C2 Chris Bell
Chris Bell
2026-07-28 · 11 min ·
cite 
@misc{bell2026kafkaesque,
  author       = {Bell, Chris},
  title        = {{Kafkaesque Scapeghosts}},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://chris.cbell.dev/writing/kafkaesque-scapeghosts/}},
  url          = {https://chris.cbell.dev/writing/kafkaesque-scapeghosts/},
  note         = {ORCID: 0009-0006-3476-8618}
}
ORCID 0009-0006-3476-8618
· corporations thoughts

Kafkaesque Scapeghosts

I started writing this shortly after Luigi Mangione was arrested for the murder of United Healthcare's CEO. I've added to it a bit to clarify my thoughts (to myself), so if some of the temporal aspects seems odd, know that it may be due to the gaps in its drafting.

It takes so little effort to imagine many realistic situations in which UHC11United Health Care gravely harmed one of their customers, set aside if you have your own encounter with this beast. The murder of UHC's CEO may be one of the most understandable in today’s zeitgeist. Being sympathetic to Luigi Mangione does not contradict a belief in the importance of the rule of law.1United Health Care

I think most people would agree that the rule of law should be a foundation for society. But the rule of which laws? The rule of law is established and enforced by humans. The basis for many laws comes from some historical framework22In the US, we have 'common law' that we refer to as a legal framework when novel laws have yet to be written to cover such an instance that center around the behavior of humans. Somewhere along the line, organizations of people became a legal entity in and of itself with its own obligations, distinct of the people who were part of the organization. As a legal entity existing in a world of laws, repercussions of breaking the law must be for illicit actions.2In the US, we have 'common law' that we refer to as a legal framework when novel laws have yet to be written to cover such an instance

This poses a problem: we have many ways of punishing a person, but our individual ethic33In US culture is averse to the idea of collective punishment. How, then, do you punish an organization? My simple answer would be to punish the people, but at what level: those doing, those instructing, or those making the decision? This blurry line makes my simple answer unfulfilling as a general premise.44And it would seem that nuance is something unappreciated by most people.3In US culture4And it would seem that nuance is something unappreciated by most people.

To grapple this problem, America's legal system has decided to do two absolutely stupid things. The first is we punish the organization for the organization's effort, and only punish a person for something if they are clearly the proximal cause. The second is that we have decided to give "rights" to an organization which are distinct from the people in it.

As a result, corporations become the legal scapegoat for those running the organization. In a vacuum, this might not be seen as a bad thing, but we live in a capitalistic system, so guard rails on what 'can' and 'can't' be done for profit are quite important.55Think: negative externalities, criminal behavior, suppression of the 'free market' via monopoly and monopsony, etc This legal scapegoat is a sociopathic 'ghost' in the machine of the company. Much like an ouija board, to some whose hands are on the pointer, it can feel as if it moves on its own. But, also like an ouija board, this is a farce. Someone is moving it;66And this person can change in a single session so everyone is equally spooked... I don't get the entertainment value but to each their own who is a separate question.5Think: negative externalities, criminal behavior, suppression of the 'free market' via monopoly and monopsony, etc6And this person can change in a single session so everyone is equally spooked... I don't get the entertainment value but to each their own

Culturally, we've added to these ghost's moral and emotional weight. We've anthropomorphized the corporations themselves: they have spokespeople to be their mouth, they have institutional knowledge and opinions,77And we differentiate our opinions from the organizations if we are publicly speaking! How many times have you heard: "these opinions are my own and not those of my employer?" they can act and do things, and they can be sorry for something. This is nonsense: the people are told what to say by someone higher up, the knowledge is the collective knowledge of the people who work there, anything else is a library that must be reread to be used, the people do things under the banner of the company, its opinions are the opinions of people in a committee, and a company 'being sorry' is nothing more than a concession or advertisement to avoid backlash.7And we differentiate our opinions from the organizations if we are publicly speaking! How many times have you heard: "these opinions are my own and not those of my employer?"

The legal ramifications of using this ghost are quite useful as a shield. If a corporation knowingly lies about the externalities of their product 88Tobacco hiring 'scientists' to push against any health claim or regulation; Big oil being some of the first to know how significant their product's greenhouse gas effect is and then suppressing it (plus everything else they are still doing... The carbon footprint is a joke to allow the wealthier companies to simply pay for the privilege of killing people)and people die as a result, where are the criminal charges? What about if the company pushes drugs, why do the kingpins here not have at least the same life-snuffing criminal punishments that dealers with a 7-orders-of-magnitude shorter reach get?8Tobacco hiring 'scientists' to push against any health claim or regulation; Big oil being some of the first to know how significant their product's greenhouse gas effect is and then suppressing it (plus everything else they are still doing... The carbon footprint is a joke to allow the wealthier companies to simply pay for the privilege of killing people)

Dr. Tseng and Purdue

We can see the difference a ghost makes in how offenders are punished with and without one. To make the point clearer, we won't consider a simple drug dealer and a pharma company, we will consider an overprescribing doctor and a company pushing addictive drugs to doctors while hiding any evidence of harm. Take Dr. Hsiu Ying "Lisa" Tseng and Purdue Pharma as a comparative example.

Dr. Tseng started out by providing pain medication to patients and quickly escalated the practice to becoming a pill mill. She would prescribe a myriad of drugs, even after being told by coroners that her patients were dying from this practice and that she was overprescribing. In 2015, she was convicted of multiple things, the most significant of which were 3 counts of second-degree murder. She was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison.

Now, consider Purdue Pharmaceuticals. Purdue, at the explicit direction of the Sackler Family who owned the company, lied to doctors about the safety of the drugs,99They claimed that OxyContin was a "safe" opioid. encouraged overprescription,1010Literally in flying 'high prescribing' doctors to conferences. and hid evidence of their behavior. The pharmaceutical company, and the Sackler family, have to pay $7.4 billion in a settlement11116.5 of which comes from the Sacklers, .9 from Purdue. as punishment.9They claimed that OxyContin was a "safe" opioid.10Literally in flying 'high prescribing' doctors to conferences.116.5 of which comes from the Sacklers, .9 from Purdue.

This punishment is asymmetric in effect. Dr. Tseng, who harmed significantly fewer people, is currently incarcerated. She was a proximal and primal cause of this behavior, thus it was extremely easy to account for responsibility. She will never practice medicine again, and any profits she had gained are gone. The Sackler family, on the other hand, extracted over $11 billion over the time period they were doing this, netting $4.5 billion after they pay their murder tax. They have also moved some money offshore which can't be compelled. The family faces no incarceration for their indirect massacre.

Highlights of the Sacklers

I say "massacre" purposefully: the Sacklers are so distant from their customers that the customers are not humans to them. And, freed by this callousness and contempt, they were able to instigate an opioid crisis which has claimed over 450,000 people thus far.

Here are some of their actions:

  • Richard Sackler directed others to hide evidence about OxyContin's strength and risk.
  • Richard Sackler blamed patients for abusing the medication even after encouraging higher doses of the drug to be advertised by sales reps.
  • Kathe Sackler began designing an addiction treatment program to treat the thing they caused by using yet another drug, buprenorphine, making 'repeat customers.' She did so in response to the numerous reports of the harms their company has caused.
  • In 2001, after a federal prosecutor tied the deaths of 59 people in their state that year to OxyContin, Richard said "[t]his is not too bad. It could have been far worse."
  • And, the most egregious, in my opinion:1212See so much more at the Minnesota AG's Article at the time12See so much more at the Minnesota AG's Article at the time

That same year, in an email exchange discussing whether people dependent on opioids “want to be addicts,” Richard wrote: “I’ll tell you something that will totally revise your belief that addicts don’t want to be addicted. It is factually untrue. They get themselves addicted over and over again.” Richard emphasized: “[Opioid addicts] are criminals, and they engage in it with full, criminal intent. Why should they be entitled to our sympathies?” He further wrote: “This vilification is shit.”

These are the words of an evil person. It is one thing to point fault, it is another to not feel any remorse for manufacturing the situation which makes things possible.

Dr. Tseng, on the other hand, continued to claim that she was helping her patients,1313Which, while I find hard to believe, is what she stated showing no outright animosity towards them.13Which, while I find hard to believe, is what she stated

While I see that my original answer of applying blame to the person had a blurry line, the Sacklers had crossed that line to such a degree that they would've been punished even in its crudest application. And, even though the personal financial liability did alleviate some of the pressure, the Sacklers will remain a wealthy family because of the profits they made in the process. This is a case where justice wasn't served.

Other Examples and more

The Purdue/Tseng comparison is the one case most favorable to the existing legal framework. There seems to have been at least some acknowledgement of those who hide behind the ghost. Other examples show the ghost absorbing more and more.

In the tobacco industry, 7 CEOs perjured themselves before Congress and faced no individual legal consequences. The tobacco companies protected these CEOs1414In this case indirectly: the overt intent of a CEO seems to be to protect the company, and who could fault them? from criminal prosecution and absorbed the guilt. To date, there have been no incarcerations of executives to account for the deaths and negative externalities caused by the companies under their direction and only the company receives the consequences.14In this case indirectly: the overt intent of a CEO seems to be to protect the company, and who could fault them?

The oil industry has its own use of this ghost in a novel way: pleading guilty! In 2010, 11 oil rig workers died due to BP's Deepwater Horizon Disaster (which caused the gulf's oil spill). BP, as a company, pled guilty to 11 counts of felony manslaughter. No incarceration, just a fine.

In each of these cases, the ghost1515Now quite a ghost, Purdue had filed for bankruptcy, not the Sacklers though was the primary fault here from the eyes of the law, not the family who decided what this ghost would do.15Now quite a ghost, Purdue had filed for bankruptcy, not the Sacklers though

So, companies don’t seem to be able to do crimes1616Or, at least, be capable of crimes which would cause imprisonment but people can. If a company commits a crime, especially if the ‘criminal’ could not be reasonably established to be a single person, then this ghost gets the punishment. This ghost, however, is not human and the legal remedies are largely monetary. Thus people who are victims never get 'justice', they might get paid1717And, if at all, it will be after protracted appeals but the person who did the harm will never be held to account.16Or, at least, be capable of crimes which would cause imprisonment17And, if at all, it will be after protracted appeals

UHC

The CEO of UHC, immediately prior to his promotion to CEO, was responsible for the deployment of a tool called nH Predict. nH Predict was an "AI" tool developed by NaviHealth to determine coverage and evaluate claims. In cases where an appeal was filed, this tool was found to be inaccurate 9 times out of 10, a fact known to the to-be-CEO. The inaccuracies were always in the favor of the company's bottom line and introduced friction to prevent UHC from paying out claims.

A denial of coverage for a claim meant no money out of UHC's pocket. nH was first deployed in acute care situations, and would routinely find that additional care was not needed,1818Against the patient's physician's opinion causing people to leave care early due to their inability to pay out of pocket or fight an appeal with UHC. Even more egregious, it would continuously determine if coverage was still needed and was used to over-ride prior authorization in the recovery setting.18Against the patient's physician's opinion

This person was elevated to the highest role in UHC, and the tool,1919Which, mind you, he had 0 technical expertise in developing! He was using people to make this grotesque denial tool and claiming credit for it. Managing a team is not the same as doing the work that the team did. So stupid. which made him seem valuable to the company, was rolled out further under his guidance. The denial rate tripled in places where the tool was used, with acute care being the most prominent example.19Which, mind you, he had 0 technical expertise in developing! He was using people to make this grotesque denial tool and claiming credit for it. Managing a team is not the same as doing the work that the team did. So stupid.

What happens when you get a denial as a patient? Well, if you don't have out of pocket, you either wait for your doctor to fight for it2020By issuing an appeal for it. This is something doctors don't usually charge for, but it is included in the high cost of medical care in the US, as you need staff to fight these given how often they happen. or simply don't get treatment. People die from this, and the people who are dying are literally the customers of this company who is supposed to provide insurance when medical problems arise.20By issuing an appeal for it. This is something doctors don't usually charge for, but it is included in the high cost of medical care in the US, as you need staff to fight these given how often they happen.

Compare this to Purdue, especially before the largest of the trials brought against it. If Purdue is the case of most personal responsibility for the actions of a company this large, what could any of UHC's client victims ever expect?

So. Brian Thompson, the murdered CEO of UHC, was himself responsible for the deaths and pain of many people. Up until that point all of the legal consequence and supposed justice was put onto the ghost of UHC. At no point prior did anyone have to face a legal consequence for saying "no, we won't pay for closing that wound,"2121See cases of damage control surgery, where a person's abdomen is left open while they recover before yet another surgery, and the numerous times insurance has denied the follow-up closure as not medically necessary. or "no, we won't pay for a specialist."2222Kelsey Martin had recently undergone a surgery to remove a lymphoma 2 weeks prior, needed the wound closed by a specialist before the next surgery in her treatment plan could happen. While in the waiting room the day of the surgery in June 2026, UHC informed them that their coverage for the closure was denied with no information as to why it was denied.21See cases of damage control surgery, where a person's abdomen is left open while they recover before yet another surgery, and the numerous times insurance has denied the follow-up closure as not medically necessary.22Kelsey Martin had recently undergone a surgery to remove a lymphoma 2 weeks prior, needed the wound closed by a specialist before the next surgery in her treatment plan could happen. While in the waiting room the day of the surgery in June 2026, UHC informed them that their coverage for the closure was denied with no information as to why it was denied.

The ghost can only take this blame for so long. The victims know that the ghost isn't real and never feel justice. And, as a result, a person finally decided to take matters into their own hands.

Did we learn? No. He's in jail, and companies across industries promptly removed public information about the executives to shield them from the risks of harming others.

And yet it seems that there is a push towards settling the score. Without correction in the legal system to abolish this ghost, the pressure will only be released through vigilante justice, which, I'd argue, is even less favorable to those in charge, because this ghost is something we can't shoot or jail.