• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    To the absolute shock of all the people praising Luigi as the ultimate solution: nothing has changed.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Because work needs to be systemic. Not one-time adventure, but every tuesday in the morning.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        You can kill an infinite number of people across all of time, but it’s not going to change the fact that profit exists to be made. The only solution is legislative. We have to vote DNC, like we did in 2010, but instead of stopping at 58 we need to get to 60. Only then will there be progressive reform with no compromise.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          you’ve had 60. it doesn’t matter. what you need is to vote local and in primaries. you can’t keep letting the party establishment rot take hold and hope it will lead to change in the general elections.

            • pyre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 days ago

              when Obama was elected. democrats had the presidency, the house and senate, with a supermajority. guess what they did with it: dick.

                • pyre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 days ago

                  yeah really, idk whay that is but a table only gives you a snapshot. 111th congress I believe had at one time majorities in both houses, and a 60-40, including the democratic caucusing independents.

  • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    307
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    You’d think UHC would strive to behave impeccably with all the publicity around them lately. But no: they’re so shameless and so greedy they even behave rotten when everybody is busy dissecting their every moves. Amazing…

      • Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        8 days ago

        If that were the case, they’d have off’d the CEO themselves. That’s multi-millions that could go back to other higher-ups. Then we have a Highlander situation.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          49
          ·
          8 days ago

          The CEO serves a very important role in that they get all the fallout for what the board probably wants, and then if there’s enough bad publicity, they can fire the CEO and pretend that the CEO acted entirely out of their own volition.

          I mean that’s not to say they’re not greedy bloodsuckers, but they’re greedy bloodsuckers that the board needs. Because the board are even bigger greedy bloodsuckers and want to stay out of the news.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 days ago

            If course, the board can also play innocent in any bad decisions, because they can just say “It’s what the shareholders want!” or “It’s what the consultants told us!”

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      8 days ago

      Because doing otherwise wouldn’t maximize profits. There’s no actual competition in the market for consumers to choose. Nearly all Americans get insurance through their work, and have absolutely no say in what companies those options are from, and those options might only change at the end of the year if the company changes their insurance partner (which I’m sure takes months to negotiate). UHC has no reason to change unless they are forced to. Customer Satisfaction in the industry is abysmal because there’s no incentive for the companies to actually be good.

    • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      8 days ago

      They had their underwriters run the numbers and they determined it’s more profitable to continue business as usual and just invest in private security for executives.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      8 days ago

      Of course they wouldn’t try to behave well. Remember that the bosses in this organization are all incredibly selfish. They are rich, they want to get richer, and f*** everybody else. Although the company itself might benefit from a positive PR campaign, none of these people individually would, so they’re not going to push for one.

      It’s a strange kind of honesty about bad behavior. Everyone is so selfish that they can’t even pretend as an organization that they would like to do the right thing.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      In Corey Doctorow’s short story (Radicalized, in the collection Radicalized) the health fund attackers typically used explosives against the entire board and their support staff

      I wonder if that would be more effective

    • normalexit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      8 days ago

      I don’t think you can pivot a 465 billion dollar company. Especially one where being unethical is a profit making feature.

      They won’t fix themselves, hell why even reign it in if the system rewards bad behavior?

    • nutsack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 days ago

      they know that the publicity is temporary and does not matter because a corporation is not a democracy

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      The simplest explanation is they literally can’t change, they’ve built this level of callousness into their DNA. It’s useful confirmation that for-profit health insurance is beyond saving.

    • SirSamuel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      CEO’s come and go and one just went

      The ingredients you got bake the cake you get

      So, if you get sick, cross your fingers for luck

      ‘Cause old Richard T. Burke ain’t givin’ a fuck

      • Jesse Wells, United Health
    • irotsoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      What incentivize do they have? The vast majority of their customers have no choice but to be their customers. They just need to keep the companies that companies contract with to set up benefits happy. That’s a very small pool and most aren’t customers of theirs. And especially with the anti-regulation party coming into power, there’s no reason to fear government intervention. But even before that, it wasnt really a threat.

      • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        My employer had to hire a lawyer to get their insurance company to cover us and stop denying claims. It’s beyond fucked up out there.

  • Sabata@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    8 days ago

    Ai: “It is safe and profitable to deny this claim as she is unlikely to seek vengeance.”