My point is he (CEO) is viewed by many as most culpable for fraudulently denied claims at UHC -- and there are crimes, even non-financial ones like drug dealing, that tightly couple level of organization and sales of a product to differences in penalty for even a singe death. That is, this line of thinking is embedded in the USC.
The contrarian view is that drug dealing is a financial crime of not paying for the credentials of a DEA license, or that fraudulently denying medical claims is a crime of criminal negligence resulting in bodily harm.
As for where I started, my initial comments involved both financial crimes and drug dealing. Most but not all probably consider insurance fraud as a financial crime but one that some can only atone through vigilantism. The line to me on all accounts looks blurry.
