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

Post by AshWolfy » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 2:39 AM UTC

leesalminen wrote: post #504

jessaustin wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changes for the better will necessarily be extreme. If that weren't the case, we would have found a way to accomplish them already. Your "conservative" aunt won't like the changes we need any more than your "liberal" uncle will. News media firms are owned by people who like and propagandize in favor of the current system. It isn't important that all Americans like each other. In our current situation, 95% of American…

> Changes for the better will necessarily be extreme. It’s long been my loosely held belief that _extreme_ change to a political system will _necessarily_ harm the average citizen. I think history has shown that to be true fairly consistently.

Post by AshWolfy » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 2:44 AM UTC

gnulinux wrote: post #401

minikites wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If big companies started facing consequences for their actions our economy would fall apart.

So let's allow all big companies to do whatever the fuck they want, because otherwise "our economy would fall apart"? This is the darkest comment I read on HN.

Post by minikites » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 2:57 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #507

minikites wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 m…

We have about as much chance of changing politicians by talking about their parties as we do of changing the outcome of a sporting event by yelling harder for our favorite team at the (30-second-delayed) TV. Maybe we should be more interested in what people can do, than what politicians can't.

Post by malandrew » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:08 AM UTC

lostcolony wrote: post #426

bumby wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally I’ve seen both sides. I’ve seen people get social security or disability benefits and coast for the rest of their lives without working even though they have the ability to do so without affecting their benefits. I assume they value sleeping in and not having to answer to anyone. Their idea of a good time is spending hours hiking or watching tv or various other things that have negligible cost. I’ve also…

Yeah; I wasn't saying one side doesn't exist. It was more in tandem with my parent post - the people who are happy to watch TV, hike, just kinda bum around, doing nothing else, desiring nothing else...how often are they great workers? I meant the question in response to the observation that "we don't know what happens long term if people are promised this kind of money" - right, but the presumption there is that it w…

Post by spoonjim » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:14 AM UTC

leafmeal wrote: post #461

crumbshot wrote: post #326

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…