Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

reuters.com

471–480 of 572 posts

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name a big company or C-level executive that has faced any meaningful consequences for their misdeeds in the last 15 years. I can think of Bernie Madoff, but he was punished because he swindled rich people. If he swindled poor people he'd be on the cover of Fortune magazine.

I agree that big companies don't face meaningful consequences often enough for their misdeeds. My comment was referring to your statement that if we did hold them accountable, the economy would fall apart.

Why do we cling to the idea that the present form of our economy is somehow justified or sustainable?

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#472

The war on drugs is responsible for the opioid crisis. Companies psychopathically seek out profits, and need to be kept in check, but that does not diminish the fact that US (and Canadian) drug policy bears direct responsibility for opioid deaths. This kind of news story, while maybe satisfying, is a red herring. As long as addiction is criminalized, and legal drug supplies dont exist, it doesn't matter how many Purd…

since we are addressing the root cause in this sub-thread, i submit that we need to go one layer deeper than just the 'war on drugs' what causes individuals to seek drugs or other harmful substances? Surely,similar substances existed throughout history? (maybe not as lethal, but still...) I think it is the despair and lack of spiritual fulfillment for a person, and i think this coincides with what has been a failure…

Well, I agree, a lot about modern society contributes to the kind of mental health problems that can lead to substance abuse.

But for better or worse, overall health outcomes are better than at any time in history.

So if you're thinking that people being idle, bored, robbed of any agency, and unfulfilled is a root cause of drug abuse, I agree.

But that boils down to being at the top of the needs hierarchy, and moving down has a set of bigger problems with it.

So as long as we're here, treating opioid use as a disease or chronic condition, instead of as some kind of "criminal" hedonistic behavior we should be punished for, goes a long way to reduce any harm it causes.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#473
post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you design an unemployment/UBI system that provides an incentive not to use it unless necessary and not to stay on it any longer than is necessary?

My concern is that lenders will start loaning against it at ridiculously high rates on UBI income streams - "Get 100K today for signing away your UBI payments!" or "just pay us the monthly amount of your UBI payment!". After thinking about it a while, I realized the law would need to protect the UBI payments from being accessible in bankruptcy. That would significantly limit lenders willing to lend on that money. Tho…

Congress changes the terms of credit and bankruptcy all the time. See the limitations that lenders bribed Biden into including in his "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act". As a part of a UBI law, they could just say that creditors have no right to recover UBI payments. Take everything he owns, but you can't come back next week to take more.

It could be that housing rents in certain situations could increase in response to UBI, but in most cases having more money gives one more choice, not less. A family who are now stuck in a rattrap located conveniently with respect to public transport might move to a better cheaper place in a more remote location and buy an old car. They wouldn't have to stay at the mercy of their current landlord. Other people in other situations might respond in other ways.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fault in our society is not that one party is bad and the other party it's good, it's that both parties think that about each other and believe a whole bunch of distortions based on the extremes of either party. Rs think Ds are destroying our society just as much as Ds think Rs are doing the same. Both sides are vilifying Is for not taking enough of a stand on The Issues That Will End The World TM. The only way o…

Both parties are bad because only bad parties can succeed in our bad system. Also because they're basically identical. They are ants contending over a postage stamp, on a continent of political possibility. The only thing we can expect them to do is what they've already been paid by lobbyists to do before. That's why CARES Act is more of the same, except worse, that we already saw in the 2008-9 "bailouts". The next t…

I agree with most of what you're saying. There's a huge space of possibilities that are completely invisible to the current system. But I disagree weakly with the second to last sentence, and strongly with the last sentence.

The system we have cannot be changed via the methods it allows, however.

Not all at once, that's for sure. But the right small changes early on can lead to very large changes later. Some of those are possible, like voting methods other than first-past-the-post or instant-runoff. Some of them are in the direct control of people who visit HN, like the nature of social networking algorithms, and the metrics chosen to optimize them.

Juvenile pleas for understanding only prolong our misery.

For what it's worth, when I was a teenager, I was far less interested in understanding or compromise. That was about two decades ago. It's only after living in many, many different places as an adult that I think that "understanding" is not only possible, but necessary. My perspective now is anything but juvenile.

When I'm saying we need to bridge the gap between left and right, I'm not saying we need to preserve the status quo exactly as it is. I'm saying that not doing so will practically guarantee that all sides end up worse than the status quo.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asserting your debt as more important than someone's housing does seem like a pretty shitbag thing to me.

You’ve drawn yourself a caricature of a hard scrabble borrower who’s just trying to make ends meet and has the best of intentions with regards to their debts. In my Prosper experience that was the rare exception. The typical defaulting borrower bought themselves a shiny new toy and literally felt entitled to the money. As if their success in securing the loan was sufficient justification to have earned the money outr…

Why does Prosper encourage loans for the purchase of shiny toys? Does this service benefit their customers?

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Justice was not done in the case of Purdue. The Sackler family absconded with billions. They still need to be held to account.

It does seem a rather gaping hole in our legal/finance system that it's possible for a company to do a risky thing where the upside will occur soon, yet the downside will be delayed many years. Then the shareholders of the company can take out all the profits of the upside, walk away with all the cash and declare the company bankrupt when the downside happens. I think the only proper fix would be to disallow companie…

[deleted]

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#477

This is far too low. A fine large enough to destroy the company (as was effectively done to Purdue) would have been the only palatable outcome. And even more importantly, legal repercussions for all their employees who were personally responsible for this. All this settlement achieves is 'a cost of doing business', as they say. It's not punishment or deterrence. McKinsey and other companies like them will do similar…

From the New York Times article, "The amount McKinsey is paying is substantially more than it earned from opioid-related work with Purdue or Johnson & Johnson, Endo International and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, its other opioid-maker clients, a person involved in the settlement negotiations said" To me, "a cost of doing business" implies that they're making more money than it costs them. Here at least, that doesn't…

The money they make is the total of all the money they make from shady immoral shit. The opioid project wasn't the only shady project contributing to their top line.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#478
post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While amusing, this attempts to humanize them and somewhat whitewash their abominable actions. They are sitting at the top of the power matrix making lives miserable and dangerous for the ones with least power - paycheck to paycheck workers, those with addictions, inmates in Rikers, dissidents. The fact that they are aware of their own lack of usefulness makes the whole enterprise even more cynical and shady.

I'm not sure it's all that different from you or I when we are uncaring towards a homeless person asking for money, or when we decide we value a latte more than a week's worth of meals for a starving child in Africa. Everyone seems to imagine their actions are "normal" and "socially appropriate" but if only they were to break out of their lot in life and reach that next rung up, suddenly they'd be more generous, more…

Advising a pharma company on how to turbocharge opioid sales and fan the flames of a raging painkiller epidemic resulting in 450,000 deaths is same as not giving money to a homeless person.

I am utterly flabbergasted. Words fail me which is rarely the case ;)

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fault in our society is not that one party is bad and the other party it's good, it's that both parties think that about each other and believe a whole bunch of distortions based on the extremes of either party. Rs think Ds are destroying our society just as much as Ds think Rs are doing the same. Both sides are vilifying Is for not taking enough of a stand on The Issues That Will End The World TM. The only way o…

Do you really think both sides are the same? Do you really think if Biden loses in 2024 he would call upon his supporters to attack the government? Do you really think that even if Biden did do this, that he would find dozens of supporters in Congress? Sometimes one side really is worse and acting enlightened by saying "both sides are the same" is becoming increasingly comical as empirical evidence continues to mount…

Who do you think destroyed this neutral space? Do you genuinely think both sides are equally at fault for destroying it?

The question isn't who removed it, the question is who will restore it. What will it take to get human beings talking to each other again?

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both parties are bad because only bad parties can succeed in our bad system. Also because they're basically identical. They are ants contending over a postage stamp, on a continent of political possibility. The only thing we can expect them to do is what they've already been paid by lobbyists to do before. That's why CARES Act is more of the same, except worse, that we already saw in the 2008-9 "bailouts". The next t…

I agree with most of what you're saying. There's a huge space of possibilities that are completely invisible to the current system. But I disagree weakly with the second to last sentence, and strongly with the last sentence. The system we have cannot be changed via the methods it allows, however. Not all at once, that's for sure. But the right small changes early on can lead to very large changes later. Some of those…

>When I'm saying we need to bridge the gap between left and right, I'm not saying we need to preserve the status quo exactly as it is.

The Democrats have been trying to bridge the gap for 30 years and the Republicans keep spitting in their face (Newt Gingrich in the 90s, the entire party vs Obama in the 00s). The Democrats seem to have finally figured this out and Republicans are now upset that it isn't working any more. Republicans aren't interested in bridging the gap because if they do, their base will find someone who's "a real fighter, not a RINO".

Post reply on HN