Re: [OT] Murder in New York

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 16:52:43 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:21:19 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 12/12/2024 11:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:22:49 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
=20

On 12/11/2024 12:26 PM, Paul S Person wrote:

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 21:04:42 +0000, quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

A few days ago, I had read in the news that the CEO of a major >>health
insurer was gunned down. This was shocking; it seemed to mean that >>no
one
was safe from crime.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that >>the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system >>to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including >>many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I >>don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide >>victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer >>doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. >>That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of >>prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

>
I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
>
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
>
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.

>
This 'corporatism' is something I'm less and less in love with every
year.
>
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
>
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
>
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.

=20
The Supreme Court provided a solution when they declared them to be
persons like everybody else.
=20
The solution is simple: when a corporation breaks the law, the
Chairman of the Board, the President (or whatever the title is in a
given case), and the first five levels down from the top of Management
are considered to be legally responsible.
=20
/They/ go to prison. /They/ get executed if appropriate. This should
induce a certain amount of ... prudence ... in people in those
positions. And effective supervision of those below them.
=20
If a more accurate assignment of responsibility can be made, then it
should be. But the top dogs should only be held not responsible if the
actual malefactors /deliberately and knowingly concealed/ what they
were doing.
=20
If you want to tell me this isn't practical, my response it: it should
be /tried/. If nothing else, the Supreme Court should be faced with
either allowing it or reversing their prior decision and making
corporations no longer legal persons.

>
I'd love to see that, but now that corporations are held to be persons,
they can, through 'campaign contributions' bribe legislators to change
the rules in their favor.

>
Bribing a public official is a crime in most jurisdictions.

>
You haven't been paying attention.    The Supreme Court recently
ruled that a 'gift' after the fact isn't a bribe.

Campaign contributions are not after-the-fact.

And the SC is correct -- it's not a bribe, it's a kickback [1].

That's the problem with some prosecutors -- they pretend the crime is
one thing when it really is another. And then wonder why they fail.

We saw this in Waco, where the Prosecutor saw "a conspicacy to kill
Federal Officers" and the jury saw "self-defence".

And, more locally, where the Prosecutor saw "kidnapping", the jury saw
nothing of the sort, and the /employer/ saw "dereliction of duty" and
fired the State Patrol trooper immediately after the trial. This was,
of course, some time back, where the custom was for the employer to
wait and see what happened at trial before taking any action. The
custom appears to be to fire them at once to get ahead of the curve.

[1] Provided that there was no prior agreement involved, as the
promise of the payment preceding awarding the contract (or whatever)
would make it a bribe. But no mention was made of such an agreement.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"