Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#661

Post by bumby »

labcomputer wrote: post #659
bumby wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least initially, I'm glad to see this verdict if it means such behavior can't hide behind the corporate veil. However, it's important to acknowledge it's not necessarily a win-win-win. By reading Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion, this decision seems to delay opioid victims the settlement they previously won. > "As a result, opioid victims are now deprived of the substantial monetary recovery that they long f…

> By reading Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion, this decision seems to delay opioid victims the settlement they previously won. The problem is that this sets an ugly precedent. The bankruptcy settlement is basically "I can make a deal with A that takes away your ability to sue B, even though I wasn't suing B and you are". It makes no sense. The dissenting opinion is the epitome of "fuck you, I got mine." Suppose…

I don't disagree with any of this. That's the main reason why I said I think we'll have to wait and see if this ultimately leads to better outcomes. However, I think it's been shown that the very human idea of "fairness" can create spiteful, sub-optimal outcomes. Remember, "nobody gets anything" is also fair amongst victims, but certainly not optimal.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#662

Post by lazyasciiart »

yieldcrv wrote: post #342
csdreamer7 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "In a brief filed on behalf of the relatives of Mortimer Sackler, most of whom are based overseas, lawyers warned of “significant litigation costs and risks” in seeking to enforce any foreign court judgments against the family if the settlement were thrown out." I understand your point, but basically they are saying: "We hid all our assets to evade the law. Give us immunity from criminal money laundering evasion an…

> "We hid all our assets to evade the law. Give us immunity from criminal money laundering evasion and we will only pay part of what we likely would have owed." > We have those overseas money reporting laws that make it difficult for Americans to get bank accounts overseas. Let's use them! This is conflating two things. It is not criminal to move money offshore, and nothing suggested any money laundering occurred, be…

> and you can just not tell the foreign bank about your US citizenship

Holding foreign assets that you did not report on an FBAR is a crime. Lying about it to the bank that asks if you are a US citizen wod be obfuscation to support a crime. I'm not sure why you are trying to argue that nothing criminal is being done in these scenarios.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#663

Post by qarl »

FactKnower69 wrote: post #653
qarl wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are now likely to pay much less... So then why did they choose to settle? That makes no sense. The only reason a defendant settles is to minimize potential losses.

>The only reason a defendant settles is to minimize potential losses. ???

Companies don't give away their money for free.

If a company voluntarily enters into a settlement, it's because they think they're saving money somewhere else.

In this case the Sacklers are granted immunity to all future lawsuits.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#664

Post by erichocean »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #167
erichocean wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this decision was just about third-party releases, it wouldn't be before the court. And you know that.

> If this decision was just about third-party releases, it wouldn't be before the court. And you know that. What is the difference between a discharge and release as it relates to the §1123(b)(6) “any other appropriate provision” power this case is about? You seem to have clarity the Court’s members couldn’t find.

You, then: As the dissent notes, third-party releases are part of the law.

Gets called out for over-simplifying the case.

You, now: What is the difference between a discharge and release as it relates to the §1123(b)(6) “any other appropriate provision” power this case is about?

Indeed. Maybe next time, stop pretending there isn't more to it.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#665

Post by ClumsyPilot »

thegrimmest wrote: post #656
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interactions must be consensual with the possibility to opt-out backed by bankruptcy protection So student loans, as they are not discharge able in bankruptcy, are a form of debt bondage / slavery? Also in UK you have to pay to declare yourself bankrupt, which is also questionable. Also you can’t back-out of an organ sale, you are under Anastasia and then you are dead. The idea that it’s better than still being ali…

Student loans are not dischargeable by bankruptcy because an education is not an asset that can be seized and sold during the process. There should be (and are) pretty strict limits on how your wages can be garnished to repay this debt. However I do agree that student loans are a form of debt bondage, and are questionably ethical for that reason. I would much prefer student loans not be given special protection. That…

You have just spent four paragraphs outlining how it must be important to be able to backout of any agreement, how freedom is important, and now you propose semi-facist system!

> licensed professions (eg. doctors, lawyers) adopting policies that would revoke licenses for members defaulting on their student loans via bankruptcy.

Let's consider the meaning of this, and why it smells of fascism:

* An unrelated third party is recruited to use it's power to enforce government policy (if it's taxpayer money) or protect someone else's private investment. This is no longer an agreement between two parties, the loan is now backed by threat of force. The lender no longer has to ask themselves "well if we raise interest rate too much, people will default and we will suffer"

* The revoked license cannot be sold, like a house would be, it is of no use to the bank, the only effect is punitive and moral police

* If i am the doctor's employer, you have just inflicted loses upon me, to protect your investment that I have nothing to do with.

* If I am a customer or patient, and paid for a service, you have also inflicted loses upon me, it's now a crime for me to receive treatment from this doctor, despite the fact that they are qualified.

* It is affected by government policy and macroeconomics that even professional fund managers cannot predict, let alone an 18-year old student. You get high inflation due to war in Ukraine, and suddenly half of your doctors have their license revoked! Great result!

> an education is not an asset that can be seized and sold during the process

As any unsecured loan, you can take out a loan and spend it all on hookers and drugs.

I think this entire attitude is driven by the fact that in the English speaking west there is great contempt for the younger generation and they are okay to exploit. They are subject of derision and almost seen as sub-human. Why don't we treat pensioners this way, make them do some mandatory community service in the nursery to get their state pension! There would be riots in the streets!

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#666

Post by thegrimmest »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #665
thegrimmest wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Student loans are not dischargeable by bankruptcy because an education is not an asset that can be seized and sold during the process. There should be (and are) pretty strict limits on how your wages can be garnished to repay this debt. However I do agree that student loans are a form of debt bondage, and are questionably ethical for that reason. I would much prefer student loans not be given special protection. That…

You have just spent four paragraphs outlining how it must be important to be able to backout of any agreement, how freedom is important, and now you propose semi-facist system! > licensed professions (eg. doctors, lawyers) adopting policies that would revoke licenses for members defaulting on their student loans via bankruptcy. Let's consider the meaning of this, and why it smells of fascism: * An unrelated third par…

There's no force here, and hence no fascism. Having your license revoked, while harmful to your career, is not violence. Professional licensing boards and private lenders are also free agents, and can come to any sort of agreements they please. I would oppose any government intervention, as I already mentioned.

I don't however agree with any laws that bar anyone from practicing their profession without a license. If all you can afford is to get your tooth extracted with a rusty tool by a street dentist (as is common for lower classes in places like India), there should be no law preventing that from happening. It represents a consensual exchange. Making it illegal harms exactly the people who cannot afford anything else.

> You can take out a loan and spend it all on hookers and drugs

Lenders don't typically offer unsecured loans, for exactly this reason.

> the younger generation

This has nothing to do with the younger generation. It stems from from a definition of liberty that rejects implicit obligation, and emphasizes consent. We are all born into this world with nothing, and all must negotiate with the people already here for everything.

> Why don't we treat pensioners this way

I would be all for entirely abolishing taxpayer-funded old age security, which represents a quarter of the federal budget in the US. There is no consent, nor any ability to opt-out of this mandatory insurance scheme. Preparing for your old age is an individual responsibility, not a collective one.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#667

Post by juliusgeo »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #632
janice1999 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're really underselling it if anything. Over a million Americans have died so far in the opioid epidemic. That more than any of their wars, including their civil war.

> Over a million Americans have died so far in the opioid epidemic. Which of those million died from Oxycontin overdoses, which of them died from hepatitis they caught when shooting up pills with a reused drug needle?

That’s a good question. You should do some research. Maybe you can ask the families of the victims?

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#668

Post by bonzini »

Mistletoe wrote: post #640
bonzini wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ibuprofen, paracetamol, rest? From https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/opinion/sunday/surgery-ge... : if you "no longer feel the pain you will no longer know what your body is telling you. You might overexert yourself because you are no longer feeling the pain signals".

One thinks you have never had a really damaging surgery. For obstructive sleep apnea I had the back of my tongue microwaved, my deviated septum repaired, and my uvula and back of throat removed. Ibuprofen and Tylenol would not have been sufficient for recovery from that. And that is even nothing compared to other more damaging surgeries.

The article I linked explains that you can still get opioids during recovery in the hospital in other countries, it's only once you're discharged that they're a lot more careful.

There must be something intermediate between "Tylenol and ibuprofen for everything" and "Vicodin before and after canal therapy".

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#669

Post by seanmcdirmid »

darawk wrote: post #459
worik wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Opioids can't be banned until we can replace them with something equally generally effective. Opioids should not be banned Opioid addiction (I have seen a lot of it, not had it) is a social problem and is best managed with, opioids The problems stem from putting unreasonable obstacles between adicts amd their appropriate treatment. Practical legal and financial obstacles, sadistic legal obstacles, and bizarre moral…

> Opioid addiction (I have seen a lot of it, not had it) is a social problem and is best managed with, opioids I don't entirely disagree with you, but I have also seen enough people stop, who probably wouldn't have if that were the typical treatment, to be pretty cautious about that. There are a number of promising addiction treatments in the wings at the moment, in particular Ozempic and the general GLP-1 agonist cl…

> Ask China why they fought that opium war, and how they feel about such things lately. They are still mad about it.

Was this meant to be ironic? Most of the illicit fent precursors comes from China now, I would guess it’s only a matter of time until Chinese producers look inward rather than just at export, which is why I’m surprised the Chinese government isn’t taking a harder line stance on illicit fent production and export.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#670

Post by darawk »

tialaramex wrote: post #531
darawk wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

np, > Follow-up Q for you. What is the realistic way to prescribe opioids routinely and safely? The simple answer is "less and with better monitoring". The first half of that was the equilibrium that Purdue intentionally shifted in the medical establishment. The cascading effects of that are what caused the modern day opioid crisis. Unfortunately, the modern-day opioid crisis as I understand it is mostly no longer re…

> Take-home fentanyl is probably unnecessary Nah, a friend and colleague needed fentanyl lollipops at one point. You'd be at lunch and he's like "Oh I can't eat food, they had to remove my entire stomach" sucking on the lollipop, and he'd calmly explain that you mustn't touch his weird lollipop because while he can suck on it for a normal person the dose from doing so would be fatal, he'd just used so many strong pai…

Fentanyl lollipops/patches are useful in rare circumstances where someone can't swallow pills for some reason, like this one. There are other ways of achieving similar effects but its possible fentanyl is the best way to go in this situation. It is a fairly rare situation though.
Post reply on HN