Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey Proposed Paying Pharmacy Companies Rebates for OxyContin Overdoses

nytimes.com

21–30 of 110 posts

Re: McKinsey Proposed Paying Pharmacy Companies Rebates for OxyContin Overdoses

#21
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. So much this. If everyone can realize this. We all are nothing but resources for companies, politicians and law enforcement is there to help the prior two. It really is us the people that they are afraid of.

If you’re cynical enough, you could easily argue that every relationship that any person has is based on nothing more than resources. Somebody claims to love their wife? Unlikely. They’re just looking for some love and fulfilment resource. Do you really like your friends? Or do you just like the way friendship makes you feel?

Anyone who says that seriously is someone to be steered way the hell away from, that’s way too sociopathic for my comfort.

Re: McKinsey Proposed Paying Pharmacy Companies Rebates for OxyContin Overdoses

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you define resource so broadly as to constitute anything, at which point the statement becomes “all relationships are based on things” ... which, like, yes of course

Whether resources are material or not isn’t relevant. The attention, care, kindness, compassion that a person has to offer others is a resource (and a finite one at that). The basis of the claim is that these entities are viewing other people as nothing more than what those people have to offer them. If you prescribe to the doctrine of psychological egoism, then that is how every single person views every single rela…

Sure there is; even with so reductionist a view, those relationships can be healthy because they are between equals, and can be done with reciprocity.

With a corporation or politician? Not so much.

Re: McKinsey Proposed Paying Pharmacy Companies Rebates for OxyContin Overdoses

#23
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn’t CVS just doing whatever the doctor is prescribing without any judgement? i don’t see how CVS would be liable here unless they failed to verify the authenticity of a prescription or something on purpose.

It doesn't prevent them from being sued and incurring costs as a result or having to spend resources complying with investigations.

ok, so a rebate is less “here’s a reward for OD’ing people” and more “we’ll soften the blow if you continue filling Oxy with no judgment if someone ends up dying” I guess

Re: McKinsey Proposed Paying Pharmacy Companies Rebates for OxyContin Overdoses

#24
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am guessing that it was meant as legal/political/social cover? Hazard pay for the potential litigation they might face? CVS put some limits on opioid prescriptions: https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/21/cvs-opioid-prescription-...

isn’t CVS just doing whatever the doctor is prescribing without any judgement? i don’t see how CVS would be liable here unless they failed to verify the authenticity of a prescription or something on purpose.

CVS can choose to set metrics and implement systems to discourage noticing that one person is pulling multiple scripts, for example.

Also remember that CVS is basically a monopoly wholesaler as well as a retailer — so they can play games at that level as well like stuffing the channel to favor the manufacturer that pays them more on the backend. Railroad trusts and standard oil did the same thing in the 1900s.

This is especially true in places where states have hobbled regulatory power. Little towns in West Virginia were dispensing more opioids than counties in other places. In places with more robust regulation, the pharmacists will lose their license.

The whole thing is disgusting and really illustrates how amoral and evil outfits like McKinsey are, and how their way of thinking is a more in your face vision of what many corporate leaders believe.

Re: McKinsey Proposed Paying Pharmacy Companies Rebates for OxyContin Overdoses

#26
Moral absolutism has been out of vogue for 50 years, but I encourage everyone to give it a spin. It’s provides such wonderful moral clarity and said clarity is surprisingly effective at rooting out the sort of poisonous people who ruin friendships, companies and societies. I’ve dealt with numerous McKinsey consultants over a 30 year career. I’ve collected enough data points to feel safe in concluding the following:

• McKinsey is a vile organization without any redemption.

• That they are not condemned as such speak volumes about both our societies’ moral failings and more broadly, our individual failure to care about the people McKinsey helped murder.

• That last point bears repeating: McKinsey will happily and knowingly murder people for money. That only seems like a preposterous or exaggerated statement because we are not accustomed to hearing someone be impolite to evil people in a position to pay us well.

• People who work for McKinsey are sociopaths. Not occasionally. Not sometimes. In all cases. The only exception being people recruited directly from college who quit that firm within a few years of joining.

• Many here are in a position to punish McKinsey alumni. If you are asked to interview someone with McKinsey on their resume, I believe you should absolutely state that they performed terribly regardless of what occurred. I personally find it rewarding to repoer that their interview behavior during the interview seemed erratic, to the extent that I questioned their sobriety. If your sense of humor is as dark as mine I highly suggest this approach. If you have hire / fire authority, it’s much simpler. Don’t hire, do fire.

• Organizations like McKinsey exist because we collectively accept their behavior. When we stop doing that, McKinsey will stop addicting broken, damaged and hurting people to opiates.

Stopping McKinsey is up to us. I make an argument from the left. But I think there are also compelling objections to these parasites that can be made from a position far to the right.

This doesn’t and shouldn’t be a left/right thing. Because it is absolutely a parasites vs producers thing. And everyone, regardless of politics, will be healthier freed of this particular tapeworm.

Re: McKinsey Proposed Paying Pharmacy Companies Rebates for OxyContin Overdoses

#27
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. So much this. If everyone can realize this. We all are nothing but resources for companies, politicians and law enforcement is there to help the prior two. It really is us the people that they are afraid of.

If you’re cynical enough, you could easily argue that every relationship that any person has is based on nothing more than resources. Somebody claims to love their wife? Unlikely. They’re just looking for some love and fulfilment resource. Do you really like your friends? Or do you just like the way friendship makes you feel?

There's a difference between getting something out of a relationship, or even having the relationship contingent on that benefit, and doing absolutely everything short of what will land you in prison to get the maximum benefit for the minimal cost.

My favorite local breakfast place only serves me because I pay, but I forgot my wallet one time and they just waived the charge. There's a spectrum between altruism and exploitation, and it's important we put pressure on large organizations to stay away from the exploitation end because it's clear some won't do it on their own.

Re: McKinsey Proposed Paying Pharmacy Companies Rebates for OxyContin Overdoses

#28
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. So much this. If everyone can realize this. We all are nothing but resources for companies, politicians and law enforcement is there to help the prior two. It really is us the people that they are afraid of.

If you’re cynical enough, you could easily argue that every relationship that any person has is based on nothing more than resources. Somebody claims to love their wife? Unlikely. They’re just looking for some love and fulfilment resource. Do you really like your friends? Or do you just like the way friendship makes you feel?

You've redefined resource to be literally anything, in an attempt of coming to a materialist worldview.

There's three important attributes of resources. Firstly, resources of a same type, defined by their use, are fungible. Secondly, resources are a means to an end. Lastly, resources are valuable either because of their uses or because they can be exchanged.

Now, love, fulfillment, and the feeling of friendship realize neither of the three properties. Neither does a wife or a friend.

Because of that, I don't think one can say that every relationship a person has is based on nothing more than resources. Personal relationships are categorically different.

Additionally, unlike material relationships, personal relationships are most healthy and effective when they are between equals.

Re: McKinsey Proposed Paying Pharmacy Companies Rebates for OxyContin Overdoses

#29
> On Tuesday, Purdue pleaded guilty to criminal charges, including defrauding federal health agencies and paying illegal kickbacks to doctors. The company also faces roughly $8.3 billion in penalties. As part of the settlement, members of the Sackler family will pay $225 million in civil penalties.

They made over $12 billion in profit as of last year[0], so they still came out ahead...

0: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/10/04/the-sa...

Post reply on HN