The Short Arm of the Law 336
mindbrane writes "CNN takes a look at when companies are too big for the legal system to handle. Quoting: 'Prosecutors said that excluding Pfizer would most likely lead to Pfizer's collapse, with collateral consequences: disrupting the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, causing the loss of jobs including those of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud, and causing significant losses for Pfizer shareholders. ... So Pfizer and the feds cut a deal. Instead of charging Pfizer with a crime, prosecutors would charge a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc. ... As a result, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc., the subsidiary, was excluded from Medicare without ever having sold so much as a single pill. And Pfizer was free to sell its products to federally funded health programs.' IBM may have cast the mold for this sort of thing in its 1970s antitrust case, but the recurrence of similar cases speaks to ongoing concerns for legal systems."
Re:You can get away with murder. (Score:4, Informative)
Especially if you're a private military contractor in Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5xT1DGJMoQ
DynCorp [corpwatch.org] was operating like that in South America throughout the 1990s. These private military contractors are not held accountable [alternet.org], which is why they're used. They can get away with things the military would have a hard tyme getting away with. And I bet that's one reason Bush pushed to privatize the military. About the only way these corporations can be held accountable is via the Alien Tort Claims Act [wikipedia.org], which Bush [globalpolicy.org] tried to get rid of.
Falcon
Re:Thomas Jefferson said it best: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thomas Jefferson said it best: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Thomas Jefferson said it best: (Score:3, Informative)
No, they're not from the same people, with the exception of SOME Catholics. And yes, pro-life really just means baby. 90% of anti-abortion persons I know are also pro-death penalty.
Re:Thomas Jefferson said it best: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Thomas Jefferson said it best: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have insurance and resent the fact that I have to choose between having it or jail time (I won't pay the fines for not getting it). I resent the fact that the government thinks it knows better than me what I do or don't need. I resent the fact that the government thinks that there are companies that are "too big to fail" so they are willing to give them a pass no matter what crimes they commit.
Re:Thomas Jefferson said it best: (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know who these conservatives are that do not like Jefferson, I have never met any of them. I also do not know why they would be pissed about the term "separation between church and state" unless it is because it is being used to people rights they had until recently. Some of these rights were to prey in school, some schools were outright banning religious material altogether due to the separation between church and state.
I have no idea how anyone could be prevented from praying in school. Teachers are not allowed to lead prayers, of course, and you do it on your own time, but I don't see how that can be construed as a violation of anyone's rights.
But hey, that's not Jefferson's fault, it's the idiots who can't grasp a concept. An idiot like this was the guy who sued because his kid had to learn the pledge of allegiance in school citing "separation of church and state".
Maybe because some idiots back in the 50s decided to mix a little religion in with the pledge and added "under God" to it. Not everyone believes in God, and I think it's a clear violation to make kids recite anything that has a religious component to it.
Re:Thomas Jefferson said it best: (Score:4, Informative)
I don't agree with being forced to buy insurance but I understand the need for such a provision which is following the auto industry insurance model.
The problem every one of those arguments fail to address is the fact that there will be a much larger pool of people paying into a system and far fewer trips to the emergency room for the uninsured. I haven't seen any valid arguments for why premiums would be higher given that insurance companies would money to compensate for the sick people they now cover. Of course one trip to a doctor to properly dress a wound versus an emergency trip a week later with a staph infection is much cheaper to treat.
Those who cannot afford to pay are given discounts. Refusing insurance just makes no sense, but there are lots of people trying to make arguments that preventative care is unnecessary despite the obvious benefits like treating and dealing with a heart attack versus detecting high blood pressure before the big event. Like finding cancer earlier versus finding it late stage. There is a human cost that few want to talk about.
Personally, I can afford healthcare, I have seen my premiums more than quadruple in the six years I have worked for this company. Something has to be done to change things as insurance companies are not going to do anything unless they are forced to. I am happy to afford a $300 a year hike which is only $25 per month if it means my 9 year old niece can now have health insurance despite her mom having an under control thyroid condition. For now my sister skipped being insured so that her kids could have insurance but that is unacceptable to me given how well she takes care of her condition. There are millions in similar situations and we are the only industrialised nation that has let it stand and for what reason?
This is all besides the point that this is a poor example of corruption and is more an example of the ineptitude of our representatives.