ProPublica

Journalism in the Public Interest

Cancel

Death Takes a Policy: How a Lawyer Exploited the Fine Print and Found Himself Facing Federal Charges

The life insurance industry tried to make variable annuities irresistible to investors and was enraged when a Rhode Island lawyer exploited the fine print for his own profit.

« Return to Story

Sort by: Oldest Newest  1 2 3 >

OhioRiver

Aug. 24, 2012, 12:11 p.m.

Our country is being invaded from the southern border by the millions, we continue to have undeclared foreign wars for decades with no win yet & our govt. uses our tax dollars to go after this one man.  Where is the outrage?  booksbyoliver.com

Dean Muller

Aug. 24, 2012, 12:14 p.m.

Haven’t corporations been using “Dead Peasant” insurance policies for a long time?

Jasper

Aug. 24, 2012, 12:21 p.m.

How is this different from what the banks and MERS have done with our mortgages? Money out of thin air for them, illegal foreclosures for us.

John

Aug. 24, 2012, 12:27 p.m.

A very long article, but a heck of a lot of fun to go through.  And I think one sentence above sums up the whole thing:

“[The company] never expected to pay the majority of the benefits it offered.”

That’s the crux of the problem and of insurance.

At its most altruistic, the whole point of insurance is that you pay them a monthly fee, and at some time in the future—guessed at by how much your premiums are—they pay you the money you paid them.  So, at the very best, they could be replaced by putting cash in your mattress.

More likely, it’s less, as they take administrative fees and (now) give you the return on mediocre investments.  And if they can get away with it, it’ll be much less, while they claim your cancer was actually your fault (a friend had to deal with that bombshell after his father passed away), or make up any story to avoid paying out.  I had a few coworkers (same area, same policy), years back, who were told that the home flood policy they’d been paying premiums on for years had been cancelled, the very day their houses flooded, for example.

All that’s fair game.  But Caramadre’s sin isn’t that what he’s doing is profiting from death (because they do, too), but that he’s making them pay what they owe, plain and simple, and he’s not one of the big boys.

Keep in mind that insurance companies have not tried to bring the investment banks on criminal charges, even when they widely admit that many of their biggest investments in the stock and commodities markets are insurance policies for or against something they have no intention of buying.

The industry is inherently fraudulent, and they’ll spend billions to bankrupt him through court fees and lost business to avoid having to admit it.  Why be right, after all, when you can run out the clock?  And the government will surely support them, since people seeing the fraud there might wonder what the value is in a bank that charges you to access your money while they gamble it away, or trading stocks that don’t pay dividends after the IPO.

(In fact, now that it’s officially Constitutional, perhaps a future President will push for a law requiring each of us to buy life insurance, to minimize the benefits to someone like Caramadre…)

It would’ve been nice if Caramadre paid the sick people MORE of the absurd profits, but otherwise, I don’t see the problem.

Harold Keown

Aug. 24, 2012, 1:01 p.m.

The Insurance Companies don’t like to be out smarted. I am glad to hear that someone made them pay!!!!!!!

Philip de Louraille

Aug. 24, 2012, 1:13 p.m.

You got it John. The last thing an insurance company wants to do is pay out. It is a protected racket. Indeed, Caramadre should have paid the sick people more but it does not seem (so far) that he committed a crime. Unless, of course, it is a crime to legally outsmart an insurance company.

Zach

Aug. 24, 2012, 1:15 p.m.

My question is: Where’d he come up with the $2,000 figure?

Ray Michael

Aug. 24, 2012, 1:17 p.m.

Insurance companies and casinos.  Happy to take your money but as soon as they have to pay out big there is a problem and it is your fault even if you follow their rules.

Laura

Aug. 24, 2012, 1:25 p.m.

The insurance industry has been robbing people forever.  This man just took a little for himself.  Where’s the crackdown on Big Insurance?

Ralph

Aug. 24, 2012, 1:49 p.m.

Ha!  The crooks who disguise themselves as legitimate, upstanding businesses got used by their own devices.  This guy is no hero but he is no different from the insurance companies themselves.  It’s ironic and sad that our government of the people will go after the people but not the corporations who cheat.

Robert

Aug. 24, 2012, 2:07 p.m.

Doesn’t this about sum it up!  Wall Street, Banks, Insurance Companies can invent all kinds of crooked ways to scam the public, skirt the tax codes, circumvent the banking and securities regulations, and make millions (toxic martgage backed securites is one example; forged home foreclosure documents is another). Not one indictment despite the billions lost by investors. It’s called good business.  But let one private businessman come up with a clever exploitation of an insurance company’s own contract in which no one was scammed and watch how fast the governmetn can move on an indictment.  It just goes to prove that it is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but of special interests, by special interests, and for special interests.  Hang in there Joseph; we are on your side!

Ben

Aug. 24, 2012, 2:11 p.m.

I cannot see the crime here.  The annuitants were in hospices with relatives present and agreed to a fix fees of $2,000.00.  The insurance companies should be sued for harassment.

Tracey

Aug. 24, 2012, 2:31 p.m.

Thank you for making a complex story easy to understand.  For someone with not much knowledge of insurance business or annuities, the article was written so that I was able to understand and make sense out of it!

Laura

Aug. 24, 2012, 2:42 p.m.

I think I’ll check with my financial advisor re: my annuity after reading this!

DaveB

Aug. 24, 2012, 3:03 p.m.

From all of the info presented in the article, and views expressed by commentors here, these big money corp’s are doing their best to buy the next election…to keep things as they are…for them. Special interest groups, “Citizens United”, and so-called charities, giving away billions…Why, because they can, no matter who has to suffer. As it was recently quoted, the wealthy Corp’s are doing “Fine”. Shall the rest of us have to purchase our own “Chains” too? (Or get them from the “Company Store”?)
I like to refer to an article that was published in “The New Yorker”, titled “Sold Out”, where there were records of major Corp’s and banks and how much was contributed to election funding and for who.

Richard

Aug. 24, 2012, 3:08 p.m.

Good for you Joe!  Na-na-na-na-na-na to the insurance industry.  The biggest crooks in the world just got horn-waggled by their own greed. HAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!

Jim

Aug. 24, 2012, 3:36 p.m.

Insurance companys are there to make money but not to give it out . Good luck to him .

JEC

Aug. 24, 2012, 4:37 p.m.

I for one am sleeping better knowing they are going after this man.

After all what would be the point in prosecuting one of the Wall Street bankers who helped send the global economy into the toilet. I guess it could be that they could use their billions and lawyers to jam the works.

So this guy beat them at their own game and they are weeping crocodile tears with outrage.

PaulB

Aug. 24, 2012, 6:24 p.m.

I’ve had a really bad experience as a beneficiary of an annuity..  the insurance company took 60 cents of every dollar in “fees” and then reported to the IRS that what they ever so generously left behind was “income” and left me holding the bag on “taxes” from this “income”.

This “annuity” was funded from inheritance on which ALL TAXES were paid!!..  IN FULL!!  There was NEVER a question on the issue!! 

In fact they paid a $6000 commission to a financial planner who set it up!!  So for them to pretend otherwise is an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact!!

The insurance company knows and knew that at the time, the funds used to set up this thing came from a trust bank account I had no control over, never saw a statement from and never knew and still don’t know what bank, let alone what branch it was!!

As far as I’m concerned these “annuities” are no better than an investment with Bernie Madoff..  at least he didn’t leave anyone holding the bag with the IRS for what he stole from them.

So I have absolutely no sympathy for a bunch that’s writhing in greed over what they can suck out of someone who has no say in and no idea what they might do going in. 

It’s one thing to be a crook and another to take a parting shot like ratting someone out to the IRS when they’re DEAD WRONG!! 

If I owed any taxes it would be one thing but this WASN’T income!!.

Now I have a hell of a problem on my hands and these guys are whining in self-pity??  Jeez…  doesn’t get any better than that..

My advice to anyone with an heir, don’t “give” them an annuity!!.. 

If you really must, just substitute the insurance company as the beneficiary and get it over with.  That way your heir doesn’t get turned into some poor slob who has to struggle with the IRS!!

Then again, you never know!!  Who knows what they might do given the opportunity!!  In fact, don’t even let them know you have a heir!!  Just give them the money and tell them, “go away”!!

All this might not anything to do with Mr. Caramadre, he might not be such a great a guy but the people he’s dealing with are no better and more likely, are worse.

Michael Ormerod

Aug. 24, 2012, 8 p.m.

Bottom line, Mr. Caramadre did nothing wrong.

Hiren

Aug. 24, 2012, 10:06 p.m.

I totally agree with John.

It’s all a bet.  The insurance companies hire many mathematicians to determine the probability and statics of their intake vs outflow.  It’s a math problem to them, and of course they have the $ to fight your case, claim denials, make up excuses, etc… it all helps their bottom line.  Plus, the kicker is they get to collect fees.  It’s like vegas - the odds are always in their favor (and actually maybe better odds than what Vegas takes in).

To the people that feel that got ripped off, is it because you didn’t get the money?  You got the money up front.  This is the same concept as reverse mortgages - if the house value goes up, you can’t claim that… but you did get paid.

Stephen

Aug. 24, 2012, 10:24 p.m.

The guy did fine - except when he went hunting for signatures of dying people and didn’t tell them what he was doing.  For that, he deserves jail.

For screwing an industry that got greedy?  Congratulations.

Jeff

Aug. 25, 2012, 5:27 a.m.

For it describes an evil where no one and nothing is to blame, an evil that has so eaten it’s way into our civilization that political remedies are as useful as poulticing a cancer

James

Aug. 25, 2012, 7:34 a.m.

Very interesting story on this on NPR’s This American Life. Google it and listen to the whole story on podcast. I don’t think prosecutors have a hope. He followed the law and apparently didn’t scam anyone.

Jon

Aug. 25, 2012, 10:18 a.m.

What a waste of taxpayers resources to try to punish a guy who used the insurance companies own rules to make money. As with the investment banks who used subprime mortage bonds and CDO’s to make and then lose the billions of dollars that brought down the world economy (and who were later bailed out by US taxpayers), it’s impossible to feel any sympathy for the insurance companies.

CLARENCE SWINNEY

Aug. 25, 2012, 11:28 a.m.

Mike Lofgren new book The Party Is Over :Contains these:

How Republicans went Crazy, Democrats became Useless, and the Middle Class got shafted”

“Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann have recently published a book that confirms my personal observations about Congress in virtually every particular.

They depict the “rancorous partisanship and polarization”, use of the filibuster, the decline of legislative problem-solving in favor of grandstanding and confrontation, and the universal “domination of the institution of money”.  They do not fail to note the tincture of “craziness” that has overcome the GOP in the past decade, and particularly since Obama’s election

Nothing will be solved in Congress until we get the Money out of politics. And by that I mean all private money. Federally funded campaigns. The public can finance a much smaller sum of money to ensure that bribery and extortion do not corrupt the democratic process. With a small guaranteed sum to campaign with during the campaign season (perhaps labor day until election
day). In the UK they last less than a month and in Australia about six weeks

Fast forward to the era of Gingrich, Luntz and group tested political slogans.

These problems are not “givens”. They arose because of stupidity and lack of attention, and they are amenable to solutions we can devise.”

P.S. SBT—Swinney Big Three—

A.  Short term funded elections-no personal or outside money—

B.  Ban federal employees from receiving anything with a financial value-Burn tax book start over. Exemptions must serve a common good—The $1100B in exemptions allow a balanced budget plus.

C. Progressive Flat Tax—Tax Total Income limit adjusted with limited exemptions. Tax top down to pay our way. It is so dumb we borrowed 14,000B since 1980.
when we had an annual income of 14,000B. We could have easily paid our way by taxing wealth Fairly. We pandered the to the rich and their 20,000 lobbyists on K Street.
Clarence Swinney—Burlington nc
Lofgren spent 28 years in Congress. Last sixteen on Budget committees.

Hannah

Aug. 25, 2012, 12:08 p.m.

I am sympathetic to the woman at the end of the piece for her loss, but what exactly does she think life insurance if not putting a dollar amount on someone’s life? Clearly that’s not inherently repugnant to people and I am guessing she sees no immorality in having life insurance where your your family benefits if you die. I understand that in this case it was a stranger who invested and a stranger who benefited, but the connection of dollars to death she says she finds so problematic is essentially the same. For my part, I see this as a (legal) con of the insurance companies - and I cannot think of a more worthy target.

Aurora Lederman

Aug. 25, 2012, 12:15 p.m.

I heard about this on This American Life, and frankly, I’m incredibly diassapointed that this “loophole” has been closed!  I have a 74-year-old friend in poor health and in poor financial condition.  Receiving $2000+ from such a transaction would have been a boon to her.  All the rhetoric about it being a scheme to capitalize off “the dying” is santimonious and uber-pious.  In no way does it sound illegal to catch insurance companies at their own game.

Dan D

Aug. 25, 2012, 12:21 p.m.

What angers me most about this case is that the FBI agents misrepresented what was going on (saying “made millions” when only $10,000 was invested in one instance) to the annuitants to get them to turn on Caramadre.  Someone should be prosecuting those FBI agents.  Without angry annuitants, this case would never go anywhere.

M Davis

Aug. 25, 2012, 12:36 p.m.

Someone should question the nursing homes, doctors etc.  that gave him access to their patients. Other than that, he seems to have simply beaten the insurance scammers at their own game.

Cynthia Bauman

Aug. 25, 2012, 12:38 p.m.

I agree with Dan D.  Also I don’t understand why people are so upset when their “beloved” received at least $2,000 and it cost them nothing.  I congratulate someone who can beat the system and I hope Caramadre comes out a winner.

Marvin

Aug. 25, 2012, 12:47 p.m.

I am a former actuary and have a few technical comments. I know that insurance companies went to great lengths to make sure that annuities with guaranteed death benefits were approved by state insurance as a
‘annuities’ and not as ‘life insurance.’ The reason behind this had much to do with tax considerations, partly for the company and partly for the client. Also, the little bit of insurance law and its history I studied covered the concept of ‘insurable interest.’ If I remember correctly the body of written and common law built up around this concept pertains to life insurance and not to annuities, because the annuities had a life contingent portion that was ‘incidental to’ the purpose of the contract.

The program correctly points out that the insurance company had only to revise some of its fine print to include an insurable interest clause, or to specify that the annuitant be the investor or someone in whom the investor has an insurable interest to extract itself from this problem. The insurers will have a tough time in court on any suit they may institute because insurance and annuity contracts fall in the class of ‘contracts of adhesion,’ meaning that one party drafts the document and the other party has only the option to sign or not to sign, without negotiating rights. The party drafting the document is assumed to have looked out for its interests, and to the extent they fail to do so, tough luck.

As for the criminal charges, well, this is how the insurers avoid directly suing, with the problems cited above. I for one am outraged that the Justice Department is being used this way, but unfortunately, this is not new. There appears to be a very cozy relationship among government, big business and wealthy individuals. Even wealthy individuals have to be watchful not to rock the boat too much as people from Martha Stewart to Al Capone to Bernie Madoff have learned the hard way.

Joel Friedland, CPA

Aug. 25, 2012, 1:10 p.m.

The article and broadcast did a great job explaining what all this is about.
Thank you.

John

Aug. 25, 2012, 1:22 p.m.

Seems to me that I remember that ING was part of the government bailout. So really, the taxpayer has paid for these scams—once again!
Moving money from the bottom to the top is out of control….

Jeff

Aug. 25, 2012, 1:53 p.m.

Let see, the most recent conundrum is How do you define “Rape”

Linda

Aug. 25, 2012, 1:55 p.m.

Shame on the investigators for insensitively stirring up feelings of loss and re-framing the perceptions of family members they interviewed such that the families now feel that their loved ones were treated as commodities, by misrepresenting the nature of Mr. Caramadre’s contractual relationship with them!  The loss of a loved one is a painful, complex, and life-changing experience; suggestive interviewing prompting family members to re-write the end-of-life time with their loved ones, is cruel and reckless.

The essence of Mr. Caramadre’s offer was NOT ‘profiting from their death’ - as suggested by the ?FBI interviewers and by sensationalist news reporters - but rather, the essence of the offer was profiting from the insurance companies’ oversight in how they wrote their variable annuity contracts.  All non-corporate parties involved were enjoying the spoils of the insurance companies’ oversight.

At the time of the actual deals, the terminally ill people and their families appear to have had very positive feelings of getting extra money, and that they were enthusiastic to get this money (giving them extra spending power, perhaps some dignity as expressed by a family member, etc).  From the information provided here, and on the ‘This American Life’ segment, it doesn’t seem that the ill or their families were concerned about (1) negotiating for more money for their signatures, nor concerned about (2) the extent of financial benefits that their signatures would bring to Mr. Caramadre or his investors.  It seems to me that the above are key points to be considered if any allegations are to be made of treating the annuitants unfairly.  It doesn’t seem that the ill or their family members were hoodwinked or manipulated, received distorted information, nor tricked into taking on risk or future financial obligations. 

I am a very compassionate person, and I am not basing my comments on simply the black-and-white contract of agreement between Mr. Caramadre and the ill;  it seems to me that the only slighted party involved was perhaps the insurance companies (but any complaints on their part of questionable morality would clearly be a contradiction of their actions - including all the incentives that they were offering to investors of these variable annuities!).  It seems to me that the investigators have turned a positive relationship into an inaccurately ugly and hurtful one.

Justin Burke

Aug. 25, 2012, 2:08 p.m.

It isn’t clear how investors made money off the loophole discovered by the lawyer. The lawyer himself made money on fees and commissions, but, according to the story, the only thing investors got was their money back when the annuitant died. They put a million dollars in; maybe the annuity lost money; the annuitant died; they got a million dollars back. If the annuity made some money, then they made some too. It hardly sounds like a get rich quick scheme. It was more like don’t-get-poor slow.
Insurance companies now sell indexed annuities which work the same way, without a terminally ill annuitant (without annuitization at all, in fact). They are a form of fixed annuity in which the principal is linked to a market index, but not actually invested in it, so if it goes down there is no loss; if it goes up, the annuity owner gets a gain.
I repeatedly heard the phrase “profiting from death”, but it was more like not losing money from death” since no one was guaranteed a profit; they were guaranteed not to lose the original annuity premium.
There actually is a way to profit from someone’s death and that’s viaticals – which are now better known as life settlements. This is where I’m sick or terminally ill and you offer to buy my million dollar life insurance policy for $100,000 in cash (or whatever I will accept because I can’t afford the premiums or need the money or whatever). Then I die and you get a million dollars. Because you are now the owner, beneficiary and payor of my policy (while I remain the insured), you now have to pay the premiums, so the sooner I die, the greater your profit.

Jeff

Aug. 25, 2012, 2:12 p.m.

Good Job Linda This Kills me and the Insurance Companies in different way’s The truth is a beautiful thing! i have seen similar scenarios at Co’s I’ve worked for

The essence of Mr. Caramadre’s offer was NOT ‘profiting from their death’ - as suggested by the ?FBI interviewers and by sensationalist news reporters - but rather, the essence of the offer was profiting from the insurance companies’ oversight in how they wrote their variable annuity contracts.  All non-corporate parties involved were enjoying the spoils of the insurance companies’ oversight

Julia

Aug. 25, 2012, 2:37 p.m.

I get where people who are grieving are upset by any tendency to normalize death, when their worlds are completely undone by the death. But if this is the worst that this woman experienced in how people treated her dying mother or her mother’s death, then she is doing well in my experience. For the most part, the dying/death industry in the U.S. is horrendous and inhumane, from “nursing” homes where our elderly are treated far less humanely than dogs in pounds, to the unending schemes aimed at stealing their money, to the insurance companies’ tactics to avoid paying money.

It appears that here people were given a chance to kick back at an industry that is ruthless in its dealings with its “customers”. That they were given substantial money regardless of signing seems like a good faith gesture. That they were compensated to the tune of ~$1,000/signature seems quite good, especially when one considers how much less Mr. Caramadre could probably have gotten away with paying and that not all the investments would have made any money beyond interest at all. I suppose it would’ve been nice if he’d also used his money to open one account per person and given their survivors any money earner, but that seems more complicated (which one to decide on? Who helps them with the taxes/etc.? Is it set up so that it’s in their name? How does one deal with the inequality in compensation then?).

Would it be lovely if we took care of our dying (and their caretakers) and surrounded them with all the love and material goods they needed during a difficult time? Yes. But we’re so far from that that a man who pays dying people for their signatures on a financial scheme that gets back at a cruel and greedy industry CLEARLY has the moral high ground.

Dave

Aug. 25, 2012, 2:47 p.m.

The Feds are straining at a gnat in this case while the investment/insurance industry [in bed with Congress] screws the public all the time. I no longer have any investments because of 3 unscrupulous salesmen and now what I have left is sitting in a bank earning 1%. The insurance Industry deals in death all the time for profit. They’ve denied people treatment and let them die because it cuts into their bottom line. The profit motive can make people do evil things and for the investment companies to be outraged that they’ve been duped falls on deaf ears in my case. To hell with them all.

Jeff

Aug. 25, 2012, 3:52 p.m.

lets say The whole is Equal to the sum of it’s parts what is Immoral, unethical, Illegal about this?

Hunger is a dreadful Plague no doubt, yet who digest’s or thrives without?

You do not can not have one without the other Life and Death are one thing, not Two! People need to be able to do such a thing as this man pointed out   we are all going to die why not be able to fulfill a need on both ends?

David Wells

Aug. 25, 2012, 4 p.m.

What makes it immoral is the signature payment can be incredibly small comparatively. The dying aren’t aware of the extent of profit being made off their death, and thus aren’t able to judge appropriately how much their signature is actually worth.

Fix that, then negotiate their payment, and there is no immorality.

Jonathan

Aug. 25, 2012, 4:35 p.m.

Mr.Caramadre in my opinion appears to have been working within the law and the terms of contracts (authored by the Insurance Companies); he paid the required fees and paid the annuitants. No one lost any money until the insurers started to lose money due to conditions in the general market. Up to that point, the insurance companies seemed only too happy to accept Mr Caramadre’s business. The moral issue of profiting from death may be disconcerting, but in this case, the greatest participants are the authors of the ‘death benefit’ themselves, the Insurance Companies.

Jeff

Aug. 25, 2012, 4:35 p.m.

Where do i sign The dying are going to dye no way out of that The fact that
the person knows or not does not change anything   “You can’t take it with you”  yes they could get more money “How much”  there is nothing Immoral
about this unethical maybe I perceive only that people have a childish view of death because no one knows for certain what happens

Gary O.

Aug. 25, 2012, 4:42 p.m.

I have just heard Ira’s NPR’s program “This American Life” on this subject—excellent!
I need not say anymore than, “I do NOT disagree with the last dozen comments”... double negative, I know!
Well done, ProPublica & NPR.

Donald E. Schreiber

Aug. 25, 2012, 5 p.m.

Another variation on Caramadre’s scheme occurred in San Francisco during the 1980s at the beginning of the Aids epidemic.  At that time there were advertisements in the newspaper seeking Aids victims who owned life insurance policies.  The deal was that an Aids victim would sell his life insurance policy to an “investor” for a fraction of the policy’s face value.  The “investor” would then become the life insurance policy’s beneficiary entitled to collect the policy’s proceeds when the Aids victim died.  Unfortunately for the “investors,” improved treatment of Aids victims began prolonging their lives which meant that the investor couldn’t collect the life insurance policy’s proceeds as quickly as anticipated so the scheme lasted for only a short time, perhaps a year or two.

If profiting from a person’s death were outlawed, then under the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision enterprises and individuals such as Mitt Rommey’s Bain Capital would be put our of business.  Businesses such as Bain Capital would be prohibited from buying up dying corporations, i.e. persons, to profit by dismembering the corporation and selling the corporation’s body parts to the highest bidder.

Profiting from the death of financial investments is precisely why Mitt Romney opposed the auto industry bailout and favored home foreclosures.  Obama’s saving of the auto industry denied enterprises such as Bain Capital of a major opportunity to profit by dismembering the rankrupt automobile companies.  Similarly, home foreclosures offer enterprises such as Bain Capital an opportunity to acquire property as distressed prices and then later resell them at a significant profit.

About 10 years ago all of Genentech’s stock was repurchased by the corporation only to be followed by an Initial Public The subsequent offering of Genentech’s stock about a year or two later was at a price approximately twice that when the stock was repurchased.

I have heard a rumor that few farmers in the San Joaquin Valley own the mineral rights under their property.  What I have heard was that when banks acquired such property during the Great Depression they stripped off the mineral rights before reselling the property.  That way, if a valuable mineral, e.g. oil, were discovered beneath a farmer’s property the bank, rather than the farmer, would profit from the discovery.

Laura

Aug. 25, 2012, 5:35 p.m.

I know this was tongue in cheek but right on.

“If profiting from a person’s death were outlawed, then under the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision enterprises and individuals such as Mitt Rommey’s Bain Capital would be put our of business. Businesses such as Bain Capital would be prohibited from buying up dying corporations, i.e. persons, to profit by dismembering the corporation and selling the corporation’s body parts to the highest bidder.” 

That would be poetic justice I’d say.  SCOTUS would have to ponder that absurd decision for a long time for its unintended consequences.

ibsteve2u

Aug. 25, 2012, 6:33 p.m.

I don’t quite understand why Corporate America - that is, the executive suites, corporate boards, and lobbyists of Corporate America - feel that they should be the only ones entitled to discarding all moral and ethical constraints and restraints???

They set the example…now nobody but the corporation-as-“people” is supposed to follow it?

Jeff

Aug. 25, 2012, 6:58 p.m.

Very Good comment from Johnathan! The Insurance Companies are actually the writers and framers of the whole kit-N-kaboodle if they are to “go after” someone it will inevitably lead to them or should or perhaps i am assuming that Justice will take place? the only thing Mr.Caramadre did was to read the “text” and use the “rules” he was a messenger of the rules, not the maker. He is in a sense a Free market hero! i have seen people such as this get shit on at Companies i have previously worked for Only for the
the fact that they have pointed out what needed to be done, did it and now they the co C.E.O don’t want to give credit where it is obviously due because it would cost them more to step forward and admit (not Defeat) but live up to there own rhetoric “Customer service” so on and so forth.

Other Jeff

Aug. 25, 2012, 8:19 p.m.

I love this guy
(Assuming that he never committed forgery).

How many people in Vegas have sputtered this: “but…but…but.. that wasn’t supposed to happen!” when the dice came up 7 or they got dealt 22 in blackjack. And the casino says “them’s the rules, thank you very much for playing.”

It sounds to me like the insurance companies are sputtering “but…but..but.. you aren’t supposed to do that!” The key difference is that insurance companies made the rules themselves! They have only themselves to blame. I, for one, love to see them take a hit.

As for the dying, $2k before you die is better than $0 after you die, even if someone else makes more than you do.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

Get Updates

Stay on top of what we’re working on by subscribing to our email digest.

optional

Our Hottest Stories

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •