The guy he allegedly killed on the other hand almost certainly had ice in his veins approving denial policies that would make his company a lot of money by denying the necessary care his customers/marks paid for in advance through premiums. Now those customers/marks are dead with more on the way at their hands, and they keep all those dead customers/marks premiums. Score amirite?
Whoever sits in that chair has to be a cold blooded sociopath that murders with indifference. That’s the job.
The glorious shareholders demand it. Bezos has a pet mega yacht for his main mega yacht and they have fomo.
Someone who killed someone who kills people by pretending to be a health insurance, whilst not paying them when people try to use said insurance in cold blood.
The sentence is a little longer if you give the full context. Nobody was innocent here.
So you’re saying you’re pro vigilantes and pro death penalty without court order?
Besides, that CEO didn’t kill anyone personally. One could argue you killed a few kids yourself by buying cheap electronics and clothing. If you now start just killing people that you think deserve dying because of some moral standard you think you have, you’re a fucking lunatic without any moral standard.
Osama bin Laden also didn’t kill anybody personally on 9/11, and the attack killed only 2,977 victims, which is almost certainly a lower body count than UnitedHealthcare under Brian Thompson’s leadership. Yet the US military personnel who violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and murdered him are heroes?
Can you explain why only victims of the likes of Thompson should fear, but the CEOs don’t need to fear even though they profit from rejecting life- or health-saving treatments?
So, Hitler wasn’t bad. Stalin was OK, didn’t kill anyone right?
But their decisions did. Their position of power allowed them to.
Just cause they didn’t murder directly doesn’t mean they played a fair game. They knew exactly what they were doing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes goes for bad people too.
The CEO is however a robber baron operating at the times of peace, using different methods but achieving the same end - people dying, most often miserably. I don’t see how that’s better.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s so radical not grieving after a person who is the head of a corporation of which sole purpose is to take money from people for a promise of payout when things go dire, and then refusing when the times comes, leaving them exposed at the most miserable time of their entire lives…
Insurance companies are not banks, they don’t take deposits and return them to you with huge margin when you need it most. They would be operating at massive loss for each client.
Right, but still a person who had a part in making the lives of lots of people miserable or unnecessarily short.
If a CEO isn’t responsible for the policies of the company they’re CEO of, why would you need a CEO in the first place?
He didn’t kill personally, he just gave orders to other people to kill people.
Which means his killer didn’t kill anyone personally either, he just pressed some trigger and the gun did everything else
You guys do realize that you are glorifying a literal murderer, right? Someone who killed a human being in cold blood.
Okay, just checking.
Let’s compare the plethora of murders under the belt of who he killed. They were human beings too.
He was also multi generation rich. He could have been the CEO. He was just pissed and like most rich people didn’t like it when he was told no.
No, he seemed pretty justifiably angry.
The guy he allegedly killed on the other hand almost certainly had ice in his veins approving denial policies that would make his company a lot of money by denying the necessary care his customers/marks paid for in advance through premiums. Now those customers/marks are dead with more on the way at their hands, and they keep all those dead customers/marks premiums. Score amirite?
Whoever sits in that chair has to be a cold blooded sociopath that murders with indifference. That’s the job.
The glorious shareholders demand it. Bezos has a pet mega yacht for his main mega yacht and they have fomo.
What are you talking about??? We never glorified that CEO!!
Someone who killed someone who kills people by pretending to be a health insurance, whilst not paying them when people try to use said insurance in cold blood.
The sentence is a little longer if you give the full context. Nobody was innocent here.
I wouldn’t call the murder. Totally unfair and unethical yes but not murder.
What else is willingly and knowingly causing the death of another if not murder?
Okay scab
Are all of our hands not at least not speckled with blood for complicity in reaping the benifits of our society?
-Sent from iPhone 17Pro Max Plus
Yes. That’s why we’re here. Thank you.
how many has that CEO killed?
So you’re saying you’re pro vigilantes and pro death penalty without court order?
Besides, that CEO didn’t kill anyone personally. One could argue you killed a few kids yourself by buying cheap electronics and clothing. If you now start just killing people that you think deserve dying because of some moral standard you think you have, you’re a fucking lunatic without any moral standard.
Osama bin Laden also didn’t kill anybody personally on 9/11, and the attack killed only 2,977 victims, which is almost certainly a lower body count than UnitedHealthcare under Brian Thompson’s leadership. Yet the US military personnel who violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and murdered him are heroes?
What odd moral standards!
Can you explain why only victims of the likes of Thompson should fear, but the CEOs don’t need to fear even though they profit from rejecting life- or health-saving treatments?
So, Hitler wasn’t bad. Stalin was OK, didn’t kill anyone right?
But their decisions did. Their position of power allowed them to.
Just cause they didn’t murder directly doesn’t mean they played a fair game. They knew exactly what they were doing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes goes for bad people too.
The CEO is not a violent dictator commiting war crimes
The CEO is however a robber baron operating at the times of peace, using different methods but achieving the same end - people dying, most often miserably. I don’t see how that’s better.
This is why I get tired of Lemmy. Constant extreme views with little rational thought
I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s so radical not grieving after a person who is the head of a corporation of which sole purpose is to take money from people for a promise of payout when things go dire, and then refusing when the times comes, leaving them exposed at the most miserable time of their entire lives…
Insurance companies are not banks, they don’t take deposits and return them to you with huge margin when you need it most. They would be operating at massive loss for each client.
You don’t have to grieve but think you should to sensitive to fellow humans no matter if they run a company that ruins your life.
Right, but still a person who had a part in making the lives of lots of people miserable or unnecessarily short.
If a CEO isn’t responsible for the policies of the company they’re CEO of, why would you need a CEO in the first place?
Hitler killed Hitler. Pretty good score.
^(It’s fucking sarcasm, of course.)
Honestly that fact was known to me, but I just realized he was the good guy/hero we needed after what he did…
He didn’t kill personally, he just gave orders to other people to kill people.
Which means his killer didn’t kill anyone personally either, he just pressed some trigger and the gun did everything else