UnitedHealthcare CEO Assassinated In NYC

[Free]

By owning large amounts of stock, the judge profits. Ceasar's wife, and all of that.

Wait, Caesar's wife a shareholder in Aetna? I did not know that.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

I dunno, this is like a big stretch. Yeah, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies are both part of "the healthcare industry", but so are hospitals, ambulance companies, and waste disposal companies, they don't all share goals and incentives the way it's implied by suggesting this is a conflict of interest.

The judge's husband is a former employee of Pfizer who has stock in Pfizer, but practically anyone with a 401k or general mutual fund has stock of some kind in "the healthcare industry", and it's not like Pfizer stands to lose value if this guy is found not guilty of killing an insurance executive. Heck it's not like even the dead CEO's company's stock price would be impacted, nobody's going to sell off their UnitedHealthcare shares if this guy gets off. What sense would that even make?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Health insurance is part of the health care industry.

Yes, but what of it? How do you say the outcome of the murder trial will affect the value of Pfizer shares one way or another?

 

[Grey Mars]

Yes, but what of it? How do you say the outcome of the murder trial will affect the value of Pfizer shares one way or another?

I suspect this is a cultural difference/misunderstanding. Can I assume that in the UK there is a reasonable expectation that your judicial system is not blatantly for sale, and not automatically biased in favor of the richer party?

There is no such expectation here. Rather the opposite, it's generally assumed that ALL the drug and insurance companies will be flexing the vast power and corruption to make an example out of this dude, as a warning to the masses to never cross the master class. They are pushing for execution already, when mass murder barely gets a second look when the victims are normal people. They are scared, and they are not used to thinking that there are possible repercussions for the ruthless exploitation they thrive on.

This is also why it resonates so much with the average person. While we don't condone murder as a first option, we sure as hell are not mourning that evil fucker, nor would we mourn any other of them if/when they too are up against the wall.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

I dunno, this is like a big stretch. Yeah, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies are both part of "the healthcare industry", but so are hospitals, ambulance companies, and waste disposal companies, they don't all share goals and incentives the way it's implied by suggesting this is a conflict of interest.

Drug and insurance companies tend to be seen as more closely allied and more corrupt, though hospital owners and management are not that far behind.

 

[Casey Pelous]

Drug and insurance companies tend to be seen as more closely allied and more corrupt, though hospital owners and management are not that far behind.

...with Satan in third place and losing ground.

 

[WolfEyes]

Yes, but what of it? How do you say the outcome of the murder trial will affect the value of Pfizer shares one way or another?

Grey beat me to it.

I suspect this is a cultural difference/misunderstanding. Can I assume that in the UK there is a reasonable expectation that your judicial system is not blatantly for sale, and not automatically biased in favor of the richer party?

There is no such expectation here. Rather the opposite, it's generally assumed that ALL the drug and insurance companies will be flexing the vast power and corruption to make an example out of this dude, as a warning to the masses to never cross the master class. They are pushing for execution already, when mass murder barely gets a second look when the victims are normal people. They are scared, and they are not used to thinking that there are possible repercussions for the ruthless exploitation they thrive on.

This is also why it resonates so much with the average person. While we don't condone murder as a first option, we sure as hell are not mourning that evil fucker, nor would we mourn any other of them if/when they too are up against the wall.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I suspect this is a cultural difference/misunderstanding. Can I assume that in the UK there is a reasonable expectation that your judicial system is not blatantly for sale, and not automatically biased in favor of the richer party?

There is no such expectation here. Rather the opposite, it's generally assumed that ALL the drug and insurance companies will be flexing the vast power and corruption to make an example out of this dude, as a warning to the masses to never cross the master class. They are pushing for execution already, when mass murder barely gets a second look when the victims are normal people. They are scared, and they are not used to thinking that there are possible repercussions for the ruthless exploitation they thrive on.

This is also why it resonates so much with the average person. While we don't condone murder as a first option, we sure as hell are not mourning that evil fucker, nor would we mourn any other of them if/when they too are up against the wall.

You're right that I assume -- on the basis of many years' experience -- that English judges aren't corrupt, but I'm not sure how that's the question here. We don't yet know what Mangione's case is but, unless it's that he didn't do it and they've got the wrong man, it's difficult for me -- used as I am to English law on homicide and diminished responsibility -- to understand what the defence will be.

On the face of it, over here a premeditated murder, with a considerable degree of planning and forethought, commited for political or ideological motives, would certainly put the defendant at risk of a whole life sentence (life without the possibility of parole) and, if the court drew back from that, would inevitably result in a life sentence with a minimum term of around 40 years or more.

 

[Soen Eber]

Probably what he's going to face out here. While I'm sure some of the political elite are howling "death penalty" they're probably just going to lock him up forever. like they did for Manson.

 

[Grey Mars]

Probably what he's going to face out here. While I'm sure some of the political elite are howling "death penalty" they're probably just going to lock him up forever. like they did for Manson.

Or he could win the jury roulette like Rittenhouse, and be free to wander around the country doing played speeches. He's guilty, all sides agree on it. He agrees on it as far as I'm aware. But what happens could be anything between death and easy street riches. All we know for sure is that the money elite are trying very hard to pull the strings on the entire process, and any hint of that is being met with public hostility due to the expectation that they'll get away with whatever they want as usual, no matter how many other people die.

You're right that I assume -- on the basis of many years' experience -- that English judges aren't corrupt, but I'm not sure how that's the question here. We don't yet know what Mangione's case is but, unless it's that he didn't do it and they've got the wrong man, it's difficult for me -- used as I am to English law on homicide and diminished responsibility -- to understand what the defence will be.

On the face of it, over here a premeditated murder, with a considerable degree of planning and forethought, commited for political or ideological motives, would certainly put the defendant at risk of a whole life sentence (life without the possibility of parole) and, if the court drew back from that, would inevitably result in a life sentence with a minimum term of around 40 years or more.

No one is arguing if there was a crime. There was a crime. It was premeditated murder by a sane person. That the victim was also a mass murdering sociopath who assumed (correctly) that he was above the law is also irrelevant. This is a post guilty/innocent world over here. The guilty walk around with impunity as long as they are white, right, and rich. Hell, even if you're a multiple felon and rapist, you can still be president. The innocent, what there are left of them, are simply meat for the machines to chew. Welcome back to the savage garden. It's simply predators and prey, with the legal system another weapon to consume and control. It does not protect anyone but the very wealthy and the powerful, unless random chance makes the wind blow another way that afternoon.

We do not trust our judges. We do not trust our police. We do not trust our elected official. We do not trust each other. We sure as fuck don't trust the corporations who own everything and are the real ones in charge.

You write quite rationally and reasonably from a world I wish we still inhabited here. I would very much like to go back to a place where I did not viscerally understand the issue either. I have nothing but respect for your wisdom and insightfulness. This is simply one of the exceptionally few times I disagree, due to a base cultural divide between the UK and the Raving Insanity of End State Capitalist America.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Patrick Cosmos (@veryimportant.lawyer)

bsky.app

parker higgins (@xor.blue)

this is funny as-is but imo way funnier when you see his lawyer [contains quote post or other embedded content]

bsky.app

 

[Free]

Patrick Cosmos (@veryimportant.lawyer)

bsky.app

parker higgins (@xor.blue)

this is funny as-is but imo way funnier when you see his lawyer [contains quote post or other embedded content]

bsky.app

OK, but is she wearing the same orange boat shoes?

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

There is no such expectation here. Rather the opposite, it's generally assumed that ALL the drug and insurance companies will be flexing the vast power and corruption to make an example out of this dude, as a warning to the masses to never cross the master class.

I'm from here and I think that's silly. I genuinely don't believe there's any reason why Pfizer would go out of its way to try and rig a trial because someone at some other, completely different kind of company was killed, based only on the fact that both companies are tangentially health-care related. And that's leaving aside that we're not even talking about actual Pfizer, we're talking about some guy who retired ten years ago and got some stock as a perk or retirement package or something. I would lay $10 that he doesn't give a single rusty f-word about this insurance CEO who got ventilated, outside the general "that's too bad, hope they catch him" kind of thing that most people tend to feel when they hear about a crime.

Even just like UnitedHealthcare itself - I'm sure the guy's family and actual circle of friends and colleagues are all personally eager to see the screws put to the killer and all that, but I feel like if UH really had the power to just flex an arm and casually rig a major criminal trial, it probably would've used it to rig some of those lawsuits it's constantly having to settle over ethics and regulatory complaints every year.

 

[WolfEyes]

And yet, if the CEO had been a stand-up kind of guy, there wouldn't have been any of those lawsuits to defend against or settling complaints.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I'm from here and I think that's silly. I genuinely don't believe there's any reason why Pfizer would go out of its way to try and rig a trial because someone at some other, completely different kind of company was killed, based only on the fact that both companies are tangentially health-care related. And that's leaving aside that we're not even talking about actual Pfizer, we're talking about some guy who retired ten years ago and got some stock as a perk or retirement package or something. I would lay $10 that he doesn't give a single rusty f-word about this insurance CEO who got ventilated, outside the general "that's too bad, hope they catch him" kind of thing that most people tend to feel when they hear about a crime.

I think you're underestimating how much comradery the rich and powerful feel towards each other. Many are very social people and many know that the same populism that is lionizing Luigi would potentially sympathize with their killers as well. Elon's comments on the shooting are consistent with this. I don't think Elon has an ounce of empathy, but he does see more of himself in the United CEO than in Luigi, that's for sure!

Even just like UnitedHealthcare itself - I'm sure the guy's family and actual circle of friends and colleagues are all personally eager to see the screws put to the killer and all that, but I feel like if UH really had the power to just flex an arm and casually rig a major criminal trial, it probably would've used it to rig some of those lawsuits it's constantly having to settle over ethics and regulatory complaints every year.

I agree that I doubt united can rig a criminal trial. But I do feel confident that many powerful people in all walks of life really want to put the screws in Luigi because they fear a populist uprising for their own reasons.

And yet, if the CEO had been a stand-up kind of guy, there wouldn't have been any of those lawsuits to defend against or settling complaints.

I get where you're coming from but if you do business with millions of people as many giant companies do, it is completely inevitable that someone is always suing you for silly reasons. Now obviously, United had more legitimate complains against them than most companies due to their shamelessly high denial rate.

 

[WolfEyes]

giant companies

Should never have existed. They are the problem.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

If the defence team were previously unaware of the magistrate judge's connections with Pfizer, they must now know about them. Presumably it's open to them to ask her to recuse herself, and also to appeal any decisions she's already made, if they think any impropriety has taken place.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Should never have existed. They are the problem.

Originally a corporate charter was exceptional and required proof that it benefited society for another limited-liability organization to exist. Typically a proprietorship looking for a charter would offer public works in exchange for the boon.

 

[Rose Karuna]

I suspect this is a cultural difference/misunderstanding. Can I assume that in the UK there is a reasonable expectation that your judicial system is not blatantly for sale, and not automatically biased in favor of the richer party?

There is no such expectation here. Rather the opposite, it's generally assumed that ALL the drug and insurance companies will be flexing the vast power and corruption to make an example out of this dude, as a warning to the masses to never cross the master class. They are pushing for execution already, when mass murder barely gets a second look when the victims are normal people. They are scared, and they are not used to thinking that there are possible repercussions for the ruthless exploitation they thrive on.

This is also why it resonates so much with the average person. While we don't condone murder as a first option, we sure as hell are not mourning that evil fucker, nor would we mourn any other of them if/when they too are up against the wall.

It's pretty obvious that in our criminal (no justice) system that the deck is stacked against anyone who is lower or middle class.

There are so many examples of it, that there are honestly, too many to provide links to, but here are a few:

Courts, Prison System Biased Against Poor & People of Color, say CNY Community Groups

Advocates for criminal justice reform in Onondaga County want the system to be more fair. They’re concerned with how people of color and people without…

www.waer.org

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/opinion/a-waiting-list-for-justice-in-new-orleans.html

How the Criminal Justice System Preys on the Poor - Dissent Magazine

In our financialized era, policing, adjudication, and punishment have been reorganized as resource extraction operations.

www.dissentmagazine.org

RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET PRISON - IDEOLOGY, CLASS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

There are just so many examples that it's disgusting. We all know it. Same as the medical insurance gig. Almost everyone in the country who is not rich has been told "suck it up buttercup" by their insurance provider and medical providers, often leaving people suffering for years, or worse.

Not just the courts, but look at how Musk bought the presidency.

So, my (and many other peoples) reaction to all the caterwauling about a dead insurance company CEO? Just suck it up buttercup.

 

[Free]