4 ms·
The victims never consent to the sale. They have no say in the transactions that victimize them. You're looking at two parties making a transaction and assume t
by ericjmorey 3y ago
The victims never consent to the sale. They have no say in the transactions that victimize them. You're looking at two parties making a transaction and assume that those are the only two parties that are part of the transaction.
- civilized 3y agoThis can be true of any corporate sale though. How do we distinguish sales that must be stopped because there are victims who must be protected from other sales?
- prepend 3y ago> The victims never consent to the sale. It’s extremely rare for a forced sale. Usually it’s a public company and shares are purchased on public exchanges, or for privately held companies the board and shareholders approve the sale. It’s not that these are the only people impacted by the sale, but it’s the best method possible to govern sales.
- candiodari 3y agoI think the idea here is that the "victims" are people needing or wanting medical treatment, and find it's made impossible for them to get it. Yes, they're not really involved in the transaction but still have something taken away from them. You could argue that it's the government, medicaid and medicare especially that are taking away from them ... but that doesn't make as good a scapegoat as banks and pension funds. Sorry, not pension funds, I mean evil private equity investors ...