I found her performance fascinating on a number of levels.
The first is as a representative of one of the lower strata of the “elite”: a bright average woman who is has parlayed deception (for example, fabricating a bogus MBA on her resume), political and family connections and an understanding of the political process into a truly toxic brew of legislated requirements that mandate purchase of her company’s products, a completely mercenary view of her “responsibilities” to her stockholders and a sense of personal entitlement (and the requisite salary to match her modest “success”) into an well-paid position as a CEO at a company in one of the most mercenary industries in the world.
I don’t think she’s “evil”. I think - based on the interviews - that she has just utterly lost her moral compass; that living in a world where she sees people even less competent than herself receiving rewards greater than her own, sees no reason not to suppose that she deserves at least what they’ve got, and that pretty much anything which is not accompanied by the likelihood of a jail sentence is a reasonable act if it furthers that goal.
There millions like her, some a little better, some a little worse, imitating the moral standards and modus operandi of the bigger fish further up the food chain.
She just happens to be in an industry in the midst of a feeding frenzy, somebody posted the ugly details, and the luck of the draw was that this was the account that happened become the outrage of the week.
The second is how utterly out of her league and clueless she is, the contrast with a similar performance by a well coached and rehearsed CEO from a large organization was a revelation of thoughtless incompetence.
“What I legislated was...”.
John Cleese might have created her (was he a true sadist) as the hapless dimwit corporate hack in one of his training videos, and I expect her performance will become a long-term source of material for communications consultants in search of a truly Epic fail.
But what struck me most of all was the avant le déluge nature of some of her comments: for example that pharmaceutical pricing is a bubble similar to the one recently seen in real estate, or that we are somewhere near the “inflection point” in consumer tolerance for the opacity and unpredictability of pricing when consumers walk into a pharmacy.
I assume that what I’m hearing is a cocktail chatter of people in her position: the system is broken, this should long since have been reflected in political reality, it’s not, and no one knows one knows how long the current state of affairs can continue.
But in the meantime it’s every man for himself and God against all, with no quarter given to the retail purchasers of EpiPens, and be careful to point out all the other participants in the food chain who are snarfing down the chum with equal gusto.
I couldn’t help feeling that I was standing, a drink in hand, at the opening reception for convention of Tax Factors for the Ferme générale: the peasants are uneasy, the future uncertain, but the event is being held in such a *nice* hotel - and after all, the precipitants work *hard* to collect those taxes, and so little of it, after all, goes to themselves.