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

The Family Making Billions from the Opioid Crisis

esquire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 259 posts

Re: The Family Making Billions from the Opioid Crisis

#81

Post by burntwater »

dsacco wrote: post #67
herodotus wrote: post #15

In my experience with local philanthropy, there are donors who have no interest in "naming opportunities" and those for whom it is all about the name. To me it says a lot about the character of the donor if they specifically want as little fuss as possible about the donation, and especially if they do not want something named after them. It is the cause they support, not their own egos. Personally, the more often I s…

I’m more of a consequentialist; I consider a larger philanthropist who cares about public attribution to be more admirable than someone who is a smaller philanthropist but doesn’t care about public attribution. Personally, I would absolutely like to have my name on something if I were to donate tens or hundreds of millions of dollars towards it. In my opinion the intention or ego of a philanthropist is approximately…

You seem to be implying that philanthropists who don't do naming rights only give smaller donations. Any evidence to back that up?

If Philanthropist A donates $10 million and asks for his name on the building, while Philanthropist B donates $10 million and requests no name on the building, I will absolutely have much more respect for Philanthropist B.

Re: The Family Making Billions from the Opioid Crisis

#82

Post by astura »

refurb wrote: post #45
dyeje wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by switching? All of the drugs you listed are opioids. It's not clever, it's a fact.

It's called reading with a critical eye. They talk about OxyContin, then talk about the hundreds of thousands of opioid deaths. If you're not paying attention, you'd think OxyContin caused all of them.

OxyContin was certainly a catalyst to this entire epidemic.

Re: The Family Making Billions from the Opioid Crisis

#83

Post by tclancy »

neilk wrote: post #78

It's interesting how HN has near-universal disdain for people covertly making billions off an addictive product. But much of our industry is explicitly, openly trying to create addictive experiences.

This smells of whataboutism and whatever the ethics of making addictive software, it's killed far fewer people so far.

Re: The Family Making Billions from the Opioid Crisis

#84

Post by matt4077 »

herodotus wrote: post #15

In my experience with local philanthropy, there are donors who have no interest in "naming opportunities" and those for whom it is all about the name. To me it says a lot about the character of the donor if they specifically want as little fuss as possible about the donation, and especially if they do not want something named after them. It is the cause they support, not their own egos. Personally, the more often I s…

I see where you're coming from, but consider the effects public philanthropy has.

Bill & Melinda Gates, for example, have become role models, changing the cultural norms of behaviour for the super rich. Warren Buffet's addition to their foundation can be directly linked to their efforts, but there are without a doubt hundreds more following their lead less explicitly. Zuckerberg comes to mind (although I'm not sure how 'real' his efforts are).

That's far better than what previously defined that slice of society, i. e. golf, private jets, and faux-gold interiors.

Re: The Family Making Billions from the Opioid Crisis

#85

Post by tclancy »

lr4444lr wrote: post #48
joemag wrote: post #27

Aren’t the doctors to blame for this as well? It always surprised me how quickly and easily they prescribe serious painkillers. A few years ago I had a tooth pulled, and the doctor gave me prescription painkiller. In the end, I ended up using regular ibuprofen, and that was more than enough. I wonder how much of this comes pharmaceutical sales reps pressuring the doctors to use their medicine. That whole system seems…

If your doctor is making actual medical decisions based on a pharma. rep's sales pitch, find yourself another doctor pronto.

But how would you necessarily know? And not everyone is equipped to make such a determination. Lots of people still treat doctors as infallible demigods.

Re: The Family Making Billions from the Opioid Crisis

#87

Post by zappo2938 »

herodotus wrote: post #15

In my experience with local philanthropy, there are donors who have no interest in "naming opportunities" and those for whom it is all about the name. To me it says a lot about the character of the donor if they specifically want as little fuss as possible about the donation, and especially if they do not want something named after them. It is the cause they support, not their own egos. Personally, the more often I s…

Steven Spielberg rarely gives his name to donations and philanthropy because, as he said in an interview years ago why he lent his name to the Shoah foundation, to the Jews god does not recognize a good deed unless it is anonymous. Meaning it has to be done with humility and doing it for name sake is a matter of pride so it goes unnoticed by god.

Re: The Family Making Billions from the Opioid Crisis

#88

Post by dsacco »

burntwater wrote: post #81
dsacco wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m more of a consequentialist; I consider a larger philanthropist who cares about public attribution to be more admirable than someone who is a smaller philanthropist but doesn’t care about public attribution. Personally, I would absolutely like to have my name on something if I were to donate tens or hundreds of millions of dollars towards it. In my opinion the intention or ego of a philanthropist is approximately…

You seem to be implying that philanthropists who don't do naming rights only give smaller donations. Any evidence to back that up? If Philanthropist A donates $10 million and asks for his name on the building, while Philanthropist B donates $10 million and requests no name on the building, I will absolutely have much more respect for Philanthropist B.

> You seem to be implying that philanthropists who don't do naming rights only give smaller donations.

No, I’m not. I constructed extreme upper and lower bounds as a baseline for comparing axioms. That was the purpose of my reference to the apocryphal, “now we’re just haggling over price” quote.

Re: The Family Making Billions from the Opioid Crisis

#90

Post by burntwater »

dsacco wrote: post #88
burntwater wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be implying that philanthropists who don't do naming rights only give smaller donations. Any evidence to back that up? If Philanthropist A donates $10 million and asks for his name on the building, while Philanthropist B donates $10 million and requests no name on the building, I will absolutely have much more respect for Philanthropist B.

> You seem to be implying that philanthropists who don't do naming rights only give smaller donations. No, I’m not. I constructed extreme upper and lower bounds as a baseline for comparing axioms. That was the purpose of my reference to the apocryphal, “now we’re just haggling over price” quote.

Axioms that don't exist in the comment you replied to, so I'm unsure why you're bringing them up here.
Post reply on HN