It's not a "good deal" because it's not consumption for the sake of consumption. High drug prices hit those unfortunate enough to be born with a sickness, and some of those people might have a hard time with their lives if majority of their time is spent earning enough to pay their medicine.

However, I like that he then goes on to say that there should be a system that takes care of the people who CANNOT afford the drug (government-funded or a corporate-driven solution of some sort).

The whole business take on medication and health care just seems crazy for a scandinavian citizen like myself.

Some CBS news affiliate brought him on to talk about the Epipen situation.

Honestly, he's very candid, and he says things people don't want to hear. Sometimes he says things that are just wrong and inconsiderate, but other times he says things that are simply inconvenient truths.

For example, he brings up the Epipen situation in a different light: He says $300 ($600 for 2) is significantly cheaper than the alternative (a trip to the ER, which can be thousands of dollars). He goes on to say it's a relative bargain, and that insurance companies should be more than willing to pay for Epipens because of the potential cost savings. To him the problem isn't Mylan (which has become the target of everyone's ire) but the insurance companies or medicaid.

Whether that's true or not it's a different perspective, and as a society we need to hear things that the masses don't necessarily agree with. The US system of healthcare is highly flawed, it's not a good idea to just make a boogeyman who will hide the real issues.

Giving a mugger $300 is also cheaper then treating a gunshot wound. Doesn't make it right. These companies are exploiting corners of IP law to block competition, using the US armed law enforcement as the muscle in their mugging.

The free market take is that competition allows for faster development of more newer, better, cheaper drugs overall. That may mean the occasional crazy pricing, especially in a constrained market where only a few entities can supply a need.

The socialist take is that the government should intervene in cases where a need isn't being met in a sustainable way by the market, and people are suffering.

Another way to look at it might be that one prioritizes the future over the present.

I don't think it's controversial to say that both these are true in certain situations, and sometimes those situations overlap (such as with medicine). In a perfect world, we would have all the benefits of both the free market and socialist takes, without the downsides associated with each. It's possible we might be able to approximate this somewhat, such as with Shkreli's suggestion that the government take over production of generics. Other options are better public funding of research and development, so drug companies can shoulder less of that cost (and thus charge less to recoup investment and make a profit).

In the end, I think neither system is perfect, and both have very real advantages that we need to be careful not to discount.

He did a podcast episode on the Milo Yianoupoullis (I tried okay) podcast. It was...interesting. Like you said, some of it makes sense, some of it is out there. Was really engaging to listen to though.

I honestly can't think of two people I'd less like to listen to than Milo Yiannopoulos and Martin Shkreli.

Well, I'm not going to force you, so feel free to abstain. Personally I like listening to all kinds of people and in different contexts. I found it interesting, and was recommending it to someone else who seemed to be in the same boat.