The name Shkreli didn't immediately ring a bell for me, and I found this very candid interview with him on CBS News. He is very open and no-filter on every question, some of it makes a lot of sense, some of it is quite far out.
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.
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.
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.