• nkat2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    363
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    The Punchline That Isn’t Funny

    BlackRock will probably win this lawsuit. Or settle for millions. Either way, they’ll extract value from a system designed to extract life from patients.

    They’re not just suing UnitedHealth — they’re suing the very idea that health insurance should provide health insurance. They’re fighting for their constitutional right to profit when people die and lose money when people live.

    Welcome to American healthcare, where caring too much is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

    Dear Sweet Mother of God, this article does not hold back on the biting truth.

    It’s a worthwhile read with only one small mistake contained within:

    Luigi Mangione didn’t just kill a CEO

    There is no reliable evidence to suggest Mr. Mangione killed anyone. And I, for one, remain convinced he did not do that deed.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      146
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Hope Mangione is found innocent and he suits the shit out off all the media companies that declared guilty without any proof.

      • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        73
        ·
        10 days ago

        I’m fully convinced that if it ever starts looking like he might legitimately walk, he’ll be Epstein’d. They want to keep that option for last resorts only because they understand the optics behind it, but I’m sure it’s not completely off the table.

        • FMT99@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          40
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          I doubt it in this case. He’s not holding onto any secrets that he might spill. Killing him is only to their advantage if it sends a message “don’t mess with us or you’ll die”. That works if he’s convicted and executed, that doesn’t work if it’s seen as “a company will just assassinate you”. They’d have to keep the assassination a secret, which would defeat the purpose.

          • EmpiricalDicktaster@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            10 days ago

            In any case, if he is not convicted and walks free then the people will know that the actual shooter was never caught and that there were no consequences for his action. The only thing they can truly do is prolong this case for as long as is necessary so that the people can never be 100% sure that they didn’t catch the actual shooter, or so they forget this all ever happened at all.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      102
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      There is no reliable evidence to suggest Mr. Mangione killed anyone.

      I’m so sick of everyone making me repeat myself with this:

      Luigi was.

      With me.

      The morning.

      Of the murder.

      He physically could not have committed the crime from another location. We were setting up for our friend’s dad’s birthday party and he was busy getting the balloons ready.

      Not guilty.

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        Can confirm, I was there too. It was an early one and we had to get him up, I remember; that guy could sleep through like fifteen alarms.

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

      It actually doesn’t hold back on the biting lie, their source says pretty much the opposite and the lawsuit is about earnings forecasts and stock price manipulation.

    • Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      It’s worth noting that this is a blog post, and not reporting from an accountable journalistic agency.

      I don’t see anything obviously incorrect, but it’s worth noting the source.

  • It'sbetterwithbutter@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 days ago

    Hello my American friends, as an observer from outside, it looks to me like you all need some of that “democracy” you’ve been bombing across the world for decades.

    • Fuck spez@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      More than half of us agree with you but overcoming the inertia necessary to change our current condition of minority-majority rule is apparently going to take some kind of political (if not literal*) bomb.

      *Not advocating violence, just feeling hopeless about the likelihood that we meaningfully change things at this point through anything short of an actual revolution.

      • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        10 days ago

        It’s very difficult to use logic and try to reason with hatred. Majority of people genuinely want to settle disputes peacefully but it’s getting harder and harder to deny that’s simply not going to work against a minority of loud, angry and ignorant people cheering on a demagogue.

      • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 days ago

        Historically, it has been violent unfortunately, and I don’t see that changing in this situation. Just hoping the violence is aimed at the right people soon before more innocent people die.

      • It'sbetterwithbutter@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 days ago

        I agree that your entire political system needs a massive overhaul. Far too many lobby groups are spending stupid money to make money, leaving the majority of Americans voices when voting redundant. I wish you luck but I can’t see an easy way out of this for you.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      Technically this article cites CBS News who says the lawsuit is about stock price manipulations and earnings forecasts as well as UnitedHealth being directly responsible for higher denial rates.

      So, no, the lawsuit doesn’t admit the CEO murder brought about a good change. Quite the opposite, actually.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Technically, according to the source of the article above, BlackRock is actually suing UnitedHealth over stock price manipulation and that it’s earnings forecast did not disclose that they would be denying patients at a higher rate than competitors in order to meet its goal.

      In other words, they’re suing UHC for denying too many people.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          The premise of the lawsuit is literally the opposite of what the users here claimed was the premise of the lawsuit. If you wanted to insult Black Rock CEO and be honest you could just say he is suing them for not telling them about the denial rates and that he would have been fine if they had in fact told him.

          Their true motive is to punish people who inflated the stock price with unachievable forecasts, thereby receiving monetary compensation. They couldn’t be more opaque about it if they tried.

              • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 days ago

                Yeah the bit about “in other words” where you said the legal basis for the dispute is about a moral issue. You don’t see how that’s blatantly wrong?

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

                  I never said that, I explained very very very briefly that the source cited by this article above claims the basis for the lawsuit is that UnitedHealth made public earnings forecasts which were unachievable without artificially increasing the denial rate of claims, and they did not disclose this information to investors.

                  Morality has nothing to do with Black Rock’s claims. They were promised more money return on investment than was physically possible to provide.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 days ago

      I have no love for him but the lawyers are actually arguing that UHC never disclosed that they would be denying rates at higher numbers than competitors. Meaning this article, according to it’s own cited source, is lying.

    • tempest@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      9 days ago

      As much as people harp on blackrock and vanguard they hold a ton of people’s retirement funds.

      This is a vicious thing to do of course but they are protecting a lot of people’s nest egg.

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        9 days ago

        Fuck them. Oh no the insurance company is doing what it’s supposed to instead of denying everyone like they do.

        • toastmeister@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Their job is to attain shareholder value, not to legislate healthcare. If you’re relying on the charity of for-profit corporations run by shareholders then you’re going to have a sad time, you need to look at who you’re voting for.

        • tempest@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          9 days ago

          Sure but it is sorta a treating the symptom and not the disease. Blackrock is right to sue them as a shareholder but companies should not be involved in people’s health care to begin with.

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

            Can you explain in what way you feel Blackrock is right? Do you feel that people’s lives and healthcare are less important than share holder profits for a company that sells you the promise of covering your medical expenses because that’s what you are specifically paying them to do because they gave you a legally binding agreement to do so? How does a health insurance company insuring healthcare costs put them in the wrong? I really need a clarification here.

      • sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 days ago

        Oh please. That doesn’t make the math any more forgivable. Every investor made a choice. The fact that it’s an institutional investor and mutual funds doesn’t sever the provider of the money and their demand for returns from the ethical issues of what the companies are doing.

        Don’t fail to hold equity investors like this to account because they’re holding grandma’s retirement hostage. That’s on grandma too.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 days ago

        This is a vicious thing to do

        If you get into the weeds, the issue isn’t that UHC updated their coverage policies and practices. It is that they did so without notifying shareholders first.

        Incidentally, one upshot of this lawsuit will be a long period of discovery during which UHC will attempt to prove it is fulfilling its fiduciary duty by showing off how many cruel and nefarious methods it uses to fuck over its clients. So, while you might shit on Blackrock for “viciously” exposing UHC’s internal practices to the light of day, I’ve gotta say that I am seeing nothing but positive outcomes as a result.

    • Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 days ago

      They’ll all probably get away with everything while also giving themselves more money due to Trump’s regime. They’ll all live to ripe old ages supported by profits that could’ve benefitted everyone, if they don’t cure aging for themselves before then to become absolute, not that their shitty nepo kids wouldn’t just replace them.

    • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Apparently Larry Fink runs the American Investment Firm known as BlackRock. Why do you ask? Are you going to write him a letter? In that case according to the article there’s some relevant information about where to send it

      “In 2004, they bought Finch Farm in North Salem, New York from the actor Stanley Tucci for $3.7 million and have since bought seven more parcels of land there, including one from Maurice Sendak and 27 acres from the town’s deputy supervisor Peter Kamenstein in 2019 for $5.4 million.[47] They also have an apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and a house in Aspen, Colorado.[3]”

      If you’re worried about him being on the opposite side of political issues then don’t you worry because Larry “Fink is a lifelong supporter of the Democratic Party.”

      I hope that helps you with your message! Good Luck.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    9 days ago

    Reminder that capitalism is a system where companies cannot afford to consistently do the right thing. Therefore Capitalism must be abolished entirely.

    • Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      My greatest wish is the fall of the dollar for exactly this reason. This is the result I want. I want capitalism to collapse. Worldwide. And it will sooner or later. But I’d prefer sooner. Capitalism cannot survive. Infinite growth + finite resources = inevitable collapse. Dependence on the US Dollar is how this all got as bad as it has. We were the snake oil salesman selling capitalism to the world. With extreme prejudice where deemed necessary.

      I’m 100% sure I won’t survive that crash. But if the human race is to survive. Capitalism has to end. Or at least be wrestled into submission. We can’t flee to space. We can’t farm the asteroid belt for resources. We’re a couple years from AGI. Climate change is happening live. We see it every single day. As of right now we don’t have a future. End of this century maybe. Maybe.

      • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 days ago

        Investments are supposed to be a gamble. Imagine losing at the casino and then suing the casino because you didn’t get the advertised jackpot.

        • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 days ago

          I’m pretty anti capitalist and wish the whole system would fuck off but they’re not suing because of the lack of performance of their investment, they’re alleging that United didn’t give necessary information to investors

          • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            9 days ago

            This is unfortunately true, they’ll likely win the case on that angle.

            My point is that legislation shouldn’t guarantee earnings from gambling under unforeseen circumstances. That’s just gambling.

            • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 days ago

              Seriously, how many times have I heard the argument that CEOs should be making “the big bucks” because they’re taking on “the big risks”? Yet except for Brian Thompson, I can’t think of any CEOs who’ve ever actually incurred risks from their “gambles.” They always seem to make cuts to everyone and everything else before accepting a loss, or else jump ship with a golden parachute (and probably go on to fuck up a different company afterwards.) Of course, I can’t deny the possibility that CEOs who fail don’t make the news, and this is just survivorship bias (no pun intended.)

              • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 days ago

                The CEOs aren’t making any risks at all, it’s the shareholders taking risks. The unfairness comes in when the government protects them from their own risk while leaving the poor out to rot.

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

          This isn’t about a failed bet. It’s about investors not being informed of the changes.

          It’s closer to having the odds and rules explained, then having the casino change both retroactively after they’ve taken your money.

    • SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      Seems that we have a very clear cause and effect pathway now, though, and blackrock has offered a solution.

      Mario-san? HAAIII! Nani ga sugi? CEO no rieki yori mo anata!!