News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Opioid makers made payments to one in 12 U.S. doctors by PeanutCurry on Friday August 18, 2017 @09:20PM (#15051032)
This doesn't sounds like an issue of too much money though, it sounds like a combination of baseline compensation not yielding a high enough return, inadequate oversight agencies to catch this sort of behavior, and the consequences of being caught not being strict enough. It could even be argued that just paying more would discourage the corrupt behavior in your hypothetical examples because the doctors are taking those actions to simply make more money.
Re:Opioid makers made payments to one in 12 U.S. doctors by alexanderdmitri on Friday August 18, 2017 @09:37PM (#15051113)
I'm just saying because of the lack of systemic solutions (or cures to fit the subject of the thread) you're describing, conscientious doctors are penalized to some extent and that's not cool.

Addendum: More oversight and regulation over all the doctors would be much more complex than just concentrating on the two enormous industries muddling the situation in the first place. Doctors' jobs have already become incredibly bureaucratized over the years and introducing more complex rules to simply address the symptoms rather than the root cause seems wasteful.

Re:Opioid makers made payments to one in 12 U.S. doctors by lhuser123 on Friday August 18, 2017 @10:43PM (#15051353)
Agreed. There will always be doctors who 'bend' the rules or just don't care. Not to mention those who literally have no idea of the kind of damage they can be introducing in someone's life by prescribing certain drug. Until someone stands up to Big Pharma, the massacre will never stop.
Re:Opioid makers made payments to one in 12 U.S. doctors by PeanutCurry on Friday August 18, 2017 @10:03PM (#15051218)
I agree with your addendum, I actually paused for about a minute while I was writing my reply to contemplate the right word to use for current oversight. Originally I was going to say insufficient/weak oversight but that seemed too much like it implied that the solution would simply be stronger/more oversight.