see)
10 y
COL Ted Mc - Sir, understood the pill in question wasn't the "popular" item in this case - it's the only one (due to the low demand). It's not cost effective for a competitor to manufacturer a generic version due to the low demand...which led to this profiteer to purchase the company and raise the price ~5455% per pill. Due to a "shaming" campaign (and rightfully so) by the America public and politicians - he has since backtracked on his ridiculous increase to lower it...which I don't think he's released the new price yet.

I'm not in the medical/pharmaceutical field - but in my current position, I'm slightly involved in IR&D proposals and I have a basic (very basic) understanding of IR&D. I do know that developing of medications as the aforementioned pill isn't very profitable, if at all. It takes years to go from IR&D to FDA approval, which by that point, the manufacturer is already millions (sometimes 100s of millions) in the hole. Which leads to ridiculous pricing for new drugs hitting the market. That doesn't validate this guy's ludicrous price gouging on this specific pill however (I believe the pill has been around since 1953?), since I'm sure it's had plenty of decades to recoup the cost of research/development.

In short - this guy is a jerk and only cares about money in his pocket.
(0)
Reply
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Ted Mc
10 y
LTC (Join to see) - Captain; I concur in your assessment of the man's personal qualities.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Charles Hunter
1
1
0
Surely, after sixty-two years, this medication is off patent. No generic version?
(1)
Comment
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
10 y
See my reply above. The drug itself isn't patented, but the processes for making it are, and there are very few companies capable of making it. It creates a barrier of entry into the market, which means that anyone who "could" make it, will end up losing money if they tried to.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Ben Keen
1
1
0
That pill better cure everything on the face of the earth and then some and do it quickly!
(1)
Comment
(0)
SrA Edward Vong
SrA Edward Vong
10 y
This drug is indeed a life saving drug. It has existed since 1953, but recently was acquired by this new company which has led to the price change.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
10 y
It treats Toxoplasmosis (sp). Super common. It's not "really" dangerous unless you have a compromised immune system though, like HIV or Pregnant.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close