Live data from Hacker News

How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

bloomberg.com

91–100 of 230 posts

Re: How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

#91
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. Frédéric Bastiat

I've been thinking about this a lot, and really believe America was founded on "breaking the rules" and has had really great successes, but really awful consequences. Specific to the pandemic, no one wants to wear a mask. We've been conditioned to believe that breaking the rules (ie disruption) is a good way to move forward. Outside the pandemic, we see oil companies and other manufactures move their operations overs…

> Specific to the pandemic, no one wants to wear a mask.

This is another one of those situations where the crazies are driving the conversation, because they are much louder than their actual portion of the population. According to Gallup the portion of their panel who “never” wear a mask outside of their home is 10%, while those who “rarely” wear a mask is 2%.

The vast majority of the population wears masks “always” (50%), “very often” (27%), or at least “sometimes” (11%). The vast majority of us are complying with mask regulations; we’re just not making a lot of noise about it.

Re: How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and really believe America was founded on "breaking the rules" and has had really great successes, but really awful consequences. Specific to the pandemic, no one wants to wear a mask. We've been conditioned to believe that breaking the rules (ie disruption) is a good way to move forward. Outside the pandemic, we see oil companies and other manufactures move their operations overs…

Interesting take. I've always held that Americans only care about those that they can see from the edge of their property line (neighbors and whatnot). Everyone else? Fuck em. Distrust of all forms of government is practically bred into us, and it shows at all levels. Corporations have pretty much filled that power vacuum.

Plus, we Americans embrace or at least excuse this corporate power. Elected government tries to control what we can say online? Censorship! Overreach! Unaccountable Facebook and Twitter try to control what we say online? Yes, please! No problem! If you don't like it, leave! It's not censorship because corporate power is doing it rather than government power!

Re: How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

#93
post #68

If we had a justice system, that $10.8 billion would be recoverable, and used to try to rehabilitate the victims. But we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system, and a financial system.

Surely 100% of opiod usage isn't bad? So 100% of the $10.8B isn't blood money? I'm sure some % of the opioids really helped people. For example, my grandpa has extremely painful back pain, and opioids were a godsend. Yeah, he got addicted, but he's in his 90s anyway, so at least he can live the rest of his life without dealing with crippling back pain.

Sure, there are good applications of opiates. However, from my understanding, the $10.8B number is the amount that the court has ordered, i.e. the "blood money" and punitive amount, not the total profit.

Re: How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting take. I've always held that Americans only care about those that they can see from the edge of their property line (neighbors and whatnot). Everyone else? Fuck em. Distrust of all forms of government is practically bred into us, and it shows at all levels. Corporations have pretty much filled that power vacuum.

Plus, we Americans embrace or at least excuse this corporate power. Elected government tries to control what we can say online? Censorship! Overreach! Unaccountable Facebook and Twitter try to control what we say online? Yes, please! No problem! If you don't like it, leave! It's not censorship because corporate power is doing it rather than government power!

While I somewhat agree with the sentiment, there is a big difference between our government which has the power to take away our rights and a corporation censoring us.

Re: How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

#95
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but this is so naive. They were billionaires yesterday and they’re going to be billionaires tomorrow. Their reputation is going to be fine because we live in a society that absolutely worships money and those who have it. People with that kind of money can pay to scrub the internet.

They might even run for president.

Or the current president might place them as the head of Health and Human Services.

Re: How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you vastly overestimate the attention span of the public on this. If you asked 100 random people on the street who was behind the opioid crisis, I’d be shocked if 10 knew. You also don’t acknowledge how easy it is for the wealthy to hide their money via intermediary organizations and shell companies. It’s not like they absolutely have to donate using the Sackler name.

> If you asked 100 random people on the street who was behind the opioid crisis, I’d be shocked if 10 knew. Never argued against that, and I don't disagree with that at all. But if someone cares to do even the bare minimum of research, it's easy to come up with the Sacklers. What I am arguing against is that the Sacklers will somehow be able to use their wealth to scrub Google et al of their association with OxyConti…

> ...if someone cares to do even the bare minimum of research...

Aye, there's the rub.

Re: How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

#97

TL; DR The Sacklers extracted about $6.1bn after taxes but before capital gains or losses and propose to pay $3bn in their settlement. To my knowledge, none of them have been arrested yet, though the wheels of criminal justice turn slower than those of civil law.

This would be a awesome time for Cops tv show to go get them.

Re: How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

#98
post #13

I never understand why doctors are not blamed for prescribing these. Are doctors not supposed to be responsible for prescriptions? If they are not, should we stop allowing them to prescribe? Why don’t doctors unions throw out members who would claim to have been hoodwinked by pharmaceutical companies?

Not that it makes this situation any better but the entire pharma marketing landscape was FAR worse in 90s and 00s.

Re: How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and really believe America was founded on "breaking the rules" and has had really great successes, but really awful consequences. Specific to the pandemic, no one wants to wear a mask. We've been conditioned to believe that breaking the rules (ie disruption) is a good way to move forward. Outside the pandemic, we see oil companies and other manufactures move their operations overs…

> Specific to the pandemic, no one wants to wear a mask. This is another one of those situations where the crazies are driving the conversation, because they are much louder than their actual portion of the population. According to Gallup the portion of their panel who “never” wear a mask outside of their home is 10%, while those who “rarely” wear a mask is 2%. The vast majority of the population wears masks “always”…

while the 12% that never/rarely wear a mask reflects your "vast majority of the population wears masks" statement, 12% is very significant.

Re: How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is (well, was) a new drug. Doctors cannot have learned about a drug in medical school when that drug did not exist when they were studying. My parents are retired Dutch GPs who also ran a small pharmacy[0], so I know a little about how this works, at least in the Netherlands (I admit that this is a pretty big caveat, because (aside from the obvious biases that this introduces) the opioid crisis doesn't exist her…

> Doctors only start prescribing a drug after it has been approved by the relevant governmental bodies for their usage. So if OxyContin got through the FDA, and was marked as safe for the usage it was advertised for, then I do not understand why you suggest that it's the fault of doctors that they prescribed it in those cases. The caveat is that once a drug is approved for XYZ, doctors can, and do, prescribe it for a…

That is a fair point, and does imply that there are other big problems with how drugs are prescribed in the US.
Post reply on HN