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

#561

Post by mlac » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #473

mlac wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cou…

I hear you, but I still question how long those on UBI could get ahead of the rat traps before the non-rat trap options become their old cost + the cost of UBI, effectively transferring most of the UBI benefit to the landlords and ending us up in a similar place.

In my mind, it's about answering the question of how we lower barriers to moving to ownership and getting people out of the poverty cycles. There are two major hurdles I see:

- The current structure right now, and incentives that exist, are so good at extracting money that they might quickly eat up the additional money handed out - whether it's through financial instruments or increased prices for basic necessities.

- The people that consistently don't have money are bad at earning money, bad at keeping money, or some combination of the two. UBI only helps the people who can't earn money, but doesn't solve the financial literacy problem or the root cause that a group of people is bad at keeping money.

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

#562

Post by s1artibartfast » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #555

s1artibartfast wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we might have to agree to disagree. My understanding is that the conspiracy must intend to break the law. If one party doesn’t know the other is breaking the law, it isn’t conspiracy. If McKenzie didn’t have any illegal recommendations, or knowledge of illegal actions, they are in the clear. If they advised Perdue to do something illegal, that is a different story

> My understanding is that the conspiracy must intend to break the law. As a general rule, this is not how laws work. There are some laws that require that you know what you're doing is illegal (tax evasion is one of them), but most laws do not work this way.

I agree in general, but conspiracy is one of the few that do. They are called crimes of "specific intent".

>Conspiracy is a specific intent crime. Specific intent crimes require that the defendant act with a specific goal in mind. In the case of conspiracy, the defendant must intend to agree on a plan to commit an act and must intend to achieve the illegal goal of the conspiracy.[15] If either of these intents is missing, then the defendants cannot be charged with conspiracy.

>https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/criminal-conspir...

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

#563

Post by Matticus_Rex » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 8:38 PM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #447

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do people have such a strong opinion on what level of profit is reasonable if they don't know the default rate? The average person thinks companies make over 5x the profit they actually make, and they think the amount of profit correlates negatively with how responsible and good for the world the company is (when in fact there's very little discernable correlation, and it may be positive). What profit people begr…

> if they don't know the default rate? It's rarely ever been above 5%. Plus, a default doesn't necessarily mean the creditor lost money equal to the full value of the loan plus all interest payments. Some defaults are haircuts, some a break-even, and others simply fail to realize their full value. > and they think the amount of profit correlates negatively with how responsible and good for the world the company is (w…

> It's rarely ever been above 5%. Plus, a default doesn't necessarily mean the creditor lost money equal to the full value of the loan plus all interest payments. Some defaults are haircuts, some a break-even, and others simply fail to realize their full value.

Citation on ~5%? I've seen occasional claims that it's that low, but I've often seen it quoted in the ~20-25% range as well. And that ignores the money spent on trying to get borrowers to make good, as well.

> you just have to be willing to ignore fairness, consumer protection, environmental protection satisfaction, and employee satisfaction

Nah, some of the most profitable corporations score really well there. High profit is not well-correlated with bad behavior, even though some bad behaviors can bring high profits. It often just means the company is really good at bringing people things they find useful.

> So, do they merely have these opinions because they are uneducated or because they're misplacing blame in the system?

The people are often educated -- they're merely uneducated on the relevant info for that particular question. Most people don't know how the major systems they interact with work; we should expect them to misplace blame.

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

#564

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 11:09 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #557

nitrogen wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1960s' civil rights movement wasn't gradual accommodation. And this and a multitude of other things drove some to double down on Confederate culture and eventually led to January 6th. The US abounds with examples of blowback at home and worldwide. That needs to be taken into account somehow in any future strategy for improvement. Giving the best and least committed of your opposition some dignity should make it e…

Do you think that it is possible to reason with every person? Do you think that if someone simply sat down with every Jim Crow Southerner and explained nicely that black people deserve rights that would have solved the civil rights issues of the 60s?

Your phrasing is more extreme than what I actually said (I didn't say "every person"), but this guy seems to think so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis

> His efforts to improve race relations, in which as an African-American he engaged with members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), convinced Klansmen to leave and denounce the KKK.

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

#565

Post by minikites » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 12:31 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #564

minikites wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that it is possible to reason with every person? Do you think that if someone simply sat down with every Jim Crow Southerner and explained nicely that black people deserve rights that would have solved the civil rights issues of the 60s?

Your phrasing is more extreme than what I actually said (I didn't say "every person"), but this guy seems to think so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis > His efforts to improve race relations, in which as an African-American he engaged with members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), convinced Klansmen to leave and denounce the KKK.

Absolutely, many people can be convinced and reasoned with, I don't dispute that. What I'm saying is that there are people who are prejudiced to such an extent that there is no reasoning with them. You have never addressed how we deal with that problem. There are people like this in society at large and there are people like this in positions of power in government and in the private sector. Both problems need to be addressed in some way, because the people in government and the private sector derive power from the people in society who support them and we can't tolerate this in a civil society. I don't know what order to solve them in and perhaps solving one would solve the other, but it's a problem that prevents us from working together in a more fundamental way as a society. Ignoring it is not an option.

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

#566

Post by trhway » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 12:57 AM UTC

StormyWeather wrote: post #441

trhway wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the many troubling associations McKinsey has had with shithole companies. not only shithole companies. At the total service of shithole governments: "McKinsey Bans Moscow Staff From Attending Pro-Navalny Protest ... In line with policy, McKinsey employees must not support any political activity either publicly or privately. This ban does include posts in social media featuring your political views or your attitude t…

I call bullshit on this email being sent by the firm until I see it (though I totally believe it may have been sent by someone working at the Moscow office) Grounds: - it goes directly against several key employees rights policies which we are reminded of by the firm itself several times a year - its formulation is very different from the firm's language in across-the-board communications

>I call bullshit on this email being sent by the firm until I see it

The firm didn't deny it. It issued retraction. So, it is genuine. And the firm wants the Russian regime to know that it is genuine. All that absolutely not surprising given the Russian environment.

>- it goes directly against several key employees rights policies which we are reminded of by the firm itself several times a year

nor policy nor "employees rights" (who is going to enforce them? Russian gov-t?) are worth losing GazProm and Norilsknickel as clients and becoming political enemy of Putin. People in Russia are arrested today for just retweet of a thread mentioning the date of protests (like that RBC editor).

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

#567

Post by AshWolfy » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #564

minikites wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that it is possible to reason with every person? Do you think that if someone simply sat down with every Jim Crow Southerner and explained nicely that black people deserve rights that would have solved the civil rights issues of the 60s?

Your phrasing is more extreme than what I actually said (I didn't say "every person"), but this guy seems to think so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis > His efforts to improve race relations, in which as an African-American he engaged with members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), convinced Klansmen to leave and denounce the KKK.

I actually talked to him once, his strategy isnt to approach kkk members to convince them to leave, but to let members who are questioning approach him.

He also told me its just as important to disrupt their organizing and recruiting efforts to stop new people from joining

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

#568

Post by underwater » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 4:08 AM UTC

dataexporter wrote: post #449

underwater wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the first scenario the borrower can't pay their rent, is evicted and possibly becomes homeless. In the second scenario the worst case is that the payday lender becomes insolvent, the company collapses, and the workers go and find other jobs because they're not the ones suffering financial stress. How is that worse.

While I agree with the comments about predatory lending, I kind of feel that it has more to do with being more financially aware before agreeing to such loans. Payday lending is closer to the predatory lending practices, but I see the same kind of attitude among borrowers at lower interest rate products as well. Borrowing when you know that you will not be able to repay the loan (or with the intention of not repaying…

Your comparing someone who is in immediate financial stress to a layed off employee who may run into trouble in the future.

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

#569

Post by tibbetts » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 12:45 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #529

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 wellbein…

Responsibility doesn’t sum to 100%. If I fly on a crappy airline and get in a plane crash, it was partly my fault, and also the fault of pilots, maintenance people, regulators, executives, and many more. If someone makes a box with a hole in it labeled “free prize inside” which chops off your fingers, it’s mostly their fault. If everyone knows that opiates are addictive, and a pharmaceutical company says they figured out how to make non-addictive ones, and gets regulator approval, and convinces doctors to prescribe their new drug, and to tell patients it is not addictive, then I think lack of personal responsibility is only one small part of the problem.

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

#570

Post by tibbetts » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 12:47 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #528

iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Falling life expectancy is a statistical fiction due to changing demographics. And health/medical outcomes are still better, most of the problem is systems that encourage people to die because they can’t afford care.