Hacker News Reader

Something I find suspect is how spending hundreds of millions is profitable unless you're raking in many times that amount per year.

I suspect they're guarding massive profits as opposed to advocating for patient access and choice

it's a good point. From my understanding it was the difference between having a business and not having a business.

So, more a fight for survival than a fight for just profitability.

Though my memory is fuzzy… We were talking about this over Thanksgiving dinner after several drinks and haven't discussed it since

> It's been struck down three times and, according to her heavily biased opinion, would seriously adversely affect access and choice. The company spent something like several hundred million dollars fighting that proposition and two before it.

All because the (licensed) employees wanted safer conditions for their patients?

> hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process

Not burned. Those dollars went to lawyers, advertising platforms, etc.

So... parasites. Burned sounds appropriate

Which produces as much value, in human terms, as burning them. Possibly less. I think the metaphor stands.