An article* in our local newspaper, reports that a man is facing charges for fraud in a scheme to make a larger profit selling pharmaceutical drugs. If convicted of the charges he is facing, he could face up to one hundred and sixty years in prison.
One of the comments posted after the article says this:
Comments from another reader:
I, too, am wondering if the charges are being brought against this individual because he is skimming some of the profits that ordinarily go to the large phamaceutical companies.
According to the article:
I would like to know why this man would face more prison time than many convicted first-first degree murderers would face. Why is money (and the things and power it can buy) more important than human life?
[And as a side note, why are drug companies cutting institutions a break on drug prices? When my daughter was hospitalized and needed her regular medication, our family physician wrote an order that she be allowed to bring her prescription medication from home with her, because if the hospital were to dispense from their pharmacy, the price could be double to three times what she originally paid.]
*I tried to link to the specific article and the link leads me to a different story, so I linked to the Local News section. This article will only be accessible for about two days; sorry. “Drug company owner in court on fraud charges” is the name of the article.
Heck, you can always make more people – but I’m certain the drug companies couldn’t possibly make any more money!!
I suppose the DA or his party got a few bucks from the pharmaceutical industry last election?
Nah. C’mon. Are you just waking up? This happens all the time. You go to jail longer for grand thefy auto than for raping a 10 year old in most states. Don’t you know it is all about defending the rich from the poor?
Not familiar with the case but this person may be charged with a number of counts of fraud. If each count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years and there are 16 counts… well you do the math.
Keep in mind that the judge will very likely sentence him on all or some of the counts to be served concurrently. Furthermore, there is the issue of early parole on good behaviour. He’ll probably be out in 2 or 3 years.
Finally, this is a newspaper report, right? Don’t they have a tendency to exagerate things from time to time?
I’ve never agreed with this topic, except to the fact that everyone else accepts it as axiomatic. In my world, “things” are FAR more important than people. I’m the kind of person who would say on TV, “Yes, my entire family was killed, but at least my house didn’t burn down!”
jmullaney’s witty remark is actually not far off. People are reproduceable, in great supply, and have a fixed expiration date. Things (or, in the case of money, the quantity of a specific thing) do not.
Look at what’s happening in Afghanistan. I could care less about the Taliban executing women for showing too much skin. But destroying those ancient Buddhist statues…ahh, that puts me in a fightin’ mood. The religious part is meaningless, it’s the fact that these are PRICELESS ARTIFACTS!!!
I’m having difficulty figuring out how much of what you say is tongue-in-cheek and what is real. Eventually some of the problems that are affecting others may affect you, but if you are wrestling your own demons, you may not have the emotional energy to deal with the problems of others.
In his unique way J.E.T. makes a good point about severely misplaced priorities though I’m not sure if he meant to be sarcastic or not. The international community seems to have given up on Afghan women as it would probably take war with the Taliban to change the situation. When they announced destruction of all statues there was an uproar and many offers to remove and preserve the offending icons.
I’m giving attention to the common mistake made here, not to the person who made it. “I could care less” means that one DOES care, and it could mean that one actually cares a lot.
If one doesn’t care at all, one should say “I could not care less.”
