• Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Apparently they did start approving more right after it. And now they are getting sued by blackrock, a majority shareholder, for hurting profits. As much as I dislike these CEOs, the system breeds them to be this way. And there will always be more to take thier place. But holding them accountable will also mean that doing the right thing becomes good for the shareholders.

      • thanks AV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Alls I’m saying is you’d probably save more money paying out claims over hiring full time security for 40 different executives who cant help but deny claims

        Its that thing, you know? You caused a problem and instead of fixing that problem you fix the next problem.

        The issue is for profit healthcare. Instead of making the choice which would remove the executives from the crosshair, they decide adding bodies between us and them is the best option. Id assume those people care about their lives not ending, and the cheapest way to do that is to provide coverage to the people paying for it. $3000/hr is not just a throwaway expense, and that was a rough estimate erring on the extremely low end of private security.

        I was simply spelling out how much they’re willing to pay just for the privilege of denying healthcare to Americans. That’s your money (hypothetically.) They would rather spend that money on defense forces than do their fucking jobs. I understand they are being sued by blackrock, but blackrock isn’t the one creating a need for private security. Interesting choice is all I can say.

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I think you underestimate how much the “save” from denying claims the way they do. Thier net income is about $2.25 million per hour. I don’t know where the $3000/hour came from, but that is a drop in the ocean to them

          • thanks AV@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            where the $3000/hour figure came from

            I just pulled a number out of my ass lol reality is that they’re spending significantly more for this security, I just wanted to give an example of what it costs to have one security guard getting paid $75/hr (guesstimate hourly rate for mid level security) for each of these 40 executives.

            Scale that as far as you want $3000/hr is just the bare minimum for something like this

            I dont disagree with your point though. They could pay to send a monkey into the sun. Its not a matter of what they can afford; it’s about sending a message.

        • AnarchistArtificer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          When you get to silly levels of wealth, it’s less about the money and more about power. You’re right that £3000/hr is an absurd amount to spend, and that suggests that they value the power they have within this inhumane system more than the monetary cost of private security.

          • thanks AV@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Exactly, its more a flex than even an actual security measure. They’re making it clear: your life is worth less than this. “We will spend more than you make in a year to keep our executives safe from people, like you, who are sacrificed to keep us rich”

  • Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    Good. They should live in constant fear.

    Industrialized social murder should be a dangerous profession.

  • cybervseas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    183
    ·
    3 days ago

    Oof he isn’t convicted but the media isn’t saying “allegedly” in headlines for him. Shows how they’re trying to sway public opinion.

    • andallthat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Public opinion is already swayed. Luigi Mangione has become a symbol to a lot of people and as such the super-rich want to punish him.

      I bet they are more scared of the symbol than they are of the thought that Mangione is innocent and the real shooter might still be free and plotting another hit.

      The “real shooter” would only be one person, but a symbol has the power to create 10 or 100 more or to spark a violent rebellion and that they can’t let happen.

      Innocent or not, it’s unfortunately Luigi Mangione they need punished in the most horrific and exemplar way possible.

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      3 days ago

      Was it supposed to be a direct quote from the DA? Even if so, it shouldn’t be in the headline.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      When the public makes you a meme for assassination and substitutes your first name for the word “assassinate”, I’m going to give them a pass on dropping the “allegedly”.

      If the public were swayable, they wouldn’t be talking about “luigiing” people.

  • Bouzou@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    They systematically made millions of people fear for their lives. I’m glad shared that for a moment.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    91
    ·
    3 days ago

    after Luigi Mangione killed CEO Brian Thompson

    Has he already been convicted?

    Terrible headline, but I can only guess that “Business insider” would rather defend a corrupt CEO than the victim of insurance hell.

  • sturger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    3 days ago

    So how many of the execs said, “This job isn’t worth risking my life for” and quit? How many of them said, “Maybe we should examine how we do business and change.”? How many of them said, “My God. We’re killing people. I’m out.”?

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 days ago

      Nah if literally murdering people for profit didn’t stop them then really nothing will. These people are sociopaths that only see the career ladder.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Exec: Hey Claude, are we killing people?

      ClaudeAI: Yes.

      Exec: Are you sure? I think were doing great things for them, i don’t see it as killing

      ClaudeAI: Of course you aren’t, you’re doing great things!