If CEOs and billionaires wanted the system to change they could change it. They don't. They like it this way. They like being "obligated" to pursue profit at all cost, they'd do it anyway.

He could have done a number of other things. He wasn't just a cog, he actively drove many of the problems with the health insurance industry today, as the person in control of the most egregious offender.

I'm sure he'll be replaced with someone similar, and I'm sure he had plenty of encouragement; but that doesn't make him any less culpable.

You are absolutely right. Our current laws (and precedents) require CEOs and Directors to produce the best results possible for their shareholders. They can and have been sued for failing to do that. It effectively means they have to screw their employees and customers.

If corporations are people, then nearly all of them are sociopaths. The law requires it. (So it isn't surprising that the people who prove most effective at running them lean strongly in that direction as well.)

I'm not sure how far along it is, but the EU has been working on a change to their corporate laws that would require corporations to balance the good of their shareholders against other factors, such as their employees, their customers, and the public at large. Among other things, it would make them liable for how they deal, or fail to deal, with their companies' effects on climate change.

The EU has been steadily passing laws that actually help its citizens and provide protection against corporations. Those of us elsewhere in the world are also benefiting from their efforts. Being required to do the right thing in Europe often makes it less expensive to do it everywhere, than to make special efforts to exploit the areas where that is still allowed. The EU laws also encourage people elsewhere to push for better protections of their own.

The EU is far from perfect, but it gives me hope.

The CEO is obligated to deliver profits to the board and shareholders.

But since there's no surefire way to determine what the most profitable course is, that's largely up to the CEO to justify his/her -- oh who am I kidding it's usually his -- actions and direction for the company.

There's also no law on the books about this "must be oriented to shareholder profits" crap, most investment in the market is idle investment from index funds, and many of the biggest public companies right now were not profitable for a long time.

It's an evil system. I get it, but that doesn't mean CEOs have no power.

And soldiers are obligated to follow orders. If they follow an unjust or unethical order the soldiers themselves get prosecuted just as hard as the ones that made the decision. He had every opportunity to say no or leave, he didn't do either. Simple as.

His company denies claims at twice the industry average. They MUST be denying valid claims to double the average. They don't need to deny valid claims to make a profit, only to squeeze as much as possible at the expense of their customers, which is objectively evil in an industry that already skirts morality.

Karmas a bitch I guess.

Oh well