• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2023

help-circle


  • The article you linked mentions a litany of active lawsuits against UHC, many of which were already initiated prior to the murder of Brian Thompson. UHC was already on the legal chopping block prior to Luigi’s actions; in fact it seems fairly obvious that the preexisting lawsuits and bad publicity were the reason he chose to target Thompson specifically.

    Let’s dig a bit deeper into the article. Right off the bat, I’d like to point out this tidbit, which perfectly supports the argument I was already making in this thread, namely that nothing has been changed by the murder.

    Still, Potter warned that UnitedHealth Group’s own claims about reforms to its denials process should be treated with skepticism. “In my view, I think this is mostly for show,” he said. “It’s mostly for PR.”

    As for the lawsuit in question, it was filed by some random shareholder from NY, who has no more access to the hard data than we do. He was concerned that

    the company’s new projections for 2025, released in April, forecasted a significant cut in earnings.

    And in an attempt to explain said concern, this talking head speculated

    Wilkes, in an April media appearance, attributed the stock value drop to “probably United, and maybe the industry, pulling back on prior authorizations” — i.e., denying care to patients less often.

    That’s not any kind of proof or data, it’s just speculation. Furthermore,

    Shortly after the new investor case was filed, attorneys for CalPERS intervened in the new investor lawsuit, and last week, the plaintiff agreed to drop the suit and consolidate it with the larger case.

    The lawsuit in question was promptly rolled into the comprehensive legal action which had already been initiated prior to the murder. And in case you didn’t read the whole article, they also mention that

    On Monday, shareholders greenlit a $60 million pay package for the company’s CEO and shot down a proposal that would have increased investor scrutiny of executive payouts.

    Bottom line is, your characterization of the legal action as “UHC investors suing to increase the denial rate” is reductive and inaccurate, although to be fair to you, it simply mimics the editorialized perspective of the journalist who wrote the article. The parts of the article which emphasize that interpretation of the lawsuit are basically just the journalist pandering to the lowest common denominator which comprises the majority of their audience. In other words, the writer of the article intentionally sensationalized the nature of the lawsuit, which is really quite a boring legal footnote that doesn’t make any of the claims implied by the article. I.e., it’s clickbait, and it’s obviously working.

    I do appreciate you providing a relevant link that at least attempts to answer my request for evidence of the previous commenters’ claim, but unfortunately it’s not a very strong piece of evidence.

    Lastly, I’d just like to point out that even if UHC does end up changing its practices and extending more coverage, all that ultimately means is that rival health insurance companies under less legal scrutiny will expand their market share proportionally and it’ll simply be a situation of new boss, same as the old boss.






  • I don’t necessarily disagree with you. As much as I enjoy the song whenever I do pull it up, I can’t honestly claim it’s on my car playlist or party playlist. It’s pretty hard to beat popular music at the end of the day.

    Film music, video game music, and even classical music are all great and impressive in their own right, but when you’re chilling/vibing/socializing, popular music is the way to go. And by popular music I don’t mean pop music, I mean the whole spectrum of contemporary music that people mainly listen to, I guess you could also call it vernacular music. So I pretty much agree with your point but I think you got downvoted because you stated it in a fairly blunt fashion.



  • Lol I read this thread first, then went to the article and his comments were supportive of the potential for anti-trust legislation under the new administration? That makes him a Nazi? Wtf 😂

    This is a huge reason why Lemmy faces an uphill battle in terms of growth, these absolutely batshit insane political takes pollute most threads about newsworthy events, which are in many ways the lifeblood of a content aggregator.

    I can’t even count the number of times I’ve seen people say they tried Lemmy for a little while but eventually stopped because they got sick of every thread and community being constantly flooded with Nazi comparisons, accusations of genocide denial, and guillotine the rich stuff.

    Like I get it, I really do, but maybe direct some of that righteous anger into some kind of real world activism instead of constantly bitching at anonymous strangers on Lemmy. These people are so outraged and the situation is so dire, and yet they continue to scroll online forums and farm upvotes? Have some ideological consistency ffs, if it’s a matter of life and death, go out there and do something to help.

    Doomposting on Lemmy accomplishes nothing, and in fact continues to marginalize one of the few tools that we could potentially have to fight back. If Lemmy were to grow significantly and become a place where people could organize and communicate without being subject to corporate control or censorship, that could potentially do a great deal of good for people IRL. But constantly whining Nazi this, Nazi that is preventing that growth from happening.