UnitedHealth CEO Assassinated
The murder of UnitedHealthcare's CEO is a strange story. On the one hand, the killer obviously was taking steps to avoid getting caught. He was wearing a hoodie. He used a silencer. He clearly had an escape plan.
On the other hand, he was wearing a distinctive backpack. He may have left a food wrapper and a water bottle at the scene. And there was writing on each of the three shell casings (the words "deny," "defend," and "depose").
Murder is always bad.
But when we create a world where there is no good paths then all paths will be bad. Whether it's relevant here or not, poeple are rapidly losing faith (correctly to a large extent) in justice/fairnes/etc and the consequences are inevitable. If we dont want them then we have to do better.
I'd add that anyone who has any money he can spare that doesn't give to random people in need is "killing them" identically to unitedhealth CEO, if omission is killing.
That's true for every single human being with savings worldwide.
So stop playing this absurd, obscene, morally horrific game where omission to sacrifice yourself to help others is murder, or is in any way immoral.
Correct.
As an adult, you are not entitled to justice from another man or a man made system.
Do people not grasp the implications of a Darwinian world?
Take it up with God. If you want true justice, then get in the right story.
Why is this murder labeled an assassination in the thread title? Who even knew who this guy was a week ago?
If we find out that it was the wife who hired a hitman then there is probably a case to be made that describing it as an assassination might not be the best term to use.* Until then assassination seems appropriate.
*This would be despite the fact that hitman are assassins-- we just normally wouldn't use the term 'assassination' to describe such a killing.
Yeah sure but it’s a real term .
That is why I chose it shrug
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporat....
Corporatocracy[a] or corpocracy is an economic, political and judicial system controlled or influenced by business corporations or corporate interests
Oh I didn’t know that. Corpocracy didn’t sound right, but now I see why.
This is actually an interesting read, thanks for the education, MC!
It's a mixed system. Whatever it is it isn't a democracy but there can be elements of oligarchy, plutocracy, artistocracy etc.
I would call the market democrats want that, republicans want to reduce regulations and did so when they governed in the past, when the violence of the state isn't used to pick winners, that's when you actually have capitalism.
If you want capitalism you can't have abusive regulation used to keep people the democrats dislike out of markets
Obviously you just didn’t see the paradox you are saying .
True capitalist , the way you see it is like the jungle law, there is no morality or for the greater good concept , it’s just who’s strong and kills everyone else with 0 regulations.
Hence u end up with a system like the current U.S. has .
It has nothing to do with democrats or anything else .
It’s about who got the cash and can Influence the most politicians , period .
But hey no one surprised you believed the right isn’t supporting the current system .
Monopoly money increases the odds of this being some sort of op by about 50%.
Wow
I'll bet the shooter kept all of the Get Out Of Jail Free cards.
The CEO only moral responsibility while doing his job is toward stockholders. Any legal action he partakes in that maximize stockholder value is not only moral, but an utmost moral imperative.
Btw every single individual worldwide who owns SP500 index funds or proxies thereof profited by those CEO actions. IF it is true that he had some people die to save money, legally, that's something millions of other people profited from. That's how "public companies" work.
You can either put your eskimo and
Public companies are free to operate however they choose to within the law. This will include the ethical and the unethical companies just like investors will make money off of a business that improves lives or ruins them.
As a capitalist and someone who probably isn't considered a lefty by your standards, I can acknowledge the credible difference between a public company that pulls folks out of poverty and advances the livelihood of human beings and a business platform that is corrupted and maintains its prosperity by targeting and exploiting vulnerable people. It's just not all the same or "how public companies work."
I'd obviously prefer that the guy didn't get killed and there are varying degrees of corruption and this particular person isn't at all worthy of being killed, imo but it's expected, and I'd argue important, to at least keep pressure on malicious businesses, but to also be able to distinguish and separate those companies from others that don't - but I'd agree that the people you hate the most aren't able to do that.
More photos released. They’re gonna catch the guy.
Do you mean these?
That looks like another guy though. Also not the same jacket, and a different mask.
Eric Adams said they have a name
...and he also said they are not giving it out because they don't want the killer to know that they know. What kind of BS is that? You of all people fall for that? 😉
Tbf they probably have numerous names.
Anyway I'm calling it; this is domestic terrorism imo. That guy doesn't give off the vibe of someone avenging his mother or the like. Now with this new photos it might even be conceivable that he had accomplices in the area with similar outfits to throw law enforcement off. Something is going on here.
Public companies are free to operate however they choose to within the law. This will include the ethical and the unethical companies just like investors will make money off of a business that improves lives or ruins them.
As a capitalist and someone who probably isn't considered a lefty by your standards, I can acknowledge the credible difference between a public company that pulls folks out of poverty and advances the livelihood of human beings and a business platform that is corrupted and mai
man you presume it's malicious/corrupt/evil to "exploit vulnerable people".
Cost control isn't "exploiting vulnerable people".
When the profit margins are as slim as I reported them to be, cost control is the only way the business stays afloat with current premia.
What those companies are doing is to keep prices under control for every person who has healthcare access in the country (because indirectly their cost controls touch everyone), and taxpayers following ACA marketplace subsidies.
Insurance companies would actually make more money long term as a sector if premia went up say 40-50% following a complete abandonment of cost controls (which is what would happen if you want all instances of "person in good faith with a real problem was denied coverage for a legitimate claim" to disappear).
Given the sheer number of claims, a very small but still significant in absolute terms number of false negatives will exist given any cost control approach.
Some legitimate claimants will be denied.
You maybe would prefer a different tradeoff with fewer claimants denied and premia being even higher than they are today.
Unclear why you think that would be "socially positive".
Keep in mind, again, as I mentioned the first time I answered this earlier in the thread, that the people who are going to pay for those claimants not to be denied are insured Americans (and taxpayers). *not the company* in the steady state.
The companies only lose some profit early on when they adjust cost controls to allow more claims to go through, then premia increase and they are better off (larger amounts of money to allocate in asset markets and make profit from).
those with a company insurance would see their wages grew less than they would have otherwise because the company pays higher premia (remember the purported disconnect between productivity and wages since the 70s? a large part of it comes from healthcare costs increasing more than o
productivity) .
a portion will come out of pocket because of higher copays and/or deductibles.
Taxpayers would pay more to subsidize otherwise uncovered people buying insurance in ACA marketplaces.
And this is without second order effects of deteriorated coverage because real healthcare resources hit a physical limit where you cannot deliver properly to everyone who has access, if you never deny claims.
