McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by spoonjim » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:16 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #490

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…

Wait. You want to destroy a $10B+ annual revenue business that does consulting across almost every industry because of this one project? Edit: to the reply comparing this to murder, not it's not. And even if you do compare it, the court look at an individuals standing and contribution to the community all the time in sentencing.

McKinsey is one of the most sociopathic corporate entities in the world and this has been proven time and time again.

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

#522

Post by jancsika » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:17 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #487

nitrogen wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

The aptly named "First Steps Act" smells a "No True Changes" fallacy here. :)

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

#523

Post by malandrew » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:20 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #431

lostcolony wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question I always wonder, when people bring this up, is if they've applied it to themselves. If they had a basic UBI of, say, $20k, would they quit their job, and not look for work, not work on personal projects, not look to go back to school, nothing, just do what they are assuming others will do, sit around, watch TV, that sort of thing? Rather than keep striving, keep working, and have both an extra $20k being…

> If they had a basic UBI of, say, $20k, would they quit their job, and not look for work, not work on personal projects, not look to go back to school, nothing, just do what they are assuming others will do, sit around, watch TV, that sort of thing? Rather than keep striving, keep working, and have both an extra $20k being paid to them currently, and that safety net in place in case they lose their job? Depends on p…

There's also nothing stopping people from accumulating all the things they need for a pleasant life of leisure and hobbies and then once they achieve that deciding to freeload off UBI and enjoy those hobbies. I'm less than a decade out from having most of the physical belongings I need for the myriad hobbies I enjoy. Once I get there free time plus 20k a year will be more valuable than being a contributing member of society. This is basically the basis of the entire "dirtbag" lifestyle that many partake in. I've known many dirtbaggers in my life.

The entire idea behind FIRE is achieving a passive income that you earn by being a productive member of society versus UBI giving you for free with no obligation to contribute to society.

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

#524

Post by malandrew » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:22 AM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #402

bumby wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the major fault with these studies is there participants know the benefits will end. I think this biases them towards continued working because they view it as a short term windfall that won’t sustain them rather than a long term solution. It would be incredibly hard to design an experiment to control for this. Conversely, I think the hard part about implementing UBI is that it would be incredibly hard to rol…

Indeed, I think the challenge is around committing to a 50 year study that they won't cancel later in a discretionary way. > Conversely, I think the hard part about implementing UBI is that it would be incredibly hard to roll back once people become accustomed to it So we are left with something people like and don't want to give up, and that's bad because... :)

> So we are left with something people like and don't want to give up, and that's bad because... :)

... other people are burdened with providing it against their will.

A Southern plantation owner in the pre Civil War southeast US had something they liked and didn't want to give up and it was most certainly very very bad.

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

#525

Post by lmm » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:23 AM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #465

humaniania wrote: post #460

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…

At that point you're taking away the defining characteristic of a corporation and essentially forcing people to organise as partnerships instead.

(Not an argument, just an observation)

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

#526

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:30 AM UTC

lostcolony wrote: post #370

malandrew wrote: post #367

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?

You don't have to. How many people have you met who were happy doing nothing, living with nothing, AND who made good employees doing anything at all? I've met exactly zero. The ambitious won't want to stay there; the unambitious may "unfairly" get their basic needs met, but they're hardly living the high life, and the lost -useful- labor to society is negligible. Almost certainly more than offset by the ambitious who…

[deleted]

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

#527

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:34 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#528

Post by logicchains » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:45 AM UTC

iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote: post #472

foolinaround wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

This is not true? US life expectancy is actually falling now, and due to the obesity epidemic the "average" adult is fairly unhealthy.

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

#529

Post by logicchains » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 3:50 AM UTC

jypepin wrote: post #427

so $573M settlement for 450000 overdoses. So they value life at $1275. The Sackler family is worth $13b. Ridiculous.

>So they value life at $1275.

McKinsey bears some responsiblity but not all of it; nobody forced people to take those opiates, the addicts also bear some responsiblity. The idea in modern society that people have zero responsibility for their own actions is part of why we're in this mess to begin with, because people with that attitude aren't going to work hard to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing. I'd bet at least half the people here complaining about McKinsey's behaviour are the same people who'd argue that people should just trust their doctor and do whatever the doctor suggests, and refuse to accept that often what's financially in the doctor's best interests is not in the best interests of the patient's health.

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

#530

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 4:38 AM UTC

minikites wrote: post #515

nitrogen wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought our government was supposed to be "of the people" (also known as a democracy). Maybe we should expand access to voting (e.g. easier to register, no-excuse mail-in ballots, adding polling places, making election day a holiday, and/or extending voting days). We could also address gerrymandering and other structural issues (e.g. some system other than first-past-the-post). Now think about which side wants to d…

Now think about which side wants to do this and which side wants to stop them.

And then? Instead of lumping people into "sides" like some seem to want us to do because they benefit from conflict, we can ask "Okay, the party can't be reasoned with, but what about the people?" I'm not denying there are politicians and pundits and whatnot who do everything they are accused of. I'm saying we can try to ignore them and focus on human connection with the people who follow them out of tradition but don't fully agree with them. Do you have any ideas for how to start doing that?

I don't normally read people's comment history. I read your past day or so of comments to see why we seem to be talking past one another. IMO the phrasing of some of your comments tends toward escalation rather than discussion. (Disclaimer: I don't represent HN itself in the slightest, nor are my views likely to be fully correlated with the HN mainstream)