Hedge fund manager buys drug company, raises price of pill from $13.50 to $750

I think Kermit was actually thinking of “Call Me Dave” Cameron there…

Round up all these fuckers and bury them in a cornfield.


Which is just another of many aspects of Socialism. As is Healthcare, as is a Jury of peers, as is Social Security.
It’s this American historic hangup of Socialism equals Communism equals Enemy, that people are still failing to understand the bad analogy.
75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America


It’s a system of control and learned helplessness, I think that counts!

It’s hardly sarcasm. It doesn’t work as optimally as it could due to capitalist interference, but we need reform and not to smash it all and allow the pharmaceutical/food companies to self-regulate as is regularly proposed.

1 Like

Even wiki’s definition of Socialism is “Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and/or social control[1] of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[2][3] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.”

Which I feel is much different than social programs like welfare, SS, etc. Social programs aren’t the same as government controlled production and economy.

IMHO people wanting a more European model needs to rebrand it under a different banner. Because socialism to me is still poisoned by the Maos and Stalins - vs the less goose-steppy modern version.

Perhaps this is semantics, but it is easy for me to argue against the US taking control of say firearm manufacturing or car manufacturing, vs setting up social safety nets for people.

You’re conflating a single dictionary definition with the practice of Socialism.

You may want to fixate on that particular aspect because you feel afraid of some sort of slippery slope to full Communism, but all social programs are socialist/collectivist. And that’s okay.


That would be nice, but I vote for a crematorium. While he’s still alive.

Yeah - but words have meaning.

When people use the word Socialism for an attack they are thinking of the “round them up in camps and take over their farms” kind, not benign Scandinavians.

IMHO - they need to rebrand what they want.

The problem in this case is that it’s “tightly controlled.” That sounds like a generic phrase, but it has a specific meaning in clinical trials-- basically you don’t go down to the drugstore and just buy this stuff, you (or actually, your doctor) has to essential beg for the right to prescribe it. That conveniently puts any future clinical trials under the control of this scumbag.

But nearly no one arguing positive about topics like universal healthcare or social security uses socialism as buzzword. How can we rebrand “useful regulation” when the opposing side is happily using socialism-as-in-Stalin’s-Russia as ultimate argument?

1 Like

Let’s break that down.
social ownership and/or social control
(To mention only a few from the link I provided earlier)
All fall under Social ownership and control. i.e. paid for by the taxpayer.
as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system
In other words, the will to bring those services under taxpayer funding.

It’s not different at all. That’s exactly what it is. Government is tax-funded, and those taxes are allocated to the various services.
Production includes roads, vehicles to service those roads, military hardware, public buildings, sewerage plants, street lighting etc. etc etc.
The factories that produce those things may not be owned by Government (in fact there’s often Public/Government owned shares in them), but they are still subject to regulation by it.
But as you say

Which is exactly the sort of wrong-headed misgivings many Americans still seem to have with ‘the Red Scare’. It’s up to you to educate yourselves on the true meaning of things rather than simply rely on some idiotic hangup from the Cold War.
It’s not a re-branding that’s needed, it’s education and freedom from outdated propaganda.


American laws give drugs companies exclusive rights to sell their drugs at any price they like. If the TTIP trade deal goes ahead, US drug laws would effectively apply here in Britain. And the money from the NHS would go that guy, and not to medical research. Plus kickbacks to the various Euro MPs who keep trying to smuggle this through, of course.


Perhaps @Mister44 is confusing socialist governments with governments that lack legitimacy. A proper state is a tool, not an adversary.


I think that’s probably a commonly confused point, not helped by right-wing pundits constantly pushing the idea.

1 Like

Words have context that changes meaning. Funny, that!

That’s why selectively quoting definitions will lead you astray.

1 Like

Except this drug company was in luck because nearly all the R&D was done by publicly funded universities (as is the case with most new drugs). And given that, just how many movie star houses for a lifetime supply of the drug seems like fair compensation to you for something that costs pennies to make?


Yup. They’re charging obscene rent for something that costs them basically nothing, and using people’s lives as leverage.

I’m pretty sure none of us would feel too bad if it were reported in the news tomorrow that Martin Shkreli was found dead with his body parts and organs separated into jars in his own kitchen refrigerator. His entire business plan is “what’s your life worth to you? Is it worth everything you got? More?”


People forget that thalidomide was never approved in the U.S., in large part because of the FDA.

1 Like

It was approved in 1998, under unusually strict conditions.


Apparently, it’s also found in semen, so male patients have to agree to use condoms. Female patients must agree to use two simultaneous forms of birth control.