UnitedHealthcare CEO Assassinated In NYC

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

This lawsuit is so weirdly worded.



The language used is highly critical. Phrasing like "anti-consumer (and at times unlawful)" and explicitly saying that the company's strategy of denying coverage led to the murder really only makes sense if the shareholders involved in the lawsuit want convey that they did not approve of those tactics.

But the actual legal complaint in the lawsuit isn't over the fact that UHC did those things, its over the fact that UHC decided to stop doing those things (or at least cut back on them) without adequately warning shareholders that profits would go down because of it. It's really mixed messaging that makes the shareholders look even worse because they're basically suing the company for not being evil enough.

Dakota seems about two steps away from hoisting a hammer and sickle.

 

[Soen Eber]

I came close to losing it myself. I deleted 10 minutes of writing.

 

[Rose Karuna]

This is exactly why health care should not be "for profit".

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

This is exactly why health care should not be "for profit".

If nothing else, it sure as shit can't be a "free market." A lot of right wingers don't get that health insurance just can't even really be functional without heavy regulation. Manufacturers for example often hate regulations since it is telling them what they can and can't do, but insurance doesn't have enough market pressure to make them pay claims without regulations forcing them to. Even people in the industry want to be regulated since you can't survive as the only honest insurance company that actually pays claims. I think multi payer systems have worked fine in many countries, but no sane person likes how our system is working now.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Dakota seems about two steps away from hoisting a hammer and sickle.

I'm not a tankie or anything. If I had to give as neutral a definition as I could of myself, I would say that I'm okay with capitalism, I think it's fine to produce or provide something for direct compensation. But I think it must be heavily regulated. Like, forget "guardrails", there needs to be retaining walls, and maybe even train tracks. Because while not every kind of product or service out there can cause any kind of harm even in theory, many of them definitely can and at the end of the day capitalists WILL harm you, actively make your life worse, or even flat out kill you for profit if there's nothing stopping them. I don't see that as a hot spicy take, that's just what happens in plain sight every single day.

And everyone knows it too. It's kind of funny because if you think about it socially conservative people spout militantly anti-capitalist stuff all the time - because duh. Of course they hate corporations because they're always getting boned by one or more at any given time in a way that genuinely interferes with their life and they know it, it's just that their identity forces them to self-censor so they can't acknowledge that the problem is capitalists doing a free-market capitalism to them, they have to be very specific with their complaints and blame it on something else that they're allowed to dislike. Like...do you all know that very famous Alex Jones thing where he's screaming that he doesn't like "them putting chemicals in the water that turn the fricking frogs gay"? He gets made fun of for that a lot, but believe it or not he's referencing a real case of reported environmental effects from a company that was dumping chemical waste into a river to avoid the expenditure of disposing of it properly. And that's bad, right? Environmental pollution is bad and the harm it causes is very real, and the company's motivation was profit. But Alex Jones is pro-capitalism and he constantly rails against environmental regulation, so in his telling this isn't a story about a company polluting the environment to save money, it's a story about shadowy agents deliberately poisoning water for the purpose of causing this very specific turning-gay effect on the wildlife as part of the New World Order's pro-gay agenda.

So yeah, I'm "pro-capitalism" but I also think that capitalism is a wild and vicious dog that needs to be kept on a stout chain for the safety of the public, and when a company causes harm or death its CEO and any relevant officers should be thrown in prison for an appropriate amount of time and a commensurate amount of the company's assets should be confiscated and distributed to victims and agencies that have to deal with the fallout and if that sometimes means the company in question collapses or is outright dissolved then that's just too damn bad, and that position probably makes me not pro-capitalism to most people.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I'm not a tankie or anything. If I had to give as neutral a definition as I could of myself, I would say that I'm okay with capitalism, I think it's fine to produce or provide something for direct compensation. But I think it must be heavily regulated. Like, forget "guardrails", there needs to be retaining walls, and maybe even train tracks. Because while not every kind of product or service out there can cause any kind of harm even in theory, many of them definitely can and at the end of the day capitalists WILL harm you, actively make your life worse, or even flat out kill you for profit if there's nothing stopping them. I don't see that as a hot spicy take, that's just what happens in plain sight every single day.

And everyone knows it too. It's kind of funny because if you think about it socially conservative people spout militantly anti-capitalist stuff all the time - because duh. Of course they hate corporations because they're always getting boned by one or more at any given time in a way that genuinely interferes with their life and they know it, it's just that their identity forces them to self-censor so they can't acknowledge that the problem is capitalists doing a free-market capitalism to them, they have to be very specific with their complaints and blame it on something else that they're allowed to dislike. Like...do you all know that very famous Alex Jones thing where he's screaming that he doesn't like "them putting chemicals in the water that turn the fricking frogs gay"? He gets made fun of for that a lot, but believe it or not he's referencing a real case of reported environmental effects from a company that was dumping chemical waste into a river to avoid the expenditure of disposing of it properly. And that's bad, right? Environmental pollution is bad and the harm it causes is very real, and the company's motivation was profit. But Alex Jones is pro-capitalism and he constantly rails against environmental regulation, so in his telling this isn't a story about a company polluting the environment to save money, it's a story about shadowy agents deliberately poisoning water for the purpose of causing this very specific turning-gay effect on the wildlife as part of the New World Order's pro-gay agenda.

So yeah, I'm "pro-capitalism" but I also think that capitalism is a wild and vicious dog that needs to be kept on a stout chain for the safety of the public, and when a company causes harm or death its CEO and any relevant officers should be thrown in prison for an appropriate amount of time and a commensurate amount of the company's assets should be confiscated and distributed to victims and agencies that have to deal with the fallout and if that sometimes means the company in question collapses or is outright dissolved then that's just too damn bad, and that position probably makes me not pro-capitalism to most people.

I largely agree. My own little analogy for it is that if the economy is a steam engine, free-enterprise is the firebox. We need that fire, but also need to know it will burn the whole thing up if not controlled.

 

[Govi]

I largely agree. My own little analogy for it is that if the economy is a steam engine, free-enterprise is the firebox. We need that fire, but also need to know it will burn the whole thing up if not controlled.

In the nineteenth century, mechanical engineers formed societies whose purpose was to establish engineering standards for steam boilers which were -- as a result of bad engineering -- exploding, horribly injuring and killing people. Regulations both for engineering and engineers followed to prevent such disasters. So, I found it particularly appropriate that you chose the steam engine/firebox metaphor.

 

[Noodles]

This lawsuit is so weirdly worded.



The language used is highly critical. Phrasing like "anti-consumer (and at times unlawful)" and explicitly saying that the company's strategy of denying coverage led to the murder really only makes sense if the shareholders involved in the lawsuit want convey that they did not approve of those tactics.

But the actual legal complaint in the lawsuit isn't over the fact that UHC did those things, its over the fact that UHC decided to stop doing those things (or at least cut back on them) without adequately warning shareholders that profits would go down because of it. It's really mixed messaging that makes the shareholders look even worse because they're basically suing the company for not being evil enough.

Yeah this was the gist I got from the Reddit thread. They are not mad about the shitty practice or the murder, they are mad because UHC started not doing the shitty thing.

Shareholders were a mistake.

 

[Noodles]

I'm not a tankie or anything. If I had to give as neutral a definition as I could of myself, I would say that I'm okay with capitalism, I think it's fine to produce or provide something for direct compensation. But I think it must be heavily regulated. Like, forget "guardrails", there needs to be retaining walls, and maybe even train tracks. Because while not every kind of product or service out there can cause any kind of harm even in theory, many of them definitely can and at the end of the day capitalists WILL harm you, actively make your life worse, or even flat out kill you for profit if there's nothing stopping them. I don't see that as a hot spicy take, that's just what happens in plain sight every single day.

And everyone knows it too. It's kind of funny because if you think about it socially conservative people spout militantly anti-capitalist stuff all the time - because duh. Of course they hate corporations because they're always getting boned by one or more at any given time in a way that genuinely interferes with their life and they know it, it's just that their identity forces them to self-censor so they can't acknowledge that the problem is capitalists doing a free-market capitalism to them, they have to be very specific with their complaints and blame it on something else that they're allowed to dislike. Like...do you all know that very famous Alex Jones thing where he's screaming that he doesn't like "them putting chemicals in the water that turn the fricking frogs gay"? He gets made fun of for that a lot, but believe it or not he's referencing a real case of reported environmental effects from a company that was dumping chemical waste into a river to avoid the expenditure of disposing of it properly. And that's bad, right? Environmental pollution is bad and the harm it causes is very real, and the company's motivation was profit. But Alex Jones is pro-capitalism and he constantly rails against environmental regulation, so in his telling this isn't a story about a company polluting the environment to save money, it's a story about shadowy agents deliberately poisoning water for the purpose of causing this very specific turning-gay effect on the wildlife as part of the New World Order's pro-gay agenda.

So yeah, I'm "pro-capitalism" but I also think that capitalism is a wild and vicious dog that needs to be kept on a stout chain for the safety of the public, and when a company causes harm or death its CEO and any relevant officers should be thrown in prison for an appropriate amount of time and a commensurate amount of the company's assets should be confiscated and distributed to victims and agencies that have to deal with the fallout and if that sometimes means the company in question collapses or is outright dissolved then that's just too damn bad, and that position probably makes me not pro-capitalism to most people.

I pretty much agree with all of this. The primary mechanism, though not the only, would be an extremely rigid tax structure that kills a lot of "business use/personal use" loop homes and also basically taxes down anyone with a "Worth" over say, 10 million, max.

Probably some mechanism to include worth hidden over seas. And none of this "it's a loan" bull shit.

Tax it, prop up every social program. More money than any single person will need in a lifetime.

Also, FWIW, I am pretty supportive of severe punitive punishment on breaking laws, but also a lot of reform on what it means to "break the law", probably more stringinent requirements for burden of proof or whatever, and the idea being that a larger support net for society will also work to stop a lot of that.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Also, FWIW, I am pretty supportive of severe punitive punishment on breaking laws, but also a lot of reform on what it means to "break the law", probably more stringinent requirements for burden of proof or whatever, and the idea being that a larger support net for society will also work to stop a lot of that.

I'm not sure the burden of proof needs changing -- is it not already "beyond reasonable doubt"?

From what I've read the real problem with the US criminal system is that very few criminal cases actually go to trial -- over 95% of both state and federal prosecutions end in a plea bargain. Abolishing cash bail and offering a properly funded legal aid system would be a better idea, so defendants who do not present a flight risk and are not at high risk of reoffending while on bail but are without financial resources have either to remain in custody for extended periods waiting for a trial, represented by an overworked public defender who is anxious to clear their backlog of cases.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice#:~:text=In%20any%20given%20year%2C%2098,from%20the%20American%20Bar%20Association

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/about/initiatives/plea-bargaining/

 

[Veritable Quandry]

Mandatory minimum sentences that remove judicial discretion and a woefully underfunded public defender system are a huge problem. As well as a generally punative attitude to crime. We lack resources to divert minor offenders who need help from the prison system, and efforts at addiction and job training for prisoners are not adequate.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I'm not sure the burden of proof needs changing -- is it not already "beyond reasonable doubt"?

From what I've read the real problem with the US criminal system is that very few criminal cases actually go to trial -- over 95% of both state and federal prosecutions end in a plea bargain. Abolishing cash bail and offering a properly funded legal aid system would be a better idea, so defendants who do not present a flight risk and are not at high risk of reoffending while on bail but are without financial resources have either to remain in custody for extended periods waiting for a trial, represented by an overworked public defender who is anxious to clear their backlog of cases.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice#:~:text=In%20any%20given%20year%2C%2098,from%20the%20American%20Bar%20Association

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/about/initiatives/plea-bargaining/

You're not wrong, but I want to point out that "beyond reasonable doubt" is on paper. In reality, many American juries have convicted people on very weak evidence since our culture really dreads being soft on crime as if due process only helps criminals. Some legal entities have estimated that we have between 6% and 15.4% wrongful convictions in our prisons.

I've long had a fascination with wrongful convictions and in many such cases someone who wasn't white or was a subjectively a bit "weird" was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence and dubious testimony. Even when real physical evidence later comes to light and proves it couldn't have been them, getting them out of prison can take years.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

You're not wrong, but I want to point out that "beyond reasonable doubt" is on paper. In reality, many American juries have convicted people on very weak evidence since our culture really dreads being soft on crime as if due process only helps criminals. Some legal entities have estimated that we have between 6% and 15.4% wrongful convictions in our prisons.

I've long had a fascination with wrongful convictions and in many such cases someone who wasn't white or was a subjectively a bit "weird" was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence and dubious testimony. Even when real physical evidence later comes to light and proves it couldn't have been them, getting them out of prison can take years.

But since only about 5 percent of US criminal trials are heard by a jury, I doubt that any changes in the way cases are dealt with when they go to trial would make much difference. It's the other 95 percent I'd look at first.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

But since only about 5 percent of US criminal trials are heard by a jury, I doubt that any changes in the way cases are dealt with when they go to trial would make much difference. It's the other 95 percent I'd look at first.

Oh, I agree. I think a lot of poor people get intimidated into taking plea bargains when they are completely innocent. I'm just pointing out that I think many trials fail to live up to the stated standard.