4 ms·

It's counter-productive to punish someone for something out of their control. One should not be punished for his parents', siblings' or childs' actions.

by ghssds 1y ago

jliptzin 1y ago
It’s not even a punishment anyway, they can easily afford to pay for their care out of pocket.
- ashdksnndck 1y ago
  Are you implying random programmers, administrators, and managers at insurance companies have generational wealth? Then why are they spending their time doing those jobs?
- adrianN 1y ago
  It is my understanding that in the US many common health issues can cost you millions of dollars.
  - thfuran 1y ago
    A few million dollars would probably cover months in the ICU, so not exactly common. A few tens of thousands would be a more plausible ambulance ride to ER followed by emergency surgery and a few days in the hospital, which still isn’t very common. Carrying a pregnancy to term and delivery can be similarly expensive though.
    - adrianN 1y ago
      My twins spent a month in the ICU but my insurance covered it.
salawat 1y ago
Ah, but the family of the canceled policyholders should suffer for losing their mother/sister/daughters? Make decisions to harm others, don't be surprised if it blows back in kind. Golden Rule is there for a reason. Treat others as you would have them do unto you.
- gljiva 1y ago
  Have the families of those "insurers" made a decision to harm others?
  - thephyber 1y ago
    A different lens to view this: If you benefit from receiving stolen property, does the law force you to return it? One way of interpreting your scare quotes is that the executives turned a health insurer into a law violating company. Obviously there are burdens of proof and this is most likely not possible to prosecute (it sounds like the health insurer has already shrunk and based on the date of the anecdote above, I’m guessing the relevant statutes of limitations have expired.
    - jkaplowitz 1y ago
      > If you benefit from receiving stolen property, does the law force you to return it? The general answer to that is: it depends on a lot of factors, but sometimes yes and sometimes no. The specific answer varies between jurisdictions, I think even between different US states and certainly between countries. It's often relevant whether you knew or should reasonably have known at the time of purchase that the property was stolen.
      - em-bee 1y ago
        well it depends, if you buy a car stolen from me, then i should get the car back, no matter what. if you didn't know that it was stolen, you have a claim against the person who sold you the car, but not me. but if that person can't return the money, then you are out of luck, just as when you are falling for a scam. not your fault, but your damage nontheless.
        jkaplowitz 1y ago
        As I said, not every jurisdiction follows the rule you describe for all types of property and all types of illicit transfers. After all, innocent purchaser victims are just as non-culpable as innocent theft victims, and society doesn't always decide to prioritize the original owner's ease of having the maximum number of people to sue for recovery over the reliability of that jurisdiction as a place to innocently buy things without fear of unexpectedly being sued by a third party. To be clear, I'm not expressing any kind of personal opinion here - I'm saying how the world actually works. Sometimes that matches what you are advocating, but sometimes not. Of course, in both the mindset you advocate and in the other mindset, you have a claim against the person who stole your car, for sure, as well as anyone else who knowingly trafficked in the stolen goods. Sometimes the relevant rules are different for real property vs personal property, and sometimes it matters whether the property's ownership has been registered in some register which the purchaser can verify before purchase. I don't think US car title records are generally publicly verifiable. It's also usually relevant how the property was stolen - theft in the sense of actual larceny often has harsher consequences for the eventual bona fide purchaser (and more protections for the original owner) than if the property was stolen by fraudulently inducing the original owner to sign a deed of sale. I'm avoiding giving specifics here because, again, the details vary by jurisdiction and by the particular facts and circumstances.
rswail 1y ago
In the US it's unconstitutional for the government to do that, it's what the ban of laws of attainder is partially about.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  > it's what the ban of laws of attainder is partially about. Not really; attainder occurs when you're convicted by a legislator as opposed to a judge.
  - rswail 1y ago
    Well convicted without due process, which requires being tried by the judicial system, not the political one. But true, attainder is not directly related to kin punishment.
whoknowsidont 1y ago
>It's counter-productive to punish someone for something out of their control. For people in specific classes that benefit from networks and status: it is not. It should be default. If you abuse your power and position, it should have cascading effects not just for you but people that benefited from it. This idea that only one person at fault when there are 10's of people that hide behind the crime is just non-sense and has done immeasurable damage to society. And I stress again: it should be income bracket/class based. The higher you are, the harder the fall.
- teiferer 1y ago
  Collective punishment also has done immeasurable damage to society and I'm glad that most reasonable systems of law do not consider it legal. Go after the guilty party and revert whatever benefits they got. If money went to dependents, that money is to be seized. But those who received the money are not at fault per se. Unless they helped in the crime, then they are obviously guilty too, but not of receiving fund but for helping committing a crime.
  - whoknowsidont 1y ago
    You just repeated what I said.
kstenerud 1y ago
Yep. We have laws against that sort of thing precisely because it's such a common human reaction to an injustice. You can even see the evidence in many of the sister comments here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment
- bestouff 1y ago
  Of course, but having their families profit from the money earnt via these evil actions doesn't seem fair either.
  - kstenerud 1y ago
    We already have long-established legal precedent for dealing with such issues and much more. It can actually get quite complicated - which is why we defer to the experts and move slowly on such subjects.
    - bluefirebrand 1y ago
      It really seems like it's only complicated because there are an awful lot of people who want to do as evil things as possible and not go to prison for it Loopholes and lawfare are the tools of the corrupt
      - kstenerud 1y ago
        You'd think so, but no. Most of the complications come from handling edge cases where the innocent would get swept up, while avoiding exploitability. Making laws that actually do what we want is HARD. Laws are like code: It only seems perfect until it meets the real world. And the complications only seem frivolous until it's your ass on the line.
    - whoknowsidont 1y ago
      >We already have long-established legal precedent for dealing with such issues and much more. We really don't in reality. The manner in which even the existing laws are enforced leaves a lot to be desired.
ajjahs 1y ago
[dead]
bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago
Is it really counter-productive, though? Propensity to do harm through crime, violence, etc. is largely a genetic attribute. Take a violent drug lord for example. Do you really want a woman capable of loving him allowed to continue on as if nothing happened?

It's counter-productive to punish someone for something out of their control. One should not be punished for his parents', siblings' or childs' actions.

by ghssds 1y ago

It's counter-productive to punish someone for something out of their control. One should not be punished for his parents', siblings' or childs' actions.

jliptzin 1y ago

It’s not even a punishment anyway, they can easily afford to pay for their care out of pocket.

ashdksnndck 1y ago
Are you implying random programmers, administrators, and managers at insurance companies have generational wealth? Then why are they spending their time doing those jobs?
adrianN 1y ago
It is my understanding that in the US many common health issues can cost you millions of dollars.
- thfuran 1y ago
  A few million dollars would probably cover months in the ICU, so not exactly common. A few tens of thousands would be a more plausible ambulance ride to ER followed by emergency surgery and a few days in the hospital, which still isn’t very common. Carrying a pregnancy to term and delivery can be similarly expensive though.
  - adrianN 1y ago
    My twins spent a month in the ICU but my insurance covered it.

salawat 1y ago

Ah, but the family of the canceled policyholders should suffer for losing their mother/sister/daughters? Make decisions to harm others, don't be surprised if it blows back in kind. Golden Rule is there for a reason. Treat others as you would have them do unto you.

gljiva 1y ago
Have the families of those "insurers" made a decision to harm others?
- thephyber 1y ago
  A different lens to view this: If you benefit from receiving stolen property, does the law force you to return it? One way of interpreting your scare quotes is that the executives turned a health insurer into a law violating company. Obviously there are burdens of proof and this is most likely not possible to prosecute (it sounds like the health insurer has already shrunk and based on the date of the anecdote above, I’m guessing the relevant statutes of limitations have expired.
  - jkaplowitz 1y ago
    > If you benefit from receiving stolen property, does the law force you to return it? The general answer to that is: it depends on a lot of factors, but sometimes yes and sometimes no. The specific answer varies between jurisdictions, I think even between different US states and certainly between countries. It's often relevant whether you knew or should reasonably have known at the time of purchase that the property was stolen.
    - em-bee 1y ago
      well it depends, if you buy a car stolen from me, then i should get the car back, no matter what. if you didn't know that it was stolen, you have a claim against the person who sold you the car, but not me. but if that person can't return the money, then you are out of luck, just as when you are falling for a scam. not your fault, but your damage nontheless.
      - jkaplowitz 1y ago
        As I said, not every jurisdiction follows the rule you describe for all types of property and all types of illicit transfers. After all, innocent purchaser victims are just as non-culpable as innocent theft victims, and society doesn't always decide to prioritize the original owner's ease of having the maximum number of people to sue for recovery over the reliability of that jurisdiction as a place to innocently buy things without fear of unexpectedly being sued by a third party. To be clear, I'm not expressing any kind of personal opinion here - I'm saying how the world actually works. Sometimes that matches what you are advocating, but sometimes not. Of course, in both the mindset you advocate and in the other mindset, you have a claim against the person who stole your car, for sure, as well as anyone else who knowingly trafficked in the stolen goods. Sometimes the relevant rules are different for real property vs personal property, and sometimes it matters whether the property's ownership has been registered in some register which the purchaser can verify before purchase. I don't think US car title records are generally publicly verifiable. It's also usually relevant how the property was stolen - theft in the sense of actual larceny often has harsher consequences for the eventual bona fide purchaser (and more protections for the original owner) than if the property was stolen by fraudulently inducing the original owner to sign a deed of sale. I'm avoiding giving specifics here because, again, the details vary by jurisdiction and by the particular facts and circumstances.

rswail 1y ago

In the US it's unconstitutional for the government to do that, it's what the ban of laws of attainder is partially about.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
> it's what the ban of laws of attainder is partially about. Not really; attainder occurs when you're convicted by a legislator as opposed to a judge.
- rswail 1y ago
  Well convicted without due process, which requires being tried by the judicial system, not the political one. But true, attainder is not directly related to kin punishment.

whoknowsidont 1y ago

>It's counter-productive to punish someone for something out of their control. For people in specific classes that benefit from networks and status: it is not. It should be default. If you abuse your power and position, it should have cascading effects not just for you but people that benefited from it. This idea that only one person at fault when there are 10's of people that hide behind the crime is just non-sense and has done immeasurable damage to society. And I stress again: it should be income bracket/class based. The higher you are, the harder the fall.

teiferer 1y ago
Collective punishment also has done immeasurable damage to society and I'm glad that most reasonable systems of law do not consider it legal. Go after the guilty party and revert whatever benefits they got. If money went to dependents, that money is to be seized. But those who received the money are not at fault per se. Unless they helped in the crime, then they are obviously guilty too, but not of receiving fund but for helping committing a crime.
- whoknowsidont 1y ago
  You just repeated what I said.

kstenerud 1y ago

Yep. We have laws against that sort of thing precisely because it's such a common human reaction to an injustice. You can even see the evidence in many of the sister comments here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

bestouff 1y ago
Of course, but having their families profit from the money earnt via these evil actions doesn't seem fair either.
- kstenerud 1y ago
  We already have long-established legal precedent for dealing with such issues and much more. It can actually get quite complicated - which is why we defer to the experts and move slowly on such subjects.
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    It really seems like it's only complicated because there are an awful lot of people who want to do as evil things as possible and not go to prison for it Loopholes and lawfare are the tools of the corrupt
    - kstenerud 1y ago
      You'd think so, but no. Most of the complications come from handling edge cases where the innocent would get swept up, while avoiding exploitability. Making laws that actually do what we want is HARD. Laws are like code: It only seems perfect until it meets the real world. And the complications only seem frivolous until it's your ass on the line.
  - whoknowsidont 1y ago
    >We already have long-established legal precedent for dealing with such issues and much more. We really don't in reality. The manner in which even the existing laws are enforced leaves a lot to be desired.

ajjahs 1y ago

[dead]

bill_joy_fanboy 1y ago

Is it really counter-productive, though? Propensity to do harm through crime, violence, etc. is largely a genetic attribute. Take a violent drug lord for example. Do you really want a woman capable of loving him allowed to continue on as if nothing happened?