You think none of the decisions of the CEO of UHC affected this statistic at all? I feel like there’s a LOT of UNC policy that he was involved in that results in worse healthcare in the US, including but not limited to “AI” for denials.
I don’t think we have a uniform moral calculus, but my personal one doesn’t justify the death penalty in this case. I can imagine a moral calculus that does though: hours of excess suffering caused > expected lifespan = death penalty.
If a gun is just a tool and the man who weilds it is responsible for the actions of said tool then tell me why should a person who weilds a tool that murders over 50,000 people shouldn’t be responsible for those murders?
The difference between what they allege Luigi did as opposed to that other shit stain is that the shit stain directly profited from murdering those people, and Luigi is alleged to have done it out of retribution.
United Healthcare’s profits were around 16+ billion a year in 2024. So let’s say it was only 10 for his 20 years. They would mean Thompson made $200,000,000,000 off murdering over 50,000 people. Not even the devil murders people for money.
If a gun is just a tool and the man who weilds it is responsible for the actions of said tool then tell me why should a person who weilds a tool that murders over 50,000 people shouldn’t be responsible for those murders?
I mean, off the top – intent.
But let’s break this down. Be specific and map the killer, the gun, and the action of pointing and shooting with intent to kill onto your comparison of Brian, this “tool”, and the actions he took with it.
United Healthcare’s profits were around 16+ billion a year in 2024.
And how much did they take in from premiums in 2024? How much of what they took in did they pay out to claimants?
The intent was to deny healthcare to enough people to make higher profits. The intent of privatized healthcare is not to save lives but expense them. There is no moral or ethical reason to tell an ER surgeon you will make more money the more surgeries you deny, so why would it make any more sense for the insurance companies to be deciding what procedures should or should not be funded. The only times a procedure should be denied is if there is a limited supply of something, say heart transplants. Even then, it should never be up to the insurance companies, it should be up to the doctors determining the best odds and usage of the shortage to save as many lives as possible.
For profit industries are required to put out projections for growth. Those projections are what intices investors to buy their stock raising demand/value. If you do not hit those growths the company will be seen as failing and investments will slow. There are a couple ways insurance companies can increase revenue, one is raising premiums which will often price users out of purchasing coverage and therefore they would potentially lose revenue to other companies or simply by more of the population not having insurance. The other way is to insure people at the same rate, but limit their plans coverages and slowly take out bits and pieces upping copays here, lower maximum coverages, but standardly they want to avoid raising the deductible as it will turn away people from signing up. Kind of like shrinkflation if you will, but for insurance. Then they “had” to get more competitive, and they found that they can just deny coverage on situations and users often can’t afford to fight these denials, so they make more money off denying them then they do fighting court cases against the few that can, also they can just give in settle and pay for those who do try to take them to court. Paperwork paperwork paperwork, 6 months later it didn’t get approved still. Since they are a for profit company, they are held accountable by their shareholders. Which means they can actually be sued by their own shareholders if they don’t show they are doing everything they can to make the bottom line go up. Does Charlie need the $65,000 treatment vs the $14,000 treatment, shareholders say $14,000. He has higher odds of survival on the $65,000 treatment, and will have a better quality of life, no thank you. Line needs to go up. So Charlie dies on the table because that $41,000 was needed to be thrown into our $16 billion profit for the year. Or you know, maybe Charlie died because he had to wait those 6 months for approval for the treatment and by that time his issues had progressed to a point that made his chances much lower.
For profit healthcare is not for the health of the people.
You think none of the decisions of the CEO of UHC affected this statistic at all? I feel like there’s a LOT of UNC policy that he was involved in that results in worse healthcare in the US, including but not limited to “AI” for denials.
I don’t think we have a uniform moral calculus, but my personal one doesn’t justify the death penalty in this case. I can imagine a moral calculus that does though: hours of excess suffering caused > expected lifespan = death penalty.
I can imagine someone justifying murdering someone who looked at them funny. So what?
I don’t think you have engaged with any of my arguments. I’m going to block you for a couple of weeks.
Your arguments:
Gee, what a shame it will be to be cut off from such a mastermind.
If a gun is just a tool and the man who weilds it is responsible for the actions of said tool then tell me why should a person who weilds a tool that murders over 50,000 people shouldn’t be responsible for those murders?
The difference between what they allege Luigi did as opposed to that other shit stain is that the shit stain directly profited from murdering those people, and Luigi is alleged to have done it out of retribution.
United Healthcare’s profits were around 16+ billion a year in 2024. So let’s say it was only 10 for his 20 years. They would mean Thompson made $200,000,000,000 off murdering over 50,000 people. Not even the devil murders people for money.
I mean, off the top – intent.
But let’s break this down. Be specific and map the killer, the gun, and the action of pointing and shooting with intent to kill onto your comparison of Brian, this “tool”, and the actions he took with it.
And how much did they take in from premiums in 2024? How much of what they took in did they pay out to claimants?
The intent was to deny healthcare to enough people to make higher profits. The intent of privatized healthcare is not to save lives but expense them. There is no moral or ethical reason to tell an ER surgeon you will make more money the more surgeries you deny, so why would it make any more sense for the insurance companies to be deciding what procedures should or should not be funded. The only times a procedure should be denied is if there is a limited supply of something, say heart transplants. Even then, it should never be up to the insurance companies, it should be up to the doctors determining the best odds and usage of the shortage to save as many lives as possible.
Explain how you think that works.
For profit industries are required to put out projections for growth. Those projections are what intices investors to buy their stock raising demand/value. If you do not hit those growths the company will be seen as failing and investments will slow. There are a couple ways insurance companies can increase revenue, one is raising premiums which will often price users out of purchasing coverage and therefore they would potentially lose revenue to other companies or simply by more of the population not having insurance. The other way is to insure people at the same rate, but limit their plans coverages and slowly take out bits and pieces upping copays here, lower maximum coverages, but standardly they want to avoid raising the deductible as it will turn away people from signing up. Kind of like shrinkflation if you will, but for insurance. Then they “had” to get more competitive, and they found that they can just deny coverage on situations and users often can’t afford to fight these denials, so they make more money off denying them then they do fighting court cases against the few that can, also they can just give in settle and pay for those who do try to take them to court. Paperwork paperwork paperwork, 6 months later it didn’t get approved still. Since they are a for profit company, they are held accountable by their shareholders. Which means they can actually be sued by their own shareholders if they don’t show they are doing everything they can to make the bottom line go up. Does Charlie need the $65,000 treatment vs the $14,000 treatment, shareholders say $14,000. He has higher odds of survival on the $65,000 treatment, and will have a better quality of life, no thank you. Line needs to go up. So Charlie dies on the table because that $41,000 was needed to be thrown into our $16 billion profit for the year. Or you know, maybe Charlie died because he had to wait those 6 months for approval for the treatment and by that time his issues had progressed to a point that made his chances much lower.
For profit healthcare is not for the health of the people.
That’s an interesting little fantasy that’s brings us nicely back to the question you dodged, since you’re clinging again to this $16B number:
And how much did they take in from premiums in 2024? How much of what they took in did they pay out to claimants?
Allege? LOL