Apparently they did start approving more right after it. And now they are getting sued by blackrock, a majority shareholder, for hurting profits.
As much as I dislike these CEOs, the system breeds them to be this way. And there will always be more to take thier place. But holding them accountable will also mean that doing the right thing becomes good for the shareholders.
Alls I’m saying is you’d probably save more money paying out claims over hiring full time security for 40 different executives who cant help but deny claims
Its that thing, you know? You caused a problem and instead of fixing that problem you fix the next problem.
The issue is for profit healthcare. Instead of making the choice which would remove the executives from the crosshair, they decide adding bodies between us and them is the best option. Id assume those people care about their lives not ending, and the cheapest way to do that is to provide coverage to the people paying for it. $3000/hr is not just a throwaway expense, and that was a rough estimate erring on the extremely low end of private security.
I was simply spelling out how much they’re willing to pay just for the privilege of denying healthcare to Americans. That’s your money (hypothetically.) They would rather spend that money on defense forces than do their fucking jobs. I understand they are being sued by blackrock, but blackrock isn’t the one creating a need for private security. Interesting choice is all I can say.
When you get to silly levels of wealth, it’s less about the money and more about power. You’re right that £3000/hr is an absurd amount to spend, and that suggests that they value the power they have within this inhumane system more than the monetary cost of private security.
40x~$75$/hr = $3000/hr they’re willing to spend instead of giving you insurance you paid for
Apparently they did start approving more right after it. And now they are getting sued by blackrock, a majority shareholder, for hurting profits. As much as I dislike these CEOs, the system breeds them to be this way. And there will always be more to take thier place. But holding them accountable will also mean that doing the right thing becomes good for the shareholders.
Alls I’m saying is you’d probably save more money paying out claims over hiring full time security for 40 different executives who cant help but deny claims
Its that thing, you know? You caused a problem and instead of fixing that problem you fix the next problem.
The issue is for profit healthcare. Instead of making the choice which would remove the executives from the crosshair, they decide adding bodies between us and them is the best option. Id assume those people care about their lives not ending, and the cheapest way to do that is to provide coverage to the people paying for it. $3000/hr is not just a throwaway expense, and that was a rough estimate erring on the extremely low end of private security.
I was simply spelling out how much they’re willing to pay just for the privilege of denying healthcare to Americans. That’s your money (hypothetically.) They would rather spend that money on defense forces than do their fucking jobs. I understand they are being sued by blackrock, but blackrock isn’t the one creating a need for private security. Interesting choice is all I can say.
When you get to silly levels of wealth, it’s less about the money and more about power. You’re right that £3000/hr is an absurd amount to spend, and that suggests that they value the power they have within this inhumane system more than the monetary cost of private security.