Martin Shkreli pleads the Fifth, then tweets about 'imbeciles' in Congress

[GMDino]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/02/04/martin-shkreli-congressional-testimony-turing-pharmaceuticals-valeant-fda-drug-prices/79808004/

Quote:WASHINGTON—Embattled drug entrepreneurMartin Shkreli — who vigorously defended his decision to hike the price of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 — suddenly went silent Thursday at a Congressional committee, smirking and grinning instead of answering questions.


Now facing an unrelated federal criminal indictment, the typically loquacious Shkreli refused to testify, repeatedly citing his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

Members of Congress launched into fiery lectures directed at Shkreli, whose previous company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, came under scrutiny when it raised the price ofDaraprim more than 5,000%.

[/url]

USA TODAY

Shkreli, CEO slammed over drug prices, $5M bond

"Drug company executives are lining their pockets at the expense of some of the most vulnerable families in our nation," U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, said. "It's not funny, Mr. Shkreli. People are dying and they're getting sicker and sicker."

The boyish-faced Shkreli sat quietly at the witness table, clasping his hands tightly and slowly rubbing his fingers together as he was lectured. He smirked several times and appeared on the verge of laughter at one point when Cummings was speaking.

After the hearing, he removed any doubt about his feelings.

"Hard to accept that these imbeciles represent the people in our government," Shkrelisaid on Twitter, where he proceeded to retweet messages from several supporters.

Martin Shkreli, former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, smiles while flanked by Nancy Retzlaff, chief commercial officer, during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Shkreli invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify to the committee that is examining the prescription drug market. (Photo: Mark Wilson, Getty Images)

Pelted with hostile questions, Shkreli repeatedly recited a prepared statement that he would not testify on the advice of his counsel. He is facing multiple criminal securities charges over allegations that he took stock from a previous biotech company to pay off business debts and lied about the investment returns of his former hedge fund.

U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, professed to be flabbergasted at Shkreli's silence on drug-price-hiking issues, telling the entrepreneur that he could testify on those matters without incriminating himself.

"I intend to follow the advice of counsel, not yours," Shkreli told Gowdy.

USA TODAY

'Hated' CEO Martin Shkreli told to zip it

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/03/hated-ceo-martin-shkreli-told-zip/79757802/]
At one point, Shkreli's attorney, Ben Brafman, stood up in the crowd and tried to intervene. But U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the committee, quickly rejected Brafman's efforts.

"No you are not recognized and you will be seated," Chaffetz said.

After less than an hour, Chaffetz dismissed Shkreli from the hearing since he was refusing to say anything.

In a brief press conference afterward, Brafman sought to explain Shkreli's dismissive facial expressions, saying his client was just "nervous." Shkreli did not comment during the press conference, but tweeted moments later.

In days before the hearing, he blasted Congress and made sarcastic jokes on Twitter about the subpoena he received to testify.

"I'm not going to say anything other than the 5th Amendment," he said recently. "They just want this to be a circus."

Martin Shkreli, former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, smiles while flanked by Nancy Retzlaff, chief commercial officer, during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Shkreli invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify to the committee that is examining the prescription drug market.  Mark Wilson, Getty Images

[Nebuchadnezzar]

What a dick.

I hope this guy gets a STD while in federal prison and then can't afford the drugs he needs to stay alive.

Seriously, what a dick.

[fredtoast]

Shkreli should be the hero of all the people here who worship the free market.


But, sadly, I have to agree with him about these congressional hearings. They are a joke. It is more about the guys asking the questions putting on a show and acting tough. And they are usually completely partisan. People who get called in front of them are justified in laughing in their faces.

[GMDino]

(02-04-2016, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Shkreli should be the hero of all the people here who worship the free market.


But, sadly, I have to agree with him about these congressional hearings.  They are a joke.  It is more about the guys asking the questions putting on a show and acting tough.  And they are usually completely partisan.  People who get called in front of them are justified in laughing in their faces.

Yep.

But he's still a dick.  

[JustWinBaby]

Sociopath tends to be over-used, but this jerkoff might be an actual psychopath.

[Benton]

(02-04-2016, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Shkreli should be the hero of all the people here who worship the free market.


But, sadly, I have to agree with him about these congressional hearings.  They are a joke.  It is more about the guys asking the questions putting on a show and acting tough.  And they are usually completely partisan.  People who get called in front of them are justified in laughing in their faces.

Pretty much my thoughts.

I'd add he's a horrible person. He's correct on Congress, though. These hearings are nothing.

[Bilbo Saggins]

(02-04-2016, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Shkreli should be the hero of all the people here who worship the free market.


But, sadly, I have to agree with him about these congressional hearings.  They are a joke.  It is more about the guys asking the questions putting on a show and acting tough.  And they are usually completely partisan.  People who get called in front of them are justified in laughing in their faces.

Good ole' fashioned American capitalism.  He's earned every penny!  Oh, and these "big government" goons need to stop harassing this entrepreneurial genius.  

[*michaelsean*]

(02-04-2016, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Shkreli should be the hero of all the people here who worship the free market.


But, sadly, I have to agree with him about these congressional hearings.  They are a joke.  It is more about the guys asking the questions putting on a show and acting tough.  And they are usually completely partisan.  People who get called in front of them are justified in laughing in their faces.

  Being in favor of a free market does not mean one is in favor of everything someone does in that free market.  much like people being against abortion but believing it is the mother's right to decide for herself.

This guy makes it impossible to want to even try to defend him.

[Belsnickel]

(02-05-2016, 10:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote:   Being in favor of a free market does not mean one is in favor of everything someone does in that free market.  much like people being against abortion but believing it is the mother's right to decide for herself.

This guy makes it impossible to want to even try to defend him.

At first I was going to disagree with your analogy, but the more I thought about it the more I agree. Being in favor of the free market does not mean you are in favor of the immoral/unethical decisions made within it. In both the case of abortion and a free market the ideal is to have no regulations because they would be unnecessary. People would make the moral/ethical choices.

It's interesting to think how something similar in some ways has different approaches taken from different sides. I think the interesting thing is that most people would take a very moderate stance on the details in both situations if we could only move past the rhetoric and have productive conversations.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-05-2016, 11:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: At first I was going to disagree with your analogy, but the more I thought about it the more I agree. Being in favor of the free market does not mean you are in favor of the immoral/unethical decisions made within it. In both the case of abortion and a free market the ideal is to have no regulations because they would be unnecessary. People would make the moral/ethical choices.

It's interesting to think how something similar in some ways has different approaches taken from different sides. I think the interesting thing is that most people would take a very moderate stance on the details in both situations if we could only move past the rhetoric and have productive conversations.

They are both very complex issues.  Abortion is very tough.  I feel you are taking a human life so for me that trumps everything.  Then I think, do I get even remotely as upset about knowing there are abortions taking place as when I hear about a 1 year old dying?  Nope.  How do I reconcile that?  Am I just used to abortion?  Is it because I know that the parents aren't suffering the same as when they lose a born child? 

Free market?  I absolutely believe in it, and not just because "the free market fixes things", but because we are free people and should be able to do what we want if it doesn't infringe on others rights.  Where's the line?  

[Belsnickel]

(02-05-2016, 11:41 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They are both very complex issues.  Abortion is very tough.  I feel you are taking a human life so for me that trumps everything.  Then I think, do I get even remotely as upset about knowing there are abortions taking place as when I hear about a 1 year old dying?  Nope.  How do I reconcile that?  Am I just used to abortion?  Is it because I know that the parents aren't suffering the same as when they lose a born child? 

Free market?  I absolutely believe in it, and not just because "the free market fixes things", but because we are free people and should be able to do what we want if it doesn't infringe on others rights.  Where's the line?  

But then you have to look at what rights we recognize. The basis of a regulated marketplace is those making the regulations inferring rights that may not be explicit in our laws. After all, there is nothing in our Constitution that would explicitly call for a safe work environment, fair wages, or any of that. But those rights have been inferred through the years and others in addition to them as we have regulated our economy.

We tend to oversimplify the whole idea of the free market, it's as complex as abortion in all honesty. It's just a matter of abortion hits you in a more primal way and so forces you to look deeper, IMO.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-05-2016, 12:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But then you have to look at what rights we recognize. The basis of a regulated marketplace is those making the regulations inferring rights that may not be explicit in our laws. After all, there is nothing in our Constitution that would explicitly call for a safe work environment, fair wages, or any of that. But those rights have been inferred through the years and others in addition to them as we have regulated our economy.

We tend to oversimplify the whole idea of the free market, it's as complex as abortion in all honesty. It's just a matter of abortion hits you in a more primal way and so forces you to look deeper, IMO.

The biggest thing for me for regulations is where people can't make informed decisions.  So a restaurant or a bar that allows smoking is obvious to anyone, and they can choose to go there or not.  A patron can not determine the cleanliness of a kitchen in a restaurant.  

[Belsnickel]

(02-05-2016, 12:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The biggest thing for me for regulations is where people can't make informed decisions.  So a restaurant or a bar that allows smoking is obvious to anyone, and they can choose to go there or not.  A patron can not determine the cleanliness of a kitchen in a restaurant.  

But there again, we are inferring rights not explicit in our laws. I agree with you on this one, but rights are still being inferred in order to create that regulation.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-05-2016, 12:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But there again, we are inferring rights not explicit in our laws. I agree with you on this one, but rights are still being inferred in order to create that regulation.

Oh I know.  That's why I ask where's the line, and that's what the debate really is.

Oh and I kinda hijacked your thread here, Dino.  Sorry about that.

[GMDino]

(02-05-2016, 01:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh I know.  That's why I ask where's the line, and that's what the debate really is.

Oh and I kinda hijacked your thread here, Dino.  Sorry about that.

Oh like that NEVER happens around here!  

[Belsnickel]

(02-05-2016, 01:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh I know.  That's why I ask where's the line, and that's what the debate really is.

Oh and I kinda hijacked your thread here, Dino.  Sorry about that.

(02-05-2016, 01:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh like that NEVER happens around here!  

At least we hijacked by, you know, talking about the positions we were discussing rather than hurling insults at each other. So there is that.

[Benton]

(02-05-2016, 11:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: At first I was going to disagree with your analogy, but the more I thought about it the more I agree. Being in favor of the free market does not mean you are in favor of the immoral/unethical decisions made within it. In both the case of abortion and a free market the ideal is to have no regulations because they would be unnecessary. People would make the moral/ethical choices.

It's interesting to think how something similar in some ways has different approaches taken from different sides. I think the interesting thing is that most people would take a very moderate stance on the details in both situations if we could only move past the rhetoric and have productive conversations.

We're getting OT here (or maybe not), but the nature of capitalism is there's never going to be an ethical line.

In Shkreli's case, people are pissed because he upped a necessary drug price to where it most likely effected those who took it, and possibly prevented them from taking it. Where's the outrage over SAT/ACT prep course markup (2,000-4000%) that could make the difference in someone getting a life changing education? What about bypass surgery (1,000%)? Prescription drugs average around 3,000% but nobody bats an eye. Internet service — more and more necessary to education and business — in some areas has a 5,000% markup.

[Au165]

(02-05-2016, 01:59 PM)Benton Wrote: We're getting OT here (or maybe not), but the nature of capitalism is there's never going to be an ethical line.

In Shkreli's case, people are pissed because he upped a necessary drug price to where it most likely effected those who took it, and possibly prevented them from taking it. Where's the outrage over SAT/ACT prep course markup (2,000-4000%) that could make the difference in someone getting a life changing education? What about bypass surgery (1,000%)? Prescription drugs average around 3,000% but nobody bats an eye. Internet service — more and more necessary to education and business — in some areas has a 5,000% markup.

Some of your comparisons don't hold water because they aren't in regards to saving someone's life...their actual life not quality of life. As for the surgery that is service that the cost can shift as the price to pay people qualified to perform it can go up. The issue in this case, with this specific drug, is nothing changed other than a guy came in trying to milk it for as much possible as quickly as he can. When we allow things such as patents, then we also must have checks and balances to protect the consumer. Patents (especially in pharmaceuticals) are counter intuitive to free market philosophy because they prevent the competition that allows for the true value to be assigned to a good. If we eliminated patents I'd be okay with letting this guy charge whatever he wanted because competitors would come in and we would have stabilization, but since we already artificially manipulate free market then there must be checks in place to stop these things from happening.

[fredtoast]

We have to have a capitalist economy to promote efficiency, but it has to be regulated.  Without regulation a completely "free market" would destroy everything from human lives to the environment in the name of profit.  And this is not just a theory.  It has been proven throughout history.

[Benton]

(02-05-2016, 02:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: Some of your comparisons don't hold water because they aren't in regards to saving someone's life...their actual life not quality of life. 

And — as I said — that's why there's never going to be an ethical line. Quality of life in terms of how much earning potential you have (college education, internet availability) does translate into health. Poverty is tied to a high number of cases of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other things that kill you.

On the other hand, you can argue that it' not directly so, which is also true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/18/the-government-is-spending-more-to-help-rich-seniors-than-poor-ones/

Quote: As for the surgery that is service that the cost can shift as the price to pay people qualified to perform it can go up.

It's an average. Naturally, that can go up and down. How does that change the fact the average markup is 1,000%?

Quote:The issue in this case, with this specific drug, is nothing changed other than a guy came in trying to milk it for as much possible as quickly as he can. When we allow things such as patents, then we also must have checks and balances to protect the consumer.

 
We do. Sort of. We have patent expirations in place so people can make generics of it. And there's the kicker. Some insurance plans won't accept generics, which is a legal loophople. As with anything, there's checks and balances, and there's guys smart enough to figure out ways around them.

Quote:Patents (especially in pharmaceuticals) are counter intuitive to free market philosophy because they prevent the competition that allows for the true value to be assigned to a good. If we eliminated patents I'd be okay with letting this guy charge whatever he wanted because competitors would come in and we would have stabilization, but since we already artificially manipulate free market then there must be checks in place to stop these things from happening.

If you don't have patents, you've got less incentive to create a drug. Why spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours developing something that the guy down the street is going to make for virtually no cost?