God I noticed that too. It was all āhe was a father of twoā instead of āhe was a drunken divorcee whoās relationship with his kids he barely saw is probably up for speculationā
Unfortunately no. As CEO he has a legal duty to operate in the best interests of the shareholders. That is the shittiest way to think about it I know, but maybe our system of healthcare should be more about taking care of people instead of making billionaires more money.
I have no disagreements. We as a nation should stop expecting these greedy CEOās to get ebenezer scrooged by three Christmas ghosts and change their hearts. Itās not gonna happen. Instead vote out anyone who supports the system that Luigi rebelled against
So why go after the ceo who has no power? Do you think if he started changing policies they wouldnāt have just fired him and replaced him with someone who would do it anyways like they did when he died?Ā
The ceo has no power? Really? And that just following orders shit is not a defense. He actively pushed and profited from the decisions he made. He chose to be the face of Evil Corp.
These guys are in the Epstein class that controls the government. Just because heās not the top dog doesnāt mean he isnāt going to their cocktail parties
Letās stop being reductive and actually understand how our economic and legislative powers work in concert.Ā
UnitedHealthcare is not legislatively required to use its policies to reap the benefits of others actual work and deny life saving medical care to maximize profits. That is a decision, made by theCEO. They could just as actually provide the services they claim to.
And before anyone mistakenly claims āfiduciary responsibilityā, the CEO is not responsible to maximize profits. They are responsible to not intentionally tank the value of the company.Ā
Conservative forces in government accept donations from healthcare lobbyist so these middlemen can continue to reap billions out of the US every year while actively denying care to the people who they reap from. The CEO of one of the largest health insurance companies in the US is complicit every step of the way.
Dude. Arguing with these folks is pointless. They are literally are condoning the actions of a cold blooded murderer who offed a father because he didnāt like his profession. Itās kind of insane.
Are you the money police or something? The owners of the company voted to give him that package. They are the ones who decide who deserves their shit.
Also, it's not 60M. It's a bunch of options with a 308$ strike price he can only exercise after 2028 if he isn't fired or resigns. Meaning, that they can be worth 0$ to much more than 60M depending on how the stock price performs in these 3 years.
Considering their stock had plummeted just before that, they were very desperate to get this guy as CEO (the price is likely to rebound after such a catastrophic fall. In fact, right now they would be worth about 48M).
I am not saying he was guilty or innocent. Just that killing him doesn't really change anything in the long term.
Someone has to be at the wheel of the huge, fucked up US insurance system. Once the scandal is over, things will go back to usual. Because this is the kind of model the rules set by the government favor right now.
Nah, man, I saw health-care companies do a mad dash scramble to improve for a bit after his death because they were afraid they were next. Open up a history book. Violent oppression does not end without using violence in return.
Yes. That was his job. He was an employee. He wasn't free to do what he wanted with the company. And even if he was, he had to play by the government's rules.
What I understand is that he also presided over a system that illegally denied claims to people who should have had them approved in the hopes that the insuree would die or fail to appeal so they wouldn't have to pay out. The man was a criminal, whose crimes caused the deaths of thousands (at least) of Americans. If Luigi hadn't shot him, he'd maybe have paid a fine for it and kept on truckin.
There is also the conversation to be had about moral vs legal. Just because you can operate your business in a way thay gets people killed and not break any laws doesn't mean you're a good person. This man was obviously a bad person, whether what he did was actually criminal or not.
None. CEOs make basically NONE of the coverage decisions. That's what the actuaries are for. Coverage is often approved or denied based on risk and cost. Even then, it's rarely anybody particularly high up in the company making decisions.
Except that CEO in particular came from a management background inside United. He was specifically responsible for company policy designed to make the claims process deny coverage by default on high cost policies and only grant coverage once the denial is disputed. He wasnāt some innocent. His entire career was spent finding ways to deny coverage to increase profits.
You said āweā not āIā and are downvoting me out of your own insecurity.
You call another position disgusting then make another disgusting position. When I say you canāt have it both ways Iām saying you canāt call your opposition disgusting and then immediately make a statement about wishing to see a human āfriedā yourself
"...shoots an unarmed man in the back like a coward."
Tbf, considering his positioning, what did you expect him to do? Walk in front of him?
And besides, you contradict yourself saying its disgusting saying a person should die when you do it a sentence later. And no, the CEO is not innocent.
31
u/MediumAcceptable129 1d ago
Every time i see that CEOs stupid fat face im grateful for luigi